This means your login cookie does not need consent
A login cookie doesn't need consent, but it does need explicit information to the user. Yes a popup is required for any session tracking cookies. What isn't required is an opt-out mechanism.
Why are there the banners? Because they tricked you!
No one is being tricked here. The banners are explicit in their intent and outcome (and actually dark pattern banners are illegal). The reason the banners exist is because tracking companies don't stop tracking just because they were told they need to ask for consent. They just ask knowing users will mash any button on the screen to make the popup disappear.
And there is already a technical opt-out, which is *ignored* by the tracking companies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
A completely voluntary scheme not backed by any regulation in any country is ignored? This is my shocked face. I'm shocked I tell you, I may look like I'm questioning your intelligence but trust me I'm as shocked as you are about this revelation.
Hint: A law being passed won't have the same outcome as someone saying "hey I have an idea, how about I send some metadata in the http request header and you can decide what to do with it".
This was already largely possible thanks to add-ons, which actually prevent the browser from ever sending cookies to that domain unless I explicitly authorize it.
Managing cookies on a domain level is wildly inaccurate and messy compared to managing cookies by classification of how they impact you.
hoping that the web site abides by that preference instead of just collecting everything due to a "bug that affected a small number of users".
Bugs that affect a small number of users are a great euphemism for "oh fuck oh fuck oh fuck we're about to get fined... but it's okay I'm sure Americans will just say it's unfair that we break EU laws and that the EU is in the wrong".
And the answer to that question is saved... in a cookie! So when you block all cookies to that domain using an add-on, you get that banner on every...fucking...page.
I'm glad you discovered the problem with your approach. The domain tells you nothing about the functionality or the necessity of a cookie. It's a dead end way to manage the entire situation that succeeds in only breaking internet functionality.
Not sure why you're being downvoted
Probably because it's factually incorrect and precisely no EU rules apply outside of the EU or to companies which don't do business in the EU.
False. Precisely none of the EU regulations apply outside the EU. If you want to do business in the EU, follow their rules, if you don't want to then doing. You're more than welcome to ignore that massive market.
Just don't be a French company like Amazon S.a.r.l, or an Irish company like Apple Operations Europe Ltd, or Apple International Sales Ltd, or a German company like Microsoft Deutschland GmbH. You're free to not be a multinational and then you don't need to comply with any EU rules (which again, apply exclusively in the EU to EU residents).
The GDPR does not mandate cookie notices.
Thanks for telling us you have no clue what you're talking about. The GDPR has nothing, ZERO to do with cookie popups, and cookies are not mentioned anywhere in the nearly 100 pages of GDPR legislation.
Cookie popups are related to the ePrivacy Directive which was passed in 2002 and predate the GDPR by a decade and a half. Europe had cookie popups long before anyone even proposed the GDPR.
The EU's cookie policy is only annoying because advertising companies are deliberately making it annoying.
False. The advertising companies don't deliberately make it annoying. They just make it because they are forced to in order to continue to do what they do. It's minimal law compliance as written. Nothing more. The law was ill thought out, with good intention but a bad implementation.
If you are only using first-party cookies for functional reasons, you don't need a cookie notice. Period.
False again. You need to inform on the use of first-party cookies. You don't need their consent, but you need to inform. Plenty of websites implement this as a cookie banner with a single button to close.
If you are not tracking people, you don't need a cookie notice. Period.
Basic session tracking applies. If your website has any kind of log-in functionality what so ever it doesn't fall in this category. The internet isn't static anymore, virtually no websites fall into this category.
... a food is subjected to before it's deemed ultraprocessed? Is it still healthy if it's processed with love?
Zero. The definition for UPF has nothing to do with it going through "process". It has to do with what ingredients are used in it.
For example, you mash a tomato, add some sugar, a pinch of salt, and some herbs and you've got a nice good MPF (Minimally processed food).
If instead you mash a tomato, add some HFCS, a pinch of salt, a splash of E129 to make it a deeper red colour to help sales, some E260 acetic acid to help extend its shelf life, and E900 polydimethylsiloxane to prevent it from forming unsightly bubbles when tossed in the pan, and some herbs then you have yourself a nice good UPF.
All of the above and in combination, I'm sure, but this seems like a condescending and misleadingly simplistic way of communicating that.
Why are you sure? It's actually none of the above. The definition for UPF exists, and there's nothing condescending about it, e.g. the Nova scale. For example cane sugar and HFCS have the same caloric content, (actually the same for all your guessed examples), yet one is classed as a purely natural ingredient and the other as a UPF.
It's not the fact that it's "ultra-processed" that makes it unhealthy to consume, but the ingredients... right?
You're so close. Keep going. Hint: look at what UPF is specifically in relation to what is *in* it.
So, ultra-processed foods are anything not in my kitchen. I'm sorry, but that doesn't really narrow it down. We need specifics.
Why do you need more specifics in a study that is talking about categories? The categories are defined, you can select any product and fit it in. It is specific enough.
It seems to me the only discovery here is a new kind of statistical fallacy.
It seems to me you have a pre-existing bias that is discounting something based on feels and vibes without actually putting any effort into understanding the subject or what is being talked about. The study isn't the problem here, it's you.
Pretty odd to complain about the Dutch being the US' bitch on an article on how they just bent over to the Chinese.
Who said bent over? What were the terms of the agreement? You seem to be in the know. The de-escalation was always going to end with the major points of returning control and resuming shipments. State control of the company was never a goal.
So what was negotiated? Please tell us all the terms since you're so certain someone "bent over".
Just know that nationalizing a company like it's a 1950s socialist country is extremely bad behavior. And no nation would allow that shit without causing a huge ruckus.
Just know that in the action of taking over a foreign company, embezzling the riches of it, using it as a base for industrial espionage in the wider European industry, and then firing many locals at the behest of a foreign government is extremely bad behaviour. And no nation would allow that shit without causing a huge ruckus... which is what happened.
Your one sided take on this is incredibly telling.
But the Dutch are pretty much the US's bitch. They tried to nationalize the company when the US basically told them to
They said nothing of the sort, and the USA didn't even know who the fuck Nexperia are. They had zero to do with the entire situation. You are confusing Nexperia with ASML which the USA is getting their panties in a knot about.
Your ignorance is quite telling as well.
China is replacing its diesel trucks with electric models faster than expected, potentially reshaping global fuel demand and the future of heavy transport.
In 2020, nearly all new trucks in China ran on diesel. By the first half of 2025, battery-powered trucks accounted for 22% of new heavy truck sales, up from 9.2% in the same period in 2024, according to Commercial Vehicle World, a Beijing-based trucking data provider. The British research firm BMI forecasts electric trucks will reach nearly 46% of new sales this year and 60% next year.
China’s trucking fleet, the world’s second-largest after the U.S., still mainly runs on diesel, but the landscape is shifting. Transport fuel demand is plateauing, according to the International Energy Agency and diesel use in China could decline faster than many expect, said Christopher Doleman, an analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. Electric trucks now outsell LNG models in China, so its demand for fossil fuels could fall, and "in other countries, it might never take off,” he said.
The share of electrics in new truck sales, from 8% in 2024 to 28% by August 2025, has more than tripled as prices have fallen. Electric trucks outsold LNG-powered vehicles in China for five consecutive months this year, according to Commercial Vehicle World.
While electric trucks are two to three times more expensive than diesel ones and cost roughly 18% more than LNG trucks, their higher energy efficiency and lower costs can save owners an estimated 10% to 26% over the vehicle’s lifetime, according to research by Chinese scientists.
“When it comes to heavy trucks, the fleet owners in China are very bottom-line driven,” Doleman said.
Never tell people how to do things. Tell them WHAT to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.
