[zasdffaa]

> and required for a solid modern web experience

Absence of cookies don't make things unstable (non-solid?), and fuck knows what 'modern' is supposed to mean, or why it's good.

> Or how do you solve this problem?

Block all cookies except for rare moments like posting on HN, which then immediately get deleted. And no JS, which means CPU is trivial (so no burn-a-core-for-every-open-tab which is so common with page-sized pointless animations). Many problems can be solved if you want them to be.

[jstimpfle]

But you realize you're the oddball that considers the problem solved like that? I'm not sure that being a "hacker" means to straight out refuse things. You're missing out on a lot of fun and inspiring information (and yes, many many hours wasted to irrelevant content).

[zasdffaa]

You make your choices and I make mine. Should a person make the informed choice to immerse themselves in the web as-is with all its problems & risks, ok, but most people just pick the easy path then bitch after. I'm not one of them, and straight out refusal is in fact a viable option for me.

If I do need anything more, there's VMs. BTW what 'fun and inspiring information' do you refer to? Shadertoy is a loss I grant, but what else?

[jstimpfle]

If you miss Shadertoy it won't be hard to imagine other similar things, of which there are plenty. Anything that requires interactivity beyond the one provided by HTML & CSS will obviously require Javascript. Any personalized experience (not only suggestions which yes are evil, but also personal storage) will obviously require cookies to function.

Deleting Cookies on exit (and/or at regular intervals) will probably not help much in terms of avoiding tracking, especially if you log back in using your reinitialized cookies.

[zasdffaa]

> it won't be hard to imagine other similar things, of which there are plenty

which again you don't give.

> Anything that requires interactivity ... obviously require Javascript

jeez, no shit, I get it.

> (some defeatist blah about cookies)

Whatever.

You just persistently don't get it. These are my choices. I made them carefully. They suit me. They may not suit you. We could even compromise if you made an effort to see what I'm after but you won't/can't. Now please try to understand I'm not you, and just back off!

[jstimpfle]

That escalated quickly.

[eternityforest]

How exactly will sites remember that you are logged in? And how would be have any web apps that aren't horrendous without JS?

Also, where is this burn-a-core-for-every-open-tab stuff? Many websites are highly optimized and do not use much CPU. Not enough to be noticed without actually looking at the numbers anyway.

What sites have page size animations these days?

[zasdffaa]

> How exactly will sites remember that you are logged in?

I don't want them to. I log back in if necessary (browser remembers id/pswd). For those few I need to stay logged in, I use a VM and save the state - I'm more concerned about controlling JS than cookies in such cases.

> And how would be have any web apps that aren't horrendous without JS?

I don't use web apps. My tradeoff.

> Also, where is this burn-a-core-for-every-open-tab stuff? Many websites are highly optimized and do not use much CPU.

Oddly, it seems to be corporate bullshit sites that are the worse offenders. Can't find one but you're right, it's not all by any means. I retract.

[eternityforest]

You might be right on corporate bullshit sites, there are a few that can burn CPU(Usually without any actual content worth viewing....). I guess they are meant to be shown at a meeting on a high end business laptop?

But I think the vast majority of people would be upset if sites didn't keep you logged in and there were no web apps.

It's even worse if you prefer FOSS and use web apps, since Chromium no longer has password sync, Brave and FF block advanced features, and if you use BitWarden it takes a few extra clicks.

[zasdffaa]

> Usually without any actual content worth viewing

Yeah. The less info the more clipart/general crap you'll get. Weird innit.

As to your other points, I can't argue. I accept a higher level of inconvenience for a higher level of security, that's just my choice. I won't inflict it on others who make different tradeoffs.