Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Disabling cookies quite naturally disabled local storage as well, since localStorage can be used to identify and track a user as surely as a cookie can, at least if they have JavaScript enabled.

I selectively enable cookies on websites that I wish to remember me as required. The vast majority of websites are perfectly capable of loading and operating without cookies / localStorage (though more recently a lot of them will keep popping up annoying cookie banners on every page load, since they can't remember I asked them not to use cookies if I don't let them set a cookie to remember that fact, ironically enough).

There are numerous sites that are not _useful_ without cookies, but even the majority of those detect that cookies are disabled and explain that they are required, and most of the rest do something broken but basically understandable like generating a XSRF-detected error or redirecting one back to the login page over and over again.

Even the small minority that fail to do anything at all and just sit there showing a blank page are at least harmless.

Doing nothing useful _and_ using >100% CPU would therefore seem to entail either an unusually high level of incompetence, a wanton disregard for good practice (i.e. graceful degradation) or outright malice.

I'll choose to apply Hanlon's razor and assume it's the former until proven otherwise.




...how else the website that is start page is supposed to remember what you have set it up ?

You sound like someone that rode on bald tires for a year, finally crashed into a wall, then started to sue manufacturer because "car didn't told me to change them"


That is an unreasonable comparison.


Man enabled feature that will break anything with persistence

Man used site that uses persistence.

Man compares the thing is broken

How it is not unreasonable ?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: