The fact that you need JS to load/run to parse your custom web component is an issue. But, the solution is to allow users to cache these components or add them to the browser itself.

Ideally, <user-avatar> should be available without JS just like <img> is. Imagine a world where we have this capability - a large library of reusable components that can be used as easily as native HTML. This is the vision, is it not?

"Remember, all online content purchases are really just rentals."

This has got to be one of the most short-sighted/stupidest decisions content providers have ever made. It's literally free advertisement and they eschew it in the name of "piracy".

Good thing all the TV shows that don't allow screenshotting have never shown up on pirate websites /s

Streaming sites should allow for screenshots and clip export, people aren't stealing/watching shows in ~1-2 min chunks. Add a border around the clip, put your streaming service name in the bottom corner with a QR code to the show (maybe even the timestamp as well). Let people "burn in" subtitles, add effects, etc (a la TikTok, or something, I don't use TikTok). Literally can only be a positive thing for the company. Heck, spend the bandwidth to host the new clips/pictures so people just link directly to you. Put all those GIF sites out of business overnight almost overnight.

TV/Movies are largely ephemeral experiences. For the handful of content I actually care about, I can purchase it.

To share with friends, to make memes, to record notable scenes/moments in media you like. There are many reasons to want to screenshot streaming media

The problem is browser extensions and the ability for bad actors to use malicious code to harm users. This is a real threat - how do you protect users from their own actions?

Putting aside the cynicism about Google's "true" motives and assuming the best intentions on their part... this still seems like an overly broad limitation without a good workaround.

Personally, I use as few extensions as possible, and I'm very particular about which ones. I'm sure most readers here are as well. So, for me (us?), this is a problem, especially if we also maintain extensions. But - what about my mom? She doesn't even know how to remove extensions, never mind review them for potential problems. We should not sacrifice the many (and encourage the bad actors) to ensure that the few have the access they want.

Why not put in settings that allow the user to allow extensions outside the bounds of MV3? Why not put a warning on the extension page that it "could be risky", or even hide those extensions entirely from the users who don't know to adjust their settings?

Google needs to be very specific on this: what precise user-privacy-threatening functionality can an extension have in Firefox's implementation of MV3, that is not also possible in Chrome's? Because if there is actually none, then we have our answer right there.

There's plenty of security/privacy issues that remain after MV3. It's somewhat telling that onBeforeRequest()'s synchronous blocking was the first thing MV3 went after.

It's ofc not about protecting the user, however.

I don't see how forcing the many to have sub-standard ad-blocking software isn't a sacrifice of its own. Ads and tracking demonstrably harm user privacy.

We have two harms: rogue extensions siphoning off user data, and shitty ad networks eroding user privacy. I don't think we need to choose to solve only one or the other.

And it's not like MV3 really protects users from rogue extensions. It's pretty obvious it's a plan by Google to reduce the effectiveness of ad blockers; the alleged privacy improvements are an unproven excuse.

I didn't notice that in the announcement of the new API, but that actually seems pretty reasonable for userscripts? It also seems to match what the GP was asking for:

> Why not put in settings that allow the user to allow extensions outside the bounds of MV3

No, it's a flag you turn on on the extensions settings screen (chrome://extensions/).

It's a false dichotomy. We don't need to sacrifice anybody. Require more consent or an advanced toggle to turn on the allegedly dangerous behavior.

Unless we intend to regress to the mean, people must be educated on how to use powerful tools responsibly, and we must build powerful tools with effective safeguards.

You fucking educate them.

I’m sick and tired of big tech treating people like children. Sure, in the short term perhaps consider putting fences and whatnot, but come on, general purpose computers are mainstream since at least 1995, we ought to have learned what they are by now.

In the first case, there is no incentive to use the money any faster, and as long as inflation isn't too high, there could be incentives to hoard/save it.

In the second case, each unit has an expiration, and like the game of hot potato, you want it out of your hands quickly. This should heat up the economy overall, while inflation is seen as the result of an overheated system.

The trick, as noted, is who is poised to benefit? The "new" dollars would be worth more, so the people at the top of the flow would have more advantages than those at the bottom.

In order for something like this to work, it would also need to recognize the creation of value, and not just the creation of the currency. The person who turns a pile of wood into a chair is creating value, but they are usually not able to capture the true value of their time and skill.

Overall, this is an interesting idea especially in that it changes the way we think about money.

Taken further, every day I could exchange all of my wealth which now has 364 days left for slightly less wealth with 365 days left.

That sure sounds like inflation.

Changing the way money enters the system is interesting for sure, but orthogonal to whether expiring money is just inflation by another name.

That's happening even now with inflation, even if the mechanism is less obvious.

It's called the Cantillon Effect.

Yes -- for a while. Not forever. This is a feature, not a bug. Hoarding/saving for short periods of time (relative to human life spans) is a good thing. It helps damp out transients. Hoarding/saving for long periods of time is bad because it discourages people from taking risks by putting resources to productive use.

I think that named a problem.

Think about something like "Measurement Importance" in terms of the "level of competence in the handling of the vehicle", so to speak ?

So how is your MI as high roller ? Think some people have not only accounts for that, but alghorithms, nor ? ^^

No. The opposite of saving is spending. You can spend on capital as well as consumption. Inflation only devalues cash, i.e. money you keep in your mattress. You can avoid inflation by either consuming or investing, both of which help keep the economy humming along.

The point is:

> The idea that people need to be encouraged to consume (consumption being the opposite of saving) I don't think is supported by economic theory.

People absolutely need to be encouraged to be productive. That's the whole point of an economy, to encourage people to produce things that others want in exchange for other people producing things that they want.

Honestly, how could anyone possibly not understand that?

The whole point of an economy is NOT to encourage people to produce things. The point of producing is to satisfy a demand for consumption, and individuals choose their level of consumption according to their preferences and budget constraints. They don't need to be encouraged to consume. That doesn't make any sense.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. Maybe things are different where you are, but where I live most people expect to be compensated for their labor, and investors expect at least a shot at a positive ROI. But if you want to work for free, by no means allow me to discourage you.

> They don't need to be encouraged to consume. That doesn't make any sense.

You're right about that. But that was not what I said. I said that they needed to be encouraged to produce, not to consume.

> I understand it fine,

Manifestly not. You couldn't even write three sentences without losing the plot.

And later you added that by "saving" you meant specifically "not spending".

Then "taking risks by putting resources to productive use" is just a fancy way of saying "producing"

So, you're saying that people not spending is bad because it discourages people from producing.

In a market economy, the optimal level of production is the level that satisfies the desired level of consumption. If people want to save more, and therefore consume less, and as a result we also produce less, that's not bad. That's how the economy is supposed to work.

You're assuming that "the desired level of consumption" is a constant. It's not. It's a function that depends on circumstances. People discover new things, and some of those discoveries lead to desires that were previously unknown or even unimaginable. It would never even occur to our neolithic ancestors to want an iPhone or a Tesla. But some of our ancestors wanted to discover new things, and some of those discoveries naturally lead to discovering new things to want.

And that's not even mentioning the fact that one of the things that people naturally want is to have children, which leads to more people wanting things. So even if the things they want are the same old things, demand will naturally grow as the population increases.

Such a person may not need to produce because their savings exceeds their total expected lifetime demand. And even if they had 80% of their assets invested, thry still may want a 20% cash buffer in case their investments go belly-up. Most people call this an emergency fund.

The idea of expiring money is plain dumb. We don't need to artifically increase the velocity of money. We don't need to increase demand for assets because people have time-constrained purchase windows. All that would do is lead to a lot of poor decisions as people scramble to find the most efficient ways to convert the expiring money into convertable value stores. Of course this would just increase demand and make those value stores more expensive. Some will be able to arbitrage market inefficiencies. I bet a whole lot more would just lose.

How would you save up cash for a good investment opportunity if it just died? How would people save for house down payments or businesses? So dumb.

Before publishing thr above, I decided to try reading the article. This Gisell dude is an idiot. Here is an example, and where I stopped reading

> The faults of money go further, Gesell wrote. When small businesses take out loans from banks, they must pay the banks interest on those loans, which means they must raise prices or cut wages. Thus, interest is a private gain at a public cost.

There is no public cost! The private bank lent money to someone they expect to pay it back. They make money if they're paid back and lose money if they don't.

The business, which would not exist without the loan, opens and brings more supply to the market. Increasing supply lowers prices (public benefits). The business emoloyes people. Those people choose to be employed at a given rate, even if that rate is lower than it could be if the business, which would not exist without the loan, didn't have to pay interest on its loan. (job creation: public benefits). The alternative presented is raising costs of goods. Okay... Either they raise them too high and have no customers and then go out of business and all concerns are washed, or they have higher prices than otherwise. But otherwise means there's no business and nothing to buy anyway, so here again thr public clearly wins. The only maybe scenario for public loss is if thr bank makes a loan thay isn't repaid. But obviously this is expected to happen from time to time, so either the losses are absorbed by the other profitable loans or the bank eventually goes out of business. Big deal. That's part of choosing a bank for bank consumers.

That depends on how fast it died. Too much inflation is clearly bad, but so is none at all. And deflation is really, really bad. The last time the world saw deflation was during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Empirically, 2% seems to lead to pretty good outcomes by my personal quality metric. That's a halving of value every 30 years or so, which seems about right to me.

(the later has an interesting side effect as it would incentive to make transactions legal)

"Ich möchte das nochmal klarstellen, ich redete (schon was her) nicht von 'Zinsfrei' in Umlauf gebrachten Geld, aber sehrwohl und im Interesse aller Beteiligten, von Schuldfrei (i think 'debt-free money' would be the word in english, and against debt driven creation of money) in Umlauf gebrachtem Geld."

And explicit nothing from the Muzzies "economical"-stuff!

- Mac McDonald, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia

A very interesting concept. Most resources in the world have a lifespan - even an iron bar will eventually rust. However, a dollar is as perpetual as the system itself.

On top of that, the entire economic system is designed to reward those who take more and give less - that is how you become rich, and being rich is the highest ideal.

However, if money had a lifespan... if it could "decay" just like the crops we grow, then things would change. If you try to sell a bushel of corn today, and there isn't much demand, you will need to lower the price to sell it. This is because it will go bad and then you will have nothing.

If you get paid a dollar today, and you know that dollar has a lifespan, then you are incentivized to spend it! If you have a million dollars that can expire, there isn't much use in holding or hoarding it... like the corn, it will go bad. So, you want to spend it - on things you need, or services, or by investing in equipment, training, research,etc. Heck - even just going on a trip or getting a nice meal is better than letting the money "rot" in a bank account.

I'm not so sure that something like this would work at scale. It seems to be more workable in smaller circles, like a LETS or local trade system. Still, the thought experiment is useful, and I thnk it helps to highlight how some of the problems we face are actually baked into the system.

From the article: 'Gesell believed that the most-rewarded impulse in our present economy is to give as little as possible and to receive as much as possible, in every transaction.

In doing so, he thought, we grow materially, morally and socially poorer. “The exploitation of our neighbor’s need, mutual plundering conducted with all the wiles of salesmanship, is the foundation of our economic life,” he lamented.'

If you want to get money moving in the economy again, we already know how to do that. Tax the shit out of the wealthy in such a way that they can't weasel out of it, and turn that money over to the people, be it through hiring them for public works projects, more and wider spread research grants, Universal Basic Income, or economic stimulus. We have tons of mechanisms to move money "down the hierarchy" as Dr. Peterson would say, but the problem is all of our politicians and media are owned by the very rich, and so taking money from the very rich is not on the table, which is how you do that. So we're left with this entire group of two professionals scratching their heads as to how we solve the problem of "the rich have too much money and the poor don't have enough" without having the rich give the poor money, which rather predictably lands at "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."

I'm not even necessarily arguing pro or con here (though if you're curious, I'm extremely pro) I'm just saying that the rich accumulating too much is doing exactly what economists have always said it will do: it stalls the economy, and it will continue to do that. No amount of thumb on the scale by the rich will change this fundamental fact, and even some of them are saying this. If you totally strip mine the consumer base in the never ending pursuit of number-go-up, eventually you have no one left to sell your products to and then the entire game is over.

Yes, you will indeed increase the velocity of money if you steal it from people. But that is typically short lived and not sustained.

It tends to be better to allow those wealthy folks with capital to use it to create new businesses that then have the same effect, and the benefit is that this solution is pareto optimal since it's composed of voluntary transactions.

The vast majority of the history of the United States is a story of the rich being taxed extremely highly once they crossed a certain threshold of wealth, usually around 70%. Corporations too. We still had massive corporations, and we still had insanely rich people, so much so that the most famous anti-trust cases occurred during that time. And we also, in addition to that, built the highway system, built the Hoover dam, built three electrical grids, went to the moon, waged two police actions in southeast Asia (I didn't say it was all good) and created the fundamental technologies that gave us the Internet.

Conversely there is no evidence that the super-rich do anything with their money consistently besides hoard it.

Didn't Elon just use a bunch of money to buy Twitter? Didn't he also aink a bunch of personal money wagering on SpaceX?

I'd hardly say the wealthy don't use their money. Typically they invest it in new companies and businesses. They don't just let it sit there. And those investments create jobs and new services.

Conversely, despite all the cool things yhe federal government has done in the past, we see massivr amounts of bloat and inefficient resource allocations. I don't keep to keep any of my yearly salary until approximately Easter each year. And what am I getting for that? Maybe the FAA is about the best outcome.

SpaceX is at least better for an example but it still isn't great as SpaceX itself is funded largely by the Government anyway, which Tesla is also a large beneficiary over. I'm not opposed to spending money on important new technology, unless there's an Elon Musk at the top getting rich off it. If we're already paying for Tesla and SpaceX to exist, who the fuck needs the Aparthied profiteer? He's shown himself so many times to be wildly incompetent and out of touch with all of the large businesses he's an investor in, not the least of which is the absolute clown show that Twitter's become, while he's set fire to 40 billion of it's 44 billion purchase price. And according to insiders, that seems to be because Twitter didn't have the chance to build the "Elon management team" that exists at all his other companies to prevent his boondoggling from causing more havoc than it has to.

I'm not even saying he's a bad guy (though he is) I'm saying we don't fucking need him, we need his money, which he only has because we've said he's allowed to keep it. So tax his ass and then he can go have a normal mid-life post-divorce crisis and like, buy a Ferrari and crash it into a tree or something instead of buying and sinking a social media site.

> Conversely, despite all the cool things yhe federal government has done in the past, we see massivr amounts of bloat and inefficient resource allocations.

You see the exact same thing in the private sector. This isn't a bug in Government, it's a bug in human organizations.

Sure, but when the private sector wastes it only does so at the expense of its customers, as the waste leads to higher prices. It opens the door for that company to be out-competed.

There is no such mechanism for the waste in gov. It has no competition, and therefore the bloat keeps growing. Voters are the only recourse. There is no natural dynamic to keep operations efficient.

> I'm not even saying he's a bad guy (though he is) I'm saying we don't fucking need him, we need his money, which he only has because we've said he's allowed to keep it. So tax his ass...

This is called theft. We have plenty of money for public goods, such as national defense. You want to steal this man's money; plain and simple.

Gold doesn't though, we'd just end up back at hoarding / investing in gold

It wouldn’t surprise me if the origin of currency began with grain.

This is a tutorial so you can make your own in less than 20 minutes, OR you can just use my app. Alternatively, you can fork my app and customize or extend it.