While you’re right conceptually, this isn’t what the wording means in terms of consent dialogs. Legitimate interest means they can assume, legitimately, that you have an interest in aspects of the site (by you being there) that require X cookies, basically. Ie their product is providing functionality they can assume you’re interested in just by being there, and they’re “pre approving” the tracking/storage for that functionality.
I concur that it’s rubbish and used almost always in a manner that reeks of illegitimacy.
I personally refuse live coding sessions during interviews, including whiteboard programming. If they require this during an interview the company’s not for me.
Don’t mind code challenges where I have a timeframe and can submit. It’s not how you code normally so why should it be how you’re hired?
I’ve had a Fully for over a year now, and it’s killer. Great build quality and it looks special. Doesn’t seem to struggle under my triple monitor setup with several laptops on the table at the same time.
Only problem is that they stopped shipping to several European countries, like Finland.
While I agree with some of the premises here, I personally disagree that comments are even mostly a problem (a code smell). IMO they’re just as often bad as code is. A developer in a rush, or simply not taking enough care in their work, can produce both bad code and bad comments.
Perhaps someone who is trying to take care can do more harm in the comments area, when they should be perhaps looking at writing self documenting code, but in my experience they usually go hand in hand.
I use quite a lot of comments in my code and I wouldn’t regard it as code smell or even messy. I often use comments to logically separate more complex sections of functionality.. or discussing how it works and why it’s necessary to exist in the first place. Code can’t always tell you why it’s there..
I also use docblocks in some libraries, even though types are available, as the published package benefits from having an API document published alongside it. The comments there facilitate its construction.
I know this article wasn’t bashing every use of comments in code but I feel like it didn’t account for all the positive uses of them either. Teaching developers that a language feature is just mostly bad is irresponsible - we should be encouraging good comment use alongside clear code.
Yep. He took a massive ego trip early on and immediately came across as someone I don’t particularly want to side with.
I’m a web developer and fundamentally disagree with his take on what JavaScript can do on the client side. I see what he’s getting at but I think he’s wrong. JavaScript can certainly detect access to resources (ads in this instance) without violating any enforceable policies. Half the internet does error handling with JS for things that won’t load - how can this be construed as violating eprivacy? Nonsense.
That being said I’d love for this feature to go away and would be happy to see YouTube and Google go pound sand.. but this feels like a stretch. It was inevitable enshittification imo.
I mean, fair enough, right? If you modify CS2 binaries you get banned.. this is how some of the protections work and have worked for a while. I’m surprised AMD thought that this was acceptable.
Yep.. need to see a Github or repo or OpenCollective or something that instils trust. If you’re asking for donations imo, it should be open source so people can see where the funds might be going (eg. Hosting).
Asking for money expecting blind faith is.. kind of rude. If you expect someone to go to the trouble of donating put in some modicum of effort in at least writing a few paragraphs on what it is you’re doing.