> This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
Careful, you are in violation of the GDPR. You can’t simply say “I’m going to set non-essential advertising cookies, deal with it or get out” (I checked your policy to confirm you are using non-essential cookies), you can’t set any cookies until the user agrees, and have to provide a way to reject them that is at least as simple as the way to accept.
In fairness, at least this way it allows you to make an informed choice to leave immediately if you so wish, thus avoiding leaving more behavioural data or the like. The banner is not compliant, but it is better than doing it silently.
If they didn’t care about those laws, they wouldn’t need the notice. Since they do, they do.
Why are you even mad? This doesn’t affect you, it is not directed at you, and is trying to be a helpful clarification to the author. If they care about compliance, presumably they care about doing it right.
> Despite what many EU citizens may think, EU laws don't apply to the world.
I’m a EU citizen living in the EU and have never encountered or heard of anyone with that belief.
Multi-billion dollar companies have GDPR-violating cookie banners, and nobody cares.
In the case of blogs like this, they don't really care about compliance, it's just LARPing. "Serious websites have cookie banners, so I'll put a cookie banner too!" It's the same as putting "no copyright infringement intended" into your YouTube video description.
> Multi-billion dollar companies have GDPR-violating cookie banners, and nobody cares.
Not true. In fact, those banners are in general way more compliant than before due to the work of organisations like https://noyb.eu/. They have also successfully led numerous initiatives to fine those companies and fix non-compliance.
Usually at this point is when someone comes along to move the goalpost to “but those aren’t very affective”, or “but they still do it”. Sure, argue against malicious compliance and results all you want, I’m simply pointing out that it’s not true at all that “nobody cares”. Enough people care enough that entire organisations exist with that mission.
> In the case of blogs like this, they don't really care about compliance, it's just LARPing.
Maybe. If they don’t care, they can simply ignore my advice. If they do care, they can follow it. Either way, there is no situation in which my sharing of the law is negative.
Misapplication of the science isn’t proof the science doesn’t exist. Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines used to be fantastic. One of the reasons they’re sucking so bad right now is they’re ignoring their own previously working rules.
That’s what happens when you put in charge arrogant industrial and print designers who think UX and UI are inferior forms of design.
Your Ableton and Logitech issues seem to be the same: screwed up access permissions. Not your fault, macOS has been sucking at it for a while. It’s not unheard of for System Settings to show you some app has some permissions, but in practice it doesn’t.
What usually works is fully resetting permissions for an app:
There definitely is something weird with Tahoe permission system. I was trying to learn Swift and after a couple keystrokes, the banner asking for the permission to access other's app data pops up without fail. Making it almost impossible to use Swift Playground. And it's been like that for a couple months now.
The System Settings panel for TCC permissions has been fucked since Ventura. It never reflects reality properly and won't show managed settings either (like those granted or denyed outright by a configuration profile). So users have no idea that Firefox can't access their microphone because their device administrator explicitly denied that. The redesign of System Preferences should have raised far more alarm bells than it did, and it did raise a fuck ton of alarm bells that something utterly broken is happening in Cupertino. Along the same line as the another comment in here said, it's just that some amateur is following the "wrong rules". Like, oh, we have to have the macOS settings app look and work exactly like iOS', despite being a far more complex system with a lot more legacy components.
I am literally writing a bug report right now for 26.2, because on my Mac, for whatever reason, running tccutil reset All on com.apple.Terminal isn't removing Full Disk Access. It removes everything else (screen recording, specific folder domain access, but not FDA).
I did try that amongst other things. Launching Ableton via Terminal also brought up the microphone permission pop-up...for the Terminal app. One has to wonder if a System that regularly "forgets" permissions is even secure at all.
> One has to wonder if a System that regularly "forgets" permissions is even secure at all.
It does not "forget", the permissions are limited to 30 days. So you have to re-grant them periodically.
Oh, and if you miss the popup (because sometimes it pops _under_ other windows) then you just start getting silent failures. With absolutely NO indication in the UI that something is wrong. There is literally no way to find that out without looking directly into the TCC database.
> (…) monetize their digital art and cash in on the gold rush.
Those are the same thing. Doing it for money is doing it for money.
I do think there was a short period where established artists going into NFTs was understandable. If you’re still promoting yours in 2026, not so much.
For an image which isn’t even interesting or illustrative of the issue. Hero images on blog posts have run their course, I can’t remember the last time I felt anything positive by encountering one. They make the page load longer, force us to scroll to start reading, and are forgotten as soon as they go out of sight.
> Whatever happens, society will have to adapt to the consequences.
How about we flip the script and have society make these enablers face the consequences? We don’t have to just shrug and accept whatever future billionaires choose to make themselves richer.
I’m doubtful of most of the “fixes”. Putting more instructions in the prompt can maybe make the LLM more likely to follow them, but it’s by no means guaranteed.
Careful, you are in violation of the GDPR. You can’t simply say “I’m going to set non-essential advertising cookies, deal with it or get out” (I checked your policy to confirm you are using non-essential cookies), you can’t set any cookies until the user agrees, and have to provide a way to reject them that is at least as simple as the way to accept.
reply