I'd guess so too. But not so much from data, rather from my perception of what the "USA media"/"influence people" tend mean when saying hiking, which is something more like a long(er) walk, returning in a/few hours at most within the day. If I or someone from where I live (sweden) said they where headed for a hike, they would not be expected to return same day, but probably be out for a couple days, and carrying a backpack doing so.
USA is a big place, with a lot of wilderness. Sweden is the size of one of our mountain ranges. A lot of people spend a lot of time in that wilderness, but I suspect the issue is one of syntax. The term "backpacking" has taken on more of that spirit of the term "hiking" that you're referring to. You can still say you went on a multi-day hike out around some 14,000ft peak; but if you just say you're going hiking it could mean a lot of things, but if you're backpacking it assumes you're out camping for some of it.
Also some of those "influencers" (noting social media doesn't reflect reality) probably live in areas of the country where they have vast wilderness a very short drive away. A short day hike is worth it if you live in Colorado and can get to the trailhead in way under 2 hours. It's not worth it if you live in Boston and need 8 hours to get to anything _somewhat_ remote.
It's rather amusing how obvious it is that one of these ever look at their plain-text email, while going to exteme lengths to "style" their email. Also the fact that their "few links" are about 2k chars long each, with CRM tracking whatevers, so one have zero idea what the actual url is.
Keeping chaning your from address is an excelent way to you getting your enire domain spamlisted instead of just the one sender.
Well my password manager don't have an account to begin with, neither does my TOTP manager. And depending on risk assesment for a given site/account, letting the password manager do some doubble duty as TOTP manager as a convinience is fine, especially if the alternetive outcome would be to not enable TOTP due to the annoyance.
the irony of that, is that all to many times, one must enable cookies to be able to dismiss the, often full screen takeover, cookie notice to "disable" cookies
A lack of enforcement is definitely not the problem.
Stated as the inverse, what would more enforcement solve?
And, even if it was a solution, what would this additional enforcement actually enforce? A poorly written law, apparently designed to introduce additional friction into simple web browsing, with porous and easily-evaded definitions and vague goals that only apply to a tiny fraction of planetary inhabitants? (Because that seems to be the actual problem.)
More enforcement will force businesses to remove obnoxious consent flows as those are already in breach of the regulation and it just needs enforcement. Consent should be explicitly opt-in, you can't force it with annoyances, dark patterns or denying the service.
Some shitty businesses who outright can't be profitable without stalking will fold which is a good thing (less spyware in the world), most will adapt just fine - executives/shareholders may just have to forego that new yacht or supercar.
> A poorly written law, apparently designed to introduce additional friction into simple web browsing
It's not poorly written. It's written very well to explicitly outlaw the kind of malicious pseudo-compliance you're complaining about. Its objective is not to introduce friction, it's to outlaw spyware (which we've somehow normalized over the past decade).
> with porous and easily-evaded definitions and vague goals
The goals are not porous - in fact the law is intentionally broad enough so that the spirit of any data collection/processing can be taken into account, rather than a specific technicality (which is why focusing on cookies is stupid because GDPR doesn't care whether you do your tracking with cookies, IP addresses or the shipping/billing address your customer provides). The goal of the law is again to outlaw the business model of spyware.
Its objective is not to introduce friction, it's to outlaw spyware
Then why not just outlaw the spyware? Why go through the theater of "you can use spyware, but you have to get the user to 'agree' to it first, and you're not allowed to offer them anything in exchange"? That's just asking for the dark patterns and malicious compliance/non-compliance that we've gotten.
The spyware is outlawed, and so is coercing users into "agreeing" with it.
The problem is that neither restriction is adequately punished to deter the behavior; as of right now, you're better off profiting off spyware because even if you get caught (which is a very big if), the penalty is merely to ask you to stop doing so (and future compliance isn't monitored, so you can get back to your usual shenanigans once the dust settles).
From a GDPR perspective, it doesn't matter whether you don't ask for consent or coerce users into it - both are outlawed, however, because of lax enforcement, an industry of snake oil has developed to sell companies non-compliant solutions (because actual compliance would put them out of business), along with spreading falsehoods and misinformation to promote said business which is blatantly visible on this very thread.
If you truly want to comply with the GDPR, the answer is to rethink your business model and fire a lot of people. But since it's uncomfortable, everyone would rather pretend they comply by paying for an expensive, not-actually-compliant "consent management platform" and otherwise continuing as usual.
As for consuming documentation, I find Read the Docs[1] way easier to navigate. It feels like GitBook tries to strip away all sense of navigation and makes it way too "minimalistic" or "slim".
