Wij willen met u aan tafel zitten en in een openhartig gesprek uitvinden welke uitdagingen en vragen er bij u spelen om zo, gezamelijk, tot een beste oplossing te komen. Oftewel, hoe kan de techniek u ondersteunen in plaats van dat u de techniek moet ondersteunen.

In the days and weeks after Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed the cybertruck — a post-apocalyptic inspired vehicle made of cold-rolled steel — there was a lot of speculation about whether it would be smaller once it actually made it to market.

Production of the Cybertruck is still a long ways off. There isn’t even a factory to build the all-electric truck yet. However, Musk did provide some clarification Saturday on its size. In a tweet, Musk wrote “Reviewed design with Franz last night. Even 3% smaller is too small. Will be pretty much the same size. We’ll probably do a smaller, tight world truck at some point.” (Musk was referring to Tesla’s head of design Franz von Holzhausen. And we assume Musk meant to write “light” not “tight” truck.)

The change is important to note since he told Jay Leno that the vehicle is actually 5% too big, according to a teaser video promoting an upcoming episode of Jay Leno’s Garage that will air Wednesday on CNBC. “If we just take all of the proportions and drop them by 5%,” he told Leno, later adding “it has to fit into a normal garage.”

Musk had previously said the company could probably reduce the width of the cybertruck by an inch and “maybe reduce length by 6-plus inches without losing on utility or esthetics.”

Tesla hasn’t shared the dimensions of the vehicle. And TechCrunch failed to bring a measuring tape at the launch. (Lesson learned).

In the past two months, Musk has provided a few other updates around the cybertruck via Twitter, noting that the company is increasing dynamic air suspension travel for better off-roading and that it “will float for awhile,” a claim he didn’t explain further.

Tesla said it will offer three variants of the cybertruck. The cheapest version, a single motor and rear-wheel drive model, will cost $ 39,900, have a towing capacity of 7,500 pounds and more than 250 miles of range, according to specs on its website. The middle version will be a dual-motor all-wheel drive, have a towing capacity of more than 10,000 pounds and be able to travel more than 300 miles on a single charge. The dual motor AWD model is priced at $ 49,900.

The third version will have three electric motors and all-wheel drive, a towing capacity of 14,000 pounds and battery range of more than 500 miles. This version, known as “tri motor,” is priced at $ 69,900.


You can’t make access to your website’s content dependant on a visitor agreeing that you can process their data — aka a ‘consent cookie wall’. Not if you need to be compliant with European data protection law.

That’s the unambiguous message from the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), which has published updated guidelines on the rules around online consent to process people’s data.

Under pan-EU law, consent is one of six lawful bases that data controllers can use when processing people’s personal data.

But in order for consent to be legally valid under Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) there are specific standards to meet: It must be clear and informed, specific and freely given.

Hence cookie walls that demand ‘consent’ as the price for getting inside the club are not only an oxymoron but run into a legal brick wall.

No consent behind a cookie wall

The regional cookie wall has been crumbling for some time, as we reported last year — when the Dutch DPA clarified its guidance to ban cookie walls.

The updated guidelines from the EDPB look intended to hammer the point home. The steering body’s role is to provide guidance to national data protection agencies to encourage a more consistent application of data protection rules.

The EDPB’s intervention should — should! — remove any inconsistencies of interpretation on the updated points by national agencies of the bloc’s 27 Member States. (Though compliance with EU data protection law tends to be a process; aka it’s a marathon not a sprint, though on the cookie wall issues the ‘runners’ have been going around the tracks for a considerable time now.)

As we noted in our report on the Dutch clarification last year, the Internet Advertising Bureau Europe was operating a full cookie wall — instructing visitors to ‘agree’ to its data processing terms if they wished to view the content.

The problem that we pointed out is that that wasn’t a free choice. Yet EU law requires a free choice for consent to be legally valid. So it’s interesting to note the IAB Europe has, at some point since, updated its cookie consent implementation — removing the cookie wall and offering a fairly clear (if nudged) choice to visitors to either accept or deny cookies for “aggregated statistics”…

As we said at the time the writing was on the wall for consent cookie walls.

The EDPB document includes the below example to illustrate the salient point that consent cookie walls do not “constitute valid consent, as the provision of the service relies on the data subject clicking the ‘Accept cookies’ button. It is not presented with a genuine choice.”

It’s hard to get clearer than that, really.

Scrolling never means ‘take my data’

A second area to get attention in the updated guidance, as a result of the EDPB deciding there was a need for additional clarification, is the issue of scrolling and consent.

Simply put: Scrolling on a website or digital service can not — in any way — be interpreted as consent.

Or, as the EDPB puts it, “actions such as scrolling or swiping through a webpage or similar user activity will not under any circumstances satisfy the requirement of a clear and affirmative action” [emphasis ours].

Logical reason being such signals are not unambiguous. (Additionally, the EDPB example raises the point of how would a user withdraw consent if such a signal were valid? By scrolling back up the same web page? Obviously that would be ridiculous and confusing.)

Here’s the relevant example from the document:

Again, harder to get clearer than that.

So any websites still trying to drop tracking cookies the moment a site visitor scrolls the page are risking regulatory enforcement. (Reminder: GDPR fines can scale as high as €20M or 4% of global annual turnover.)

Nonetheless, recent research suggests cookie consent theatre remains rife in the EU — albeit, not only limited to the ‘scroll and you’ve been tracked’ flavor of the practice.

Manipulative consent pop-ups and dark patterns also remain a major problem, with such tactics being actively deployed to undermine legal protections for EU citizens’ data.

Still, a lot of clarifying light has now been shone into this area by both regulators and courts, shrinking the operating space for bad faith actors.

A ruling by the European Court of Justice last year made it clear that active consent is required for tracking cookies, for example — also demolished ‘pre-checking’ as a valid way of gathering consent, among other stipulations.

Plus there’s increasing pressure on regulators to actually enforce the rules — with GDPR’s two year anniversary fast approaching.

So where consent is concerned, the rule of thumb, if you need one, is you can’t steal consent nor conceal consent. And if you wish to shortcut consent you can only do so if your shortcut is A) clearly and accurately signposted and B) you offer a similarly easy route to opt-out again. Simples.


It’s been barely more than a year since the “Queer Eye” revival premiered on Netflix, but the series is already back for its fourth season.

This time around, the Fab Five finds new makeover subjects in Kansas City (with a detour to Quincy, Illinois, where hairstylist Jonathan Van Ness grew up), offering their custom mix of lifestyle tips and intense emotional conversations. In many ways, the new season serves as a reminder that “Queer Eye” remains one of the most compelling titles in Netflix’s reality TV lineup.

At the same time, some of our excitement is wearing off. That’s not to say that the show is weaker, exactly — but the formula is becoming more familiar, and the contrivance of whirlwind life changes all taking place in a handful of days feels a little harder to swallow.

We also had reservations about Karamo’s big decision in “Disabled But Not Really,” where he asks the episode’s subject Wesley to meet with the man who shot and paralyzed him years earlier. It makes for suspenseful and moving TV, and Wesley seems to find the conversation rewarding, but we argued about whether the sequence felt more contrived and exploitative than helpful.

In addition to reviewing the latest season of “Queer Eye,” we also discussed our first impressions of the new Netflix science fiction series “Years and Years,” which Jordan was particularly excited about because it stars Katee Sackhoff of “Battlestar Galactica.” This, in turn, led to our thoughts on the new trailer for “Star Trek: Picard.”

You can listen in the player below, subscribe using Apple Podcasts or find us in your podcast player of choice. If you like the show, please let us know by leaving a review on Apple. You can also send us feedback directly. (Or suggest shows and movies for us to review!)

And if you’d like to skip ahead, here’s how the episode breaks down:
0:00 Intro
0:28 “Another Life” first impressions
17:32 “Queer Eye” season 4 review


Created by R the Company. Powered by SiteMuze.