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.

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.

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".

Managing cookies on a domain level is wildly inaccurate and messy compared to managing cookies by classification of how they impact you.

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".

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You're so close. Keep going. Hint: look at what UPF is specifically in relation to what is *in* it.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

The fact that you had a problem with misinformation causing an anti-vaxx push doesn't mean that some other place can't actually attribute their problem to a specific person doing their best to spread misinformation.

Trump spent several years of his previous presidency pushing an anti-vaxx agenda. You're right this shit doesn't happen in a year, for that you need a very prominent moron shit-tweeting anti-vaxx nonsense for the best part of decade. Which is precisely Trump.
Here's some Trump based anti-vaxx news from 2017 https://www.texastribune.org/2...

The actual map: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/da...
Of note: The top 11 states are red states. New York is the first blue state on the list.
Of note: If some of those top states were any further from the south western board they'd be in fucking Canada, so stop spreading bullshit.

In the USA Trump did it is a studied peer reviewed fact back with science. This effect was literally studied by the University of Queensland leading to a peer reviewed publication in a psychology journal linking Trump's statements to rise in anti-vaxx sentiment. https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

If that's what you read into it then you are the problem. Your own personal bias made you completely miss the point being made.

I don't think any security services are daft enough to have actual backdoors now. They just look for vulnerabilities and then keep quiet about them.

So I'd be more worried about the mass bricking US made routers, world-wide. Do it as a false flag, pretending to be some teenage hacker. Give their own tech a nice boost too.

I'm not bothering anyone. I don't even know them. That doesn't mean I will agree with them or that the actions aren't hypocritical.

If my response is what you're talking about then you did a poor job of explaining what you're talking about. Or a poor job of reading my response. Your and my point was fundamentally different.