I'm really confused by the downvoting on this site.
The page fails to work if cookies are disabled. That is a fact. Some people - a minority, perhaps - disable cookies and other technologies, often for privacy reasons. That is also a fact.
(We could discuss the ins and outs of that discussion, the value proposition, the efficacy, etc., but none of those change those two simple facts.)
Another fact: Sites that use cookies must announce this use in certain jurisdictions. Again we could discuss the merits of this requirement, but that would not change the fact of it.
So were the downvotes for stating facts or for questioning a design decision?
I would have thought HN folks were rather keen on both facts and design discussions.
The page fails to work if cookies are disabled. That is a fact. Some people - a minority, perhaps - disable cookies and other technologies, often for privacy reasons. That is also a fact.
(We could discuss the ins and outs of that discussion, the value proposition, the efficacy, etc., but none of those change those two simple facts.)
Another fact: Sites that use cookies must announce this use in certain jurisdictions. Again we could discuss the merits of this requirement, but that would not change the fact of it.
So were the downvotes for stating facts or for questioning a design decision?
I would have thought HN folks were rather keen on both facts and design discussions.
Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm definitely surprised. Ah well.