4 ms·

My browser is set to not accept cookies from sites I don't have a relationship with, because … well, frankly, I don't know why the rest of y'all still let shady

My browser is set to not accept cookies from sites I don't have a relationship with, because … well, frankly, I don't know why the rest of y'all still let shady people on the Internet use your hard disk for their ad tracking. So, that link (like so many), just plain doesn't work. It just loads a white screen. There are many sites like this on the Internet. Twitter waffles between working and "Ooops! something went wrong!". I've sent patches to Rust's documentation to fix it to work with cookies disabled. (But it won't persist any settings you change, of course, which is what it uses the cookies for.) That link has the double the fun: not only is the page completely white, it's logging errors to the JS console as fast as it can.

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
You convinced me. I just disabled cookies globally so I have to allow them individually for every website.
masklinn 6y ago
> But it won't persist any settings you change, of course, which is what it uses the cookies for. Seems dumb not to use local storage (possibly with a cookies fallback though I wouldn’t even bother). You can also disable LS, but I don’t know that that’s possible on a per-site basis so it’s an unlikely configuration (and you can fallback same as if cookies were disabled, probably).
- deathanatos 6y ago
  Sorry, I was generalizing a bit for simplicity. I believe the Rust docs do use localStorage. The "cookies" settings in Chrome/Firefox control all the browser's various forms of storage: FF calls it "Cookies and site data". If you disable it, the site can't set cookies or localStorage. (As being able to set localStorage would defeat the point of what the setting is really attempting to control.) > but I don’t know that that’s possible on a per-site basis so it’s an unlikely configuration Yeah, if you were using the "Block" settings in "Cookies and site data", for example, that would disable LS on a per-site basis. (I essentially block-by-default, and have an exception of allowed sites in that FF setting.) (I also have an extension that I wrote to produce a fake, good-for-this-page-load-only localStorage, with two settings: hold the values in RAM, or just /dev/null them. Most sites do not handle localStorage denying access, and essentially crash, so it's handy there, as that works around the poor programming on those sites.)

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago

You convinced me. I just disabled cookies globally so I have to allow them individually for every website.

masklinn 6y ago

> But it won't persist any settings you change, of course, which is what it uses the cookies for. Seems dumb not to use local storage (possibly with a cookies fallback though I wouldn’t even bother). You can also disable LS, but I don’t know that that’s possible on a per-site basis so it’s an unlikely configuration (and you can fallback same as if cookies were disabled, probably).

deathanatos 6y ago
Sorry, I was generalizing a bit for simplicity. I believe the Rust docs do use localStorage. The "cookies" settings in Chrome/Firefox control all the browser's various forms of storage: FF calls it "Cookies and site data". If you disable it, the site can't set cookies or localStorage. (As being able to set localStorage would defeat the point of what the setting is really attempting to control.) > but I don’t know that that’s possible on a per-site basis so it’s an unlikely configuration Yeah, if you were using the "Block" settings in "Cookies and site data", for example, that would disable LS on a per-site basis. (I essentially block-by-default, and have an exception of allowed sites in that FF setting.) (I also have an extension that I wrote to produce a fake, good-for-this-page-load-only localStorage, with two settings: hold the values in RAM, or just /dev/null them. Most sites do not handle localStorage denying access, and essentially crash, so it's handy there, as that works around the poor programming on those sites.)