Seems like it would be easy to fix this situation even without changing the law.
- Forbid browsers from sending the DNT header automatically. They may ask the user.
- Consider the DNT header valid consent or withdrawal of consent.
- Forbid websites from asking for consent if the header is set.
I think people who are using "literally" as emphasis instead of really meaning "in a literal sense" are criticized too much. It's just how language evolves.
But saying "literally by definition" for something that has nothing to do with the definition doesn't feel like emphasis, it feels like lying.
Do they lose their trademark if it gets used generically, or if they don't try to prevent that? Because common sense would imply the former, but then this video would just be a big admission that they already lost, no?
"Everywhere you go, you see this scratchy, hairy fastener and you say 'Hey, that's velcro!'"
No. There are leaves that aren't heads (for example, after you delete a branch, the old commits just lie around until someone deliberately cleans them up), and there are heads that arent' leaves (for example if you branch a new feature branch from main. The feature branch brances off of main, so main is not a leaf anymore)
I feel that broad overgeneralizations like this are often just self-revelation.
This reads like you find people besides your wife attractive, but rather than recognizing this as normal and healthy, you vilify and repress it. But you see (part of) the responsibility for avoiding your thoughts with others, and expect of them to act according to your needs and wants.
The thought of people of the other gender using a toilet near you is sexual to you and you don't like that, but this is a you problem.
Also, I don't know whether your "stably married mother/father" is just heteronormative or deliberately excluding same-sex couples, but if it's the latter, your "belief" is demonstrably wrong. [1]
Yes, I may be overly pendantic. This part just made me suspect that the author didn't have a technological background. That isn't bad per se, as this is mostly a legal topic.
Also, I'm not trying to "maliciously take these laws literally". The law isn't limited to cookies, so you can't get around it by using a narrow definition of the word "cookie".
> We’re using “cookies” as a shorthand for any technologies that can access or store information on a person’s device. This can also include beacons, pixels, scripts, and other technologies.
That is a weird use of the word "cookie". In normal usage, it doesn't mean a technology that accesses or stores the information, it is that information itself.
"Pixels" is also weird. I think that they mean tracking pixels, which are one-pixel images that are just there so that the browser has to request them from the server and the server can notice that request. They are a subclass of "Beacons". Calling them a "technology that can access or store information on a person's device" seems misleading.
Also, reCaptcha wouldn't need them. They already have Javascript running on my PC, they don't need a tracking pixel to contact the server.