No. There are leaves that aren't heads (for example, after you delete a branch, the old commits just lie around until someone deliberately cleans them up), and there are heads that arent' leaves (for example if you branch a new feature branch from main. The feature branch brances off of main, so main is not a leaf anymore)
There’s no “branching a new commit” (except as syntactic sugar). Creating a branch creates a new head pointing to an arbitrary commit (even one that already has one or more heads). Committing creates a new commit and moves exactly one head forward to it.
They can, but they have to think a lot about backwards compatibility and existing code. So sometimes they can't, and in this particular case I think it's going to be hard, mostly because of existing Javascript code.
Also there's standardization and coordination between browsers, but if there is a genuine need for something they tend to find a way.
I feel that broad overgeneralizations like this are often just self-revelation.
This reads like you find people besides your wife attractive, but rather than recognizing this as normal and healthy, you vilify and repress it. But you see (part of) the responsibility for avoiding your thoughts with others, and expect of them to act according to your needs and wants.
The thought of people of the other gender using a toilet near you is sexual to you and you don't like that, but this is a you problem.
Also, I don't know whether your "stably married mother/father" is just heteronormative or deliberately excluding same-sex couples, but if it's the latter, your "belief" is demonstrably wrong. [1]
I have learned for myself that God exists, that he cares, this life is not the beginning or the end, that our choices matter, and that the commandments he gives us (like the 10 commandments, as an example) are to help us get through this life and prepare to receive the blessings he has promised based on our choices.
I have written more of why I know this, at my web site (in profile).
They might hold the opinion, but they also recognize a few things like how that is a matter of taste, and how tastes differ, and how that's ok and there is no one true taste, and if there were it would be inexcusable to assume that they embodied it, and aside from all of that even given poor taste, the importance of decorum is context sensitive, there are almost no absolutes and there is at least a few times & places for things that are normally unwanted, etc etc etc.
That's great! It won't stop people, myself included, from having a mini-flashback to childhood by doing something childish, but you're welcome to sit right next to me, being mad about it. :)
> We’re using “cookies” as a shorthand for any technologies that can access or store information on a person’s device. This can also include beacons, pixels, scripts, and other technologies.
That is a weird use of the word "cookie". In normal usage, it doesn't mean a technology that accesses or stores the information, it is that information itself.
"Pixels" is also weird. I think that they mean tracking pixels, which are one-pixel images that are just there so that the browser has to request them from the server and the server can notice that request. They are a subclass of "Beacons". Calling them a "technology that can access or store information on a person's device" seems misleading.
Also, reCaptcha wouldn't need them. They already have Javascript running on my PC, they don't need a tracking pixel to contact the server.
I actually thought it was a pretty decent caveat when writing for a non-technical audience. They're listing a bunch of different technologies that are (almost all the time) legally equivalent to cookies in the EU. And in EU privacy writing it's already common to use "cookies" to describe this whole area.
(The main exception to their list is scripts, which are only cookie-like to the extent that they use cookies or other client side storage)
While "pixel" was originally the 1x1 way back in the day, it's a generic term now used by industry to refer to analytics, often in tracking of user behavior and conversion events.
Cookies mean exactly that. You are just being overly pedantic.
And yes, running JS in a users browser to store or access information is exactly the same. Taking a browser fingerprint and storing it server side is also the same, just harder to get caught doing.
This whole trying to maliciously take these laws literally need to stop.
Yes, I may be overly pendantic. This part just made me suspect that the author didn't have a technological background. That isn't bad per se, as this is mostly a legal topic.
Also, I'm not trying to "maliciously take these laws literally". The law isn't limited to cookies, so you can't get around it by using a narrow definition of the word "cookie".
Nothing in the text makes me think the authors do or do not have a technical background. Everything sounds correct both technically and legally to me (me being a technical person and not a lawyer).
> This part just made me suspect that the author didn't have a technological background.
Or perhaps the author does have a technical background, which is why they attempted to give a clear yet simple explanation for the non-technical?
People hear cookies are bad, they get pestered by cookie banners, so it makes sense to use cookie as an umbrella term. Their definition of tracking matches the law which is the important part.
I've heard "pixels" used generically to refer to the bundle of tracking code from a particular vendor in the marketing department at work. e.g. "Have you enabled the Facebook pixel?" means have you embedded the JavaScript snippet (usually with a fallback 1x1 pixel) that Facebook provides for tracking.
Pixels likely refers to 1x1 tracking images (image fetched from a server, and through that, they can get some data from you, like IP address or visited before)
Yeah, I see your edit. With JS you can also detect whether it was fetched before, so that is a way of storing information about whether you have visited something before. Which can then be sent to the server. So, it kinda is storing data, kinda not.
That's like saying that everything you build with Lego is a pirate ship: To build anything with Lego, you first need Lego bricks. And if you already have those, then you can also build a pirate ship.
Turing completeness is defined on computational models, i.e. sets of instructions that you can use to build algorihms. Not on the algorithms themselves. If you can simulate a Turing machine using only the tools that your model gives you, then it's Turing complete. That doesn't mean that everything else you build using those tools is special in any way.
Had never heard of the concept of ‘lil n’y a pas de hors-texted’, reading about it sounds like the same concept: can’t remove the context from the object
> Understood as such, it's not really such a strange idea, that the things outside of the text itself can and do give meaning to it in an ever-evolving way. In a philosophical context we can understand it to assert the idea that context is always present, and isn't necessarily stable.
