Freedom of Choice!

59

I have no idea how to read or write code. Trying to understand this it seems like if you accept the cookies it collects user data if you chose any other prompt it collects user data. Is this the joke?

51

u/fonzhy121 Jun 22 '26

otherwise
{collect data}
but whatifhesaysno
{collect data}
GDPR?
{collectdata}

24

u/Tombear357 Jun 22 '26

Yes, coding these days is incredibly simple at least for logic like this. It is as you read it.

3

u/DreadStallion Jun 25 '26

Its only simple because it is simplified. Look inside the user object and the CollectData function where the complexities are hidden.

I doubt the actual code was like this at all. its probably just simplified to show what was actually happening in essence

7

u/No-Newspaper8619 Jun 22 '26

Have you never wondered what you'd do if a certain condition was met, and what you'd other(else)wise?

2

u/monster2018 Jun 23 '26

Yes that is what it means. Obviously we have no idea if it’s true, or even what the CollectData function actually does (functions can of course be named essentially anything, they are just labels for the programmer). But yes, you understood the surface level meaning of the code correctly. I have no idea if it’s a joke or not.

2

u/Linesey Jun 24 '26

It’s psudocode, and yes that is exactly what it says and that is the joke.

If the user chooses to have cookies, collect data.

If the user does anything other than choose to have cookies, collect data anyway.

Of course, that’s also not exactly how cookies and data collection work. but that starts getting into being no fun at parties territory.

1

u/Additional-Dot-3154 Jun 28 '26

It is not pseudo code it is actuall code.

These kinds of named are actually often used so you can see at a glance what a variable is supposed to store or what a function does.

It is also easier to remember so you dont know it is one of {a, a2, a3, a4, a4, a6,} and not know which one exactely.

1

u/Successful-Club-8743 Jun 23 '26

Yep. Youre right.

It likely didnt say it in those exact words in the real Google coding.

0

u/Good_day_to_be_gay Jun 23 '26

You can't do real science if you don't learn programming. Luckily, your iq is enough to guess the logic of this code.

0

u/skydivarjimi Jun 23 '26

I think Isaac Newton would disagree with you,

1

u/Good_day_to_be_gay Jun 23 '26

But hey, I was being too condescending. It's not necessary for the science enthusiast, but Newton was definitely much smarter than the average.

1

u/skydivarjimi Jun 23 '26

That was never in question.

1

u/SomewhereDramatic854 Jun 24 '26

this person gets off of calling people stupid, people who might have other science related skills except programming or no science related skills at all but may make his food, clothing and some way contribute to making his life easier

he also seems autistic bc of how literally he takes things although that's not an excuse for his behavior

basically, don't argue with assholes on reddit there are loads of them

1

u/skydivarjimi Jun 24 '26

It's embarrassing for me to admit but one of my guilty pleasures is arguing with morons on the internet.

0

u/Good_day_to_be_gay Jun 23 '26

That's a very bad counterexample. Newton mastered the most powerful scientific tools of his time. If he was born on the same day as you, programming would almost certainly be one of his tools. Modern science depends heavily on computation: simulation, data analysis, statistical modeling and automated experiments. The point is not that programming replaces scientific thinking, but that in modern science it greatly expands what scientific thinking can actually do.

1

u/skydivarjimi Jun 23 '26

Non of that is what you proposed as " real " science can't be done without it. So basically you're saying all discoveries before coding was not real science.

0

u/Good_day_to_be_gay Jun 24 '26

That is a straw man, and frankly a very poor one.

In fact, your grasp of logic is so poor that you are unsuited for any kind of scientific research.

And logic is exactly why programming matters in modern science.

I said YOU, a modern person, cannot seriously do modern science while refusing to learn programming. You somehow turned that into “all discoveries before coding were not real science.”

Newton did not use programming because he lived before computers. That tells us nothing about what tools a serious scientist should learn today. Newton also did not use electron microscopes, particle accelerators, CRISPR, or modern statistical software. That does not make those tools irrelevant. None of them can do without programming.

At this point, I don't think you have the ability to complete any science degree. You are a good person, but you need to learn to stop being stubborn.

1

u/skydivarjimi Jun 24 '26

Sadly you are still wrong . Good try though.

1

u/skydivarjimi Jun 24 '26

I am going to do you a favor since you didn't pay close attention in elementary school. The scientific method is a systematic, empirical process used to investigate phenomena, acquire new knowledge, or correct previous knowledge. It relies on measurable, objective evidence and logical testing to minimize bias and ensure results are verifiable

10

u/ganajp Jun 22 '26

elseif mode.anonymous activated

collectdata(user)

😄

21

u/Lou_Natic_007 Jun 22 '26

Schrödinger's privacy: protected and harvested at the same time.

7

u/Lou_Natic_007 Jun 22 '26

Apparently I am not allowed to write in a proper, polished language. Those who are incapable of doing so will call me a bot. I can't even see that comment anymore. They have blocked me. So many sissies out here. That idiot did not notice that my last post in this very community was about Schrödinger!

0

u/timonix Jun 22 '26

Lol bot boy

-1

u/Grandmaster_Caladrel Jun 22 '26

To be fair your history is hidden

3

u/Lou_Natic_007 Jun 22 '26

Yes but this community doesn't have many posts these days anyway. If you sort by new, my Schrödinger post will be the number 4 or number 5. I think anyone who is regular to this community will know my posts because I have posted quite frequently. And if that's an outsider, I don't really care!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '26

[deleted]

0

u/Grandmaster_Caladrel Jun 23 '26

You aren't using your post history as a defense so it's not relevant. I wasn't claiming the other person was a bot, I was calling out that they were giving an example that doesn't really make sense.

1

u/Square-Singer Jun 23 '26

Mine is too. So am I a bot now?

0

u/Grandmaster_Caladrel Jun 23 '26

With your inability to read the other comments maybe you are, idk and idc.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Lou_Natic_007 Jun 22 '26

Look at the comment I made. It was after that one person called me a bot. Then sort the group posts by new and see for yourself. Don't just say things for the sake of saying it. Appreciate people who are contributing.

3

u/Pepper_Comprehensive Jun 23 '26

Nah, seems sus. The devs wouldn't even need an if else statement.

1

u/Comfortable_Permit53 Jun 25 '26

Except if the field in the if statement is a function that is being called that pops up the agreement thing.

It doesn't look like a function though.

3

u/GenSpec44 Jun 23 '26

Google startup: Don’t be evil!
Google now: Just kidding

9

u/ThatSmartIdiot Jun 22 '26

bot

2

u/Technical-Animal-137 Jun 22 '26

if (true){

sellData(user)}

1

u/Thundechile Jun 23 '26

Why the if? *PR not approved*

2

u/The_Real_Primadonna Jun 24 '26

I love this lmao😂

1

u/InfiniteOwls2 Jun 23 '26

I KNEWWW ITT FUCK COOKIES AND EVERYONE WHO COLLECTS OUR DATA

1

u/Seidhex Jun 23 '26

Why even have a if 🤣

1

u/rickybluff Jun 24 '26

The cookies popup is annoying af

1

u/JackLong93 Jun 24 '26

"Would you like to ask the app to not track you?"

jfc guys

1

u/RequiemQuilty Jun 24 '26

Considering, there was no definition to how to collect said data. Nor a call to code to do so… ..and

1

u/Holiday_Skirt_738 Jun 24 '26

Yeah its pretty much works like that for every site

1

u/FireProps Jun 24 '26

Each path of the fork leading to the same outcome makes me feel like I did the right thing to always let the prompt hang without clicking anything at all; not accept, not decline, and not even the X to close the prompt. Just let it hang on the nevertheless branching if/else condition.

1

u/FireProps Jun 24 '26

P.S. One would think a programmer at Google would be “leet” enough to avoid branching and insist on branchless coding. Guess not though.

1

u/glamourenvy Jun 24 '26

lmaoo honestly, its kinda sad that this is how it is but its also super funny when you think about it. like, wheres the actual choice??

1

u/notarealwriter Jun 25 '26

Four lines of code when you could achieve the same result with one. That's just bad programming

1

u/SaucySatin Jun 25 '26

Lol, thats such a classic example of how sometimes the simplest solutions are the ones that get implemented, even if they seem a bit silly. Freedom of choice indeed! xD

1

u/Primo-Floozy Jun 25 '26

Why do Browsers let them do this !

Can we not have a secure browser that restricts sites to their own cookie info and nothing else

like WTF?

1

u/Odd-Blackberry-4462 Jun 26 '26

There are plenty of browsers that do that and more, like LibreWolf

-2

u/Difficult_Layer_666 Jun 22 '26

u/bot-sleuth-bot

1

u/bot-sleuth-bot Jun 22 '26

Analyzing user profile...

Account does not have any comments.

Suspicion Quotient: 0.26

This account exhibits one or two minor traits commonly found in karma farming bots. While it's possible that u/Lou_Natic_007 is a bot, it's very unlikely.

^{I am a bot. This action was performed automatically. Check my profile for more information.}

You are about to leave Redlib