News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by ZeroGravitas on Sunday January 30, 2022 @06:15AM (#30135951)
When talking about UX, there's this bad habit of using people's mothers or grandmothers as examples, because they are 'too stupid' to understand the UI that was built. Aside from the obvious problems, this also implicitly removes blame from the designer/implementor of the interface.

I always prefer to reframe it as someone with a very important, intelligence requiring job, say vaccine reasearcher, who doesn't have time to deal with your shitty UI when they want to print a document.

I feel the same applies here.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by mro_name on Sunday January 30, 2022 @06:42AM (#30136159)
first I don't agree with coining any group as stupid per se.

Second, if they are a target group, a website has no excuse but to deal with them.

[dead]
Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by mro_name on Sunday January 30, 2022 @06:33AM (#30136087)
the car example again.

There is a legal framework that has certain requirements. Enforced by a court here. These laws are from elected representatives of the people.

So they are binding. Like it or not.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by iqonq on Sunday January 30, 2022 @06:53AM (#30136250)
Okay, and I made an argument of why I am against the law. That is all.
Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by mro_name on Sunday January 30, 2022 @06:35AM (#30136103)
and: many are forced to use the www if they like it or not. E.g. for tax or to get access to public services.

So there's no excuse for hostility but it has to be legal and layperson-friendly.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by jeltz on Sunday January 30, 2022 @07:06AM (#30136375)
So you advocate a computer licence?