This is a really important point, having seen both public and private systems I think it's quite valid.
In this case I probably would not want a head of orthopaedics to treat a relatively straightforward leg break- I would want a practitioner who has a significant amount of recent experience in this area. The ER doctor likely sees hundreds of these a year, so may actually be the best person. Of course if my case is particularly challenging, I want a consultant with a significant amount of experience- but it doesn't seem right for that person to pushing their skills to the highest bidder, regardless of patient need.
I also don't want a steak with my meal, nor do I care for a fancy waiting room, as they aren't going to fix my leg.
Switch to Firefox and only use fully reviewed/approved addons if you're serious about this. I just put a ported chrome extension through the full Firefox add on review process (thanks to web extensions they're easy to port now), and those guys rejected my extension twice because they couldn't replicate my minified code from my dependencies to the exact byte.
Chrome web store doesn't care what I upload and push down to my users. I've had numerous requests from spammers looking to buy my extension based on the number of users and their geography. I guess once they buy an extension they push malware down to the users, so even if you can trust the extension developer or source now, you can't keep that trust up indefinitely.
Different people think at different speeds[1], so if we really want to judge someone based on what we see as a reactive action, we'd need to measure their "thinking speed" first to get a full picture.
With cricket the player's intent is not considered unlike many other sports and in courtroom trials. So looking at the most minute detail (e.g. the snickometer, the checks if the ball made a "snick" sound passing the bat, indicating contact) makes sense to the sport.
I think there's something in the LBW rules about intent, not to mention the whole concept of "where would've the ball gone has it not been etc. etc." I personally dislike the whole fixation over minutiae in Cricket today. The Laws should, I think, be updated for the new technology, for instance the front-foot no-ball which now is preposterous when they keep trying to see whether a millimetre of the foot crossed the line or not, or the run-out with whether the bat was firmly touching the ground on the other side of the crease or not. Those laws were fine when the umpiring wasn't technology assisted, but they are turning the whole game to a circus these days.
Yep, if the ball pitches outside the line of the stumps it's not out unless the batsman made no attempt to play a shot.
> The Laws should, I think, be updated for the new technology,
I disagree (although being young I've only ever watched cricket with this sort of technology). Given the other aspects of the game rely so much on precision, I can't see letting the umpiring become more subjective and/or allowing for more human error would improve the game.
It isn't just that chrome extensions are easier to write than XUL ff extensions. It is also that XUL ff extensions are poorly maintained in various ways with more gotchas. Additionally, FF's extension signing was largely a mess and in less than a year we're transition from JPM to another build tool.
You can't even go from unlisted to listed on Firefox's addon site.
WebExtensions are a superset of what Chrome does. Things like tree-style tabs will be possible in Firefox with the new extension system, for instance.
There are already several WebExtension APIs implemented that Firefox supports that Chrome does not, the difference now is that APIs are being built specifically for extension authors to use, rather than Firefox internals being directly accessible (which certainly allows you to modify anything, but is intractable to maintain backwards compat and secure).
Many authors of popular extensions are working on specifying and prototyping the APIs they need.
> Dropping XUL breaks backwards compatability and it seems Mozilla is willing to break it before they provide adequate replacement APIs
The problem is not XUL. Modifying HTML or XUL DOM via JS is roughly equivalent (setting aside XUL-only features like XBL, does this matter for many extensions?)
The problem is all the internal JS APIs that add-ons can call right now, there are too many to secure and ensure backwards compat. This is why extensions break between releases so much. It's also pretty hard to program against, so there are a lot of common bugs and it's very difficult to ensure any level of security, since Firefox extensions can do anything.
WebExtensions are intended to be a superset of the APIs Chrome exposes, new APIs are being added all the time. It must be possible to implement them securely and maintain them over time, unlike the current situation with internal-only APIs.
> The design of the new addon signature requirements turns AMO into a walled garden and I very much do not appreciate that
I disagree. Signing is required to make it more difficult for malicious extensions to persist in the wild. There's no requirement to host on AMO, just a requirement to sign if you want your extension to run in Firefox release builds.
If the extension is later found to be malicious, it can be revoked without having to depend on the ID (which is set by the add-on and trivial to circumvent).
> The primary concerns I have, which I left Firefox over
Which browser did you switch to? There's still time to participate and influence outcomes, old-style extensions are still supported today...
Technically you don't have to distribute through Mozilla, just submit for signing. While it's true they remain a gatekeeper it's not as bad as the IOS app-store.
This is really interesting. I do fear it'll cause exhaustion techniques.
This may not happen in isolated experiments, but if you build a political system on that concept, let it run for decades, in a world where a political decision can shift tens of billions of dollars (e.g. a fiscal change for banks, an environmental law for the dairy industry, etc), you'll see the system get gamed.
e.g. say I propose 100 bs bills to repeal gay marriage and abortion rights. I expect to lose, but opponents expend all their credits. Then I propose a law banning muslims and mexicans and put all my credits behind it. The end result is they get to keep what they had, status quo, and I get to pass something ridiculous.
Of course it works both ways, but my point is that you're creating a system where volume of bills is a strategy. And strategic, efficient use of credits, starts to matter. Such that I may choose NOT to vote for something I care about, because that credit has a premium on an even more important bill I fear might be proposed, which I absolutely have to put my weight behind. And an incentive not to vote doesn't sound like a system we should work towards.
At the end of the day, making something scarce like you propose does two things; 1) it makes things more efficient and meaningful, you don't play around with scarce things. That's great. But 2) It puts a cap on it, it's limited in amount, and in the context of exercising your vote, voicing your opinion, that's probably not something we should cap for people.
We already have this with financing campaigns (credits being money, which is both scarce and to some extent capped for campaign contributions), but I don't think it's ultimately (although super interesting) the right thing to do for the actual act of voting.
The particular strategy that you propose for gaming the system assumes that voting events are scattered throughout a term (I assume there is some period or term after which everyone's 100 votes are replenished?) rather than all being on the same day. If this is the case then another problem is the privacy issue that arises when the state has to track how many votes each citizen has left.
Both problems are solved if there is a single event each term, where you get a single ballot containing all the questions for that term and get to fill in at most N bubbles on the ballot, with zero or more for each question.
Such a system probably still has undesirable properties, though I'm struggling to contrive a good example of one at the moment.
In this case I probably would not want a head of orthopaedics to treat a relatively straightforward leg break- I would want a practitioner who has a significant amount of recent experience in this area. The ER doctor likely sees hundreds of these a year, so may actually be the best person. Of course if my case is particularly challenging, I want a consultant with a significant amount of experience- but it doesn't seem right for that person to pushing their skills to the highest bidder, regardless of patient need.
I also don't want a steak with my meal, nor do I care for a fancy waiting room, as they aren't going to fix my leg.