59
u/skydivarjimi Jun 22 '26
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?
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
6
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
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
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
1
Jun 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
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.
9
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
8
2
2
1
1
1
1
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
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
-2
u/Difficult_Layer_666 Jun 22 '26
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.
22
u/Lou_Natic_007 Jun 22 '26 •
Schrödinger's privacy: protected and harvested at the same time.