Yes. It's a stupid question.

But making it actually happen is where the challenge is.

Dude, it's not an "insult". It's a generic term for "people who don't understand how cookies work". Insulting me doesn't help your argument either.

I'm arguing that this will not be a simple solution once implemented. Sure, lots of people understand how to allow or deny cookies. But this solution seems like you'll have to do that for every site regardless. Either that or a default deny, as another poster suggested, and then users get asked - and then we're right back to where we started.

This very much on the definition of "harmless uses", and that's very subjective. A simple yes/no would also allow or deny login cookies, too. It can't be a simple yes/no.

I don't think this will be any kind of workable solution.

And they get asked for every site that wants to place a cookie?

Now we're right back to where we started...

It is if have less money. At least that way you have a chance.

They always have. Back in my day (shit I'm getting old), it was illegal to sell tickets for more than the face value where I live, which stopped bulk purchases. You'd still find scalpers outside ball games and concerts trying to make a few bucks off tickets - and I have no problem with that model. It's the wholesale buying up of entire venues I don't like.

And how exactly will that happen? Will preferences be set at the browser level for doubleclick, google, etc? Do we expect joe sixpack to understand how to do this?

I'm not sure this is any better.

My thoughts exactly.

They should have said it was the equivalent of 0.00005 basketballs floating on top of 0.0000004 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Much easier to understand.

Tell me you're a fucking idiot, without telling me you're a fucking idiot.

Yes, they do. Almost everyone.

This one's for search engines.

There are 194 other countries. How the hell would I know if any of had tax credits expire?

Apple doesn't really make money on the data they hold. Unlike Microsoft and Google, Apple makes a lot of money on hardware sales, so they don't need to monetize the data as much. It's one of their selling features, if you ask me.

Not quite...

I would argue that regulating the humidity in the crisper drawers, and moreso the freezer (keeps freezerburn to a minimum and eliminates the need to remove ice buildup), and to an extent, some icemakers, are all useful functions. I don't want an icemaker in my fridge because I don't want to bring water to it, as it's one more thing to break and cause a flood, but a lot of people find that very useful; it removes something they otherwise need to remember and attend to. A water dispenser too, for some people.

Agreed on any kind of smart function though. No problem is solved bu putting those functions on a fridge.

You read the article?

You must be new here...

TOS had one black character, which provided some great storylines - some "woke", some not.

Had it made half the characters black as part of some diversity mandate, it too would have flopped.

(And actually, it didn't do too well during its original run anyway, which is why it was cancelled, which somewhat invalidates your point.)