>>26451 Do I look like I know h'wut a jpeg is?

>this site uses cookies to- SHUT UP SHUT THE FUCK UP I DO NOT FUCKING CARE GET OUT OF MY FACE HOW ABOUT I SHOVE THE FUCKING COOKIES UP YOUR ASS

>Cookie consent pop-up with no "Reject all" button >Button hijacking by spamming history states so you can't leave the website >Forcing you to register despite saying "no login required" >"Please disable your adblocker to continue" *waiting timer resets, doubling the time* >10+ megabytes of JavaScript botnet adware data analytics tracker shit in the background

>>26451 this site has none of those things, what are you on?

>>27860 Yeah, but literally every modern website is like this.

>>27458 hey I recognize that artist

>>27795 >>Cookie consent pop-up with no "Reject all" button I know they literally cannot let you reject all cookies because the web page is literally reliant on some of those to work and also where a few not truly 'neccesary' ones that govs force the website to use to collect data are hidden but why in the fact do they always do that cheeky thing where they show the switch to flip to reject certain cookies, with the switch to reject 'essential' ones being grayed out? Why not just say, clearly, "We can't let you reject these cookies because [reason]" instead of playing a game like you're talking to a teenage girl >Reject any cookies you want (: >Ok, these >Theehee, nope, not those! >Why? >Secret lol (:

>>27860 anon can you not read?

If your site auto plays audio you need to fuck yourself with a rake, along with everyone who told you that was a good idea.

>>31809 lol, I remember older websites autoplaying MIDI files as background music (it now just auto-downloads them)

>>29947 lotsa fud here cookie banners only need to be shown to permanent eu residents, but nobody adds a button to declare that you're not one for some reason. >web page is literally reliant on some of those to work then you don't need to inform about those. you only need to inform about any technology that is used to identify you for any other purpose than you explicitly came for. >govs force the website to use to collect data are hidden take your meds. you can inspect every byte that leaves your browser. >but why in the fact do they always do that cheeky thing where they show the switch to flip to reject certain cookies those are illegal. opting in and out have to be of same difficulty. >"We can't let you reject these cookies because [reason]" as mentioned, it's weird that strictly necessary cookies are even listed.

>>32353 >gov force websites to use cookies to collect data >take your meds nigger did you just imply this is some unreasonable and impossible thing that only a crazy person would say? how many levels of normalfag NPC are you on? this isn't even covert or esoteric knowladge anymore this is just straight up well known by the general public

>>26451 on the other hand, does anyone miss when page layouts had wacky assets that were cut into squares and arranged into a table? like all those late 90s and throughout the 2000s?

>>35161 > cut into squares and arranged into a table huh? not sure what you mean, got a pic? i miss when websites had flare and interest in them, if it was someone's personal blog it would say something about them, if it was a website for a company it would tell you what their mindset is with the visual aesthetic they try and evoke, everything now is so sanitary it's disgusting even when you get the occasional cluttered personal website now and then, like 99% of the time it's not genuine organic clutter like back inna day, it's someone trying their hardest to emulate a stock y2k/scene aesthetic and failing because it looks so clean and samey and they never dare do anything unusual

>log in >we've sent you a one time code to your email FUCK. YOU. I registered a password! Why isn't that enough!

>>35183 That should be opt-in, it used to be part of 2 factor authentication now it's just mandatory I'd understand if it was something kinda important like your online bank statement but some absolutely shitball websites think THEY'RE important enough to be subjecting you to that shit, no social media website is that important and should be that much up it's own ass to think it has the right to be pulling this

>>35175 what i mean is those flairs were basically cut into a grid of svg's / due to save on loading times and bandwidth while preserving the total image https://x.com/Xen0sec/status/1895244090264190984 https://x.com/bnj/status/1895196362251338235 https://x.com/RhysSullivan/status/1895176620262182993

>>35210 I love those! Shame it's not used anymore, it really isn't extremely complex stuff and I do think most of them just don't do it because they have the misguided idea that it's "tacky" or ugly now, but honestly, knowing modern design industries, I wouldn't be surprised if most web designers really DON'T know how to make this stuff because they only learn how to do what's popular That seems to be a common issue in most industries nowadays, they only teach you how to do what's currently 'in' as opposed to teaching you the basics and the work of those who came before you You see this a lot in cartooning and comic work, the old masters are literally forbidden from teaching the new blood anything that lead to their own success because it's perceived as mean and "toxic" to try and educate the youth, you should only encourage them to copy one another without the shoulders of giants to stand on and then don't tell them when they're about to fall off

>>35126 ah yes and you cut off the quote that makes it completely schizo. there are no hidden government mandated cookies. protocols like ip, http, tls, and html work exactly because every detail of them is publicly known. security through obscurity does not work. how do i know this? it’s my dayjob.

>>35449 Anon, if something is known to exist but still tucked away somewhere, it's hidden When you play hide and seek, your opponent doesn't stop being hidden when you remember they still exist and didn't blip out of reality, they're just hidden somewhere, "hidden" means "not in sight" you dumb bootlicker

>>35449 >Everyone who says things that I don't like hearing is a "schizo" Lol, and what's your other dayjob, a psychiatrist? Keep the drugs to yourself you hysterionic woman and stop trying to communicate with real human beings

>>35591 surely if this thing is known to exist you can show it to us?

>>35617 You just did Are you retarded or something? Or does your programming only permit you to disagree with dissenters no matter what they say? >[Statement] >You're wrong! >Ok, you're right >No I'm not, I'm wrong!

so wait let me get this straight anon says there's gov trackers in every website which btw if you don't believe in this, ching chong how's your credit score, you call him a schizo, he says it's not schizo and leaves out the hidden part, you sperg out about him leaving that part out, implying your issue wasn't with the statement that there's gov trackers, but rather the notion that they're hidden... but when he replies saying, yeah, they're hidden, you respond with "they don't exist, show me them!"... meaning your problem *wasn't* with the word "hidden" at all and you just randomly chose to get all indignant about him leaving it out as if it mattered, when in reality your whole issue was with the very concept that gov trackers exist? am i getting this right? is this some kinda new glowie tactic or are you just on drugs?

>>35656 his statements: >a few not truly 'neccesary' ones that govs force the website to use to collect data are hidden >this isn't even covert or esoteric knowladge anymore this is just straight up well known by the general public my statement is that there is no way to smuggle cookies. if it is truly public knowledge and not a schizo larp surely it shouldn’t be difficult to provide evidence against my claim, right?

>>35711 Woah woah woah now you're being the bastard removing words I said > where a few not truly 'neccesary' ones that govs force the website to use to collect data are hidden Note the word "WHERE", they're 'hidden' under 'necessary cookies', just like if I put a ball under a hat, I 'hid' it there, we know it's there, but it's still hidden, you caveman You're intentionally assigning my words implications that aren't there

>>35656 >is this some kinda new glowie tactic Consant subversion is an OLD glowie tactic, nothing new >You say fish swim in the ocean >They say it's wrong >You ask how fish swimming is wrong >They pretend the word "ocean" was the issue >You ask how "fish swimming in the ocean" is wrong >"Uhh I never said it's wrong" >"So fish swim in the ocean?" >"Prove it! No they don't!" >You say they do >They imply they never insisted they don't >"So fish do swim?" >"YOU DIDN'T SAY THE OCEAN THO, GOTCHA!" It's just a constant retarded back and forth game of Simon Says until you're tired, that's how they de incentivize you to make your argument, then they'll dance and cheer about you 'having no argument'

>>35884 anyone can check their browser’s cookie store against the declared list and raise suspicions. if that happened you’d be able to link to such cases. government doesn’t force any website to set any cookies, there’s just no reason to do so.

>>35921 >It happens >No it doesn't! >Yes it does >But not like that >So it happens >It happens, you're wrong in saying it doesn't happen! >I said it happens >No it doesn't happen! Wow.... Buddy... You're blowing it, don't bother asking for that raise

>>35936 sorry, you’re just not gonna will hidden government cookies into existence, they’re gonna stay inside your head

why are you two bitching about government cookies when google analytics clearly exists and is way worse?

>please rotate your device No sir I will not.

there is no good reason for most sites to rely on cookies, it only feeds analytics which frankly the user shouldn't be forced to be a part of >look up an article >as soon as you start reading the entire page gets obscured by a fucking div element that grays/blurs the article and another div asking you to subscribe >half the window is also taken up by the "our website relies on cookies to function" notice that often doesn't even give you the option to reject all >on top of all that another div element "IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE USING ADBLOCKER, PLEASE DISABLE TO SUPPORT OUR WEBSITE" >if you accept cookies, close out of the subscribe box, and disalbe adblocker then 75% of the article is broken up by autoloading ads, with a top bar advert, side bar with multiple adverts that follows your scrolling down the page, not even paragraphs but sentences are broken up by adverts injected between the text >article was generated by AI anyway yeah no thanks, these websites deserve to collapse

>Verifying you are human. This may take a few seconds. >www.shitpissfart.com needs to review the security of your connection before proceeding.

>>47811 it's pretty well known at this point that captcha is actually bot training, it's not verifying if YOU are human, it knows you are, it's checking to see what a human would do and how it would answer so it can feed it's machine the answer for the most part it may only need partial completion, it can tell the clear images of a bus apart but not the blurry ones, it can detect the clearly written word but not the jumbled one, or it may only test how your mouse moves or how quickly you answer sometimes it may even give you a false negative if you did the captcha right either because your movement seemed unnatural or because it wants more data out of you unfortunately bots got better and better, mainly because of this very reason, so now it's harder to trip them up people who did the nigger method were actively doing god's work to feed it misinformation but too many normies fed it correct data

>>35944 >Literal feds itt denying shit that's so well known even a normalfag won't deny it anymore Did this glowniggy get a faulty briefing or something? At this point in time you should be explaining to us why government mandated datamining is good actually and protects us all and we're evil for not liking it, not still be stuck on "it isn't happening" This is like still trying to convince us there's no fluoride intentionally being put into the water supply Move on!

>Want to read on Naval Maritime Practices >Found a site that explains it really well >"You have used 1 out of 5 visits" >"Please sign up to continue using our site"

>site serves you a webp >when the filename of the original upload is right there You know I can just see it was originally a png, save it as a png, and then there was no point to having the system give me the runaround, right?

>>50376 Filename extensions being significant is a curse unleashed upon us by Microsoft