You either have consent or you do not. Mixed signals do not permit you to err to your benefit.

EU courts have already ruled that "cookie banners" that are too-confusing aren't considered consent.

the latest date consent given (or taken away) takes precedence, consent requires an clear&affirmative action, so if that part can be recorded - do as you please.

I guess the person above you means what if someone clicks "accept" on the cookie banner but also has DNT turned on.

To which I'd say: they shouldn't even see the cookie banner in that case. DNT alone is enough.

Yup. If I'm going around my daily business wearing a shirt that says, "no sex for me, please!" Then please do not come up to me and say, "but, would you like to have sex with me?"

And if I say "yes, actually, even though it was very rude of you to ask, given the shirt that I am wearing...in fact, I would like to have sex with you," then you should at least have the decency to wait for me to take my shirt off before having sex with me.

If I decide it's really not worth the effort to take the shirt off, then it turns out, actually, no, I really did not want the sex after all.

This is the best analogy I've heard in a while, thank you.

Would be irrelevant, because the DNT-header will be sent with every request, so for all practical purposes will be later than any other kind of consent.

There can be a case where the end user (person), logs on the site - then sets a permission/consent to be 'tracked' (whatever), then a cookie/localstore persists - so the DNT is not relevant.

Consent/tracking doesn't mean solely 'cookie' banners.

No. Ambiguous consent is no consent. And continuing to send DNT is ambiguous, because the tracker can not distinguish between intent and accident.

Does it become harder to figure out when your salary depends on not understanding it or something?

I guess it is. This conversation reminds me of the classic Tea Consent video, explaining the concept of consensual sex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8