Twitter Seethe:

https://x.com/GenelJumalon/status/1564651635602853889

tldr: As expected V3 ad blocking will be worse than V2 (e.g. uBlock Origin) with devs having to deal with work arounds and deal with a limited number of rules.

The last phase of the launch will come very soon: starting in January 2023, all extensions on Manifest V2 will stop working, even those that were added to Chrome Web Store earlier.

For static rules, Chrome set a minimum guaranteed limit of 30,000 rules per extension and a total limit of 330,000 rules for all extensions installed by a single user (this also takes into account the limit of 1,000 regexp rules per extension). The trick is that one extension may get all of the allowed amount of rules, or there may be more than one, and then perhaps some of the extensions will fall short of the limit.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations of Manifest V3, AdGuard MV3 still protects against ads and tracking quite well:

• Blocks requests to trackers proactively

• Hides banners, social widgets and other annoying elements

• Blocks adverts on video sharing platforms, including YouTube

Although the experimental extension is not as effective as its predecessor, most users won't feel the difference. The only thing you might notice is ad flickering due to the lag in the application of cosmetic rules.

Our goal with this prototype is to test the new approach and get your feedback. So please, try it out and let us know what can be improved. As usual, this prototype is open source and published on Github. If you have any issue with it or have any suggestion, please post it to Github and we will listen.

By releasing an extension built with Manifest V3 today — first among developers of ad blockers – we can say that we've met the challenge that Google posed to us. There is still a lot of work to be done, but we can already claim that even after the discontinuation of Manifest V2, Google Chrome users will be able to protect themselves from ads and trackers with the AdGuard Browser Extension.

orange site

HN

It's worth it

HN

potential opportunity

HN

2nd orange site thread

GoDaddy statement

@XMRshill @aqouta @NFT_King

CASE #3  August 26, 2022

Ava Labs, Avalanche and Roche Freedman

Ava Labs is an American for-profit company that develops and promotes the Avalanche blockchain, which recently raised substantial funding in collaboration with Three Arrows Capital, the failed hedge fund that has been accused of acting like a Ponzi scheme. It is led by CEO and founder, Emin Gün Sirer, and claims to employ more than 150 people. The Avalanche network currently has a fully diluted market capitalization of more than $16.5 billion USD.

Roche Freedman is a law firm that widely sues people in crypto, currently running at least 25 class actions, including against Binance, the crypto exchange, and Ava Labs (Avalanche) competitors Solana Labs (Solana) and the Dfinity Foundation (an Internet Computer contributor). It is led by founding partner, Kyle Roche, and employs more than 30 lawyers.

We can reveal that for several years they have been operating according to an extraordinary secret pact that harms the crypto industry, and has a nature so perverse that it undermines the integrity of the American legal system.

Some years ago, blockchain company Ava Labs and Amercian law firm Roche Freedman, made a deal. A pact was formed that involved Ava Labs granting Roche Freedman a massive quantity of Ava Labs stock and Avalanche cryptocurrency (AVAX), now worth hundreds of millions of dollars, in exchange for Roche Freedman agreeing to pursue a hidden purpose.

In a shocking series of video recordings, shared by this case investigation, Kyle Roche himself now reveals the exact nature of their ongoing operations. The case is highly disturbing in nature.

We can reveal that the pact directs Roche Freedman and their leader Kyle Roche, to: 1) use the American legal system - gangster style - to attack and harm crypto organizations and projects that might compete with Ava Labs or Avalanche in some way, 2) sue crypto industry actors generally with the aim of creating magnets for regulators such as the SEC and CFTC that distract them from the highly commercial nature of Ava Labs and the Avalanche blockchain, and 3) secretly pursue Emin Gün Sirer's personal vendettas against individuals.

As usual, Crypto Leaks brings you the hard evidence that nobody else can obtain. We explain with the help of words spoken by Emin Gün Sirer's own lawyer, Kyle Roche.

Ava Labs & Roche Freedman co-locate

August 2019, the newly formed law firm Roche Freedman moved into a co-working space with Ava Labs, the for-profit company that develops and promotes the Avalanche blockchain.

Big money establishes a secret pact

In exchange for Roche Freedman providing what Kyle calls "legal services", Ava Labs granted them massive amounts of:

• AVAX https://d33wubrfki0l68.cloudfront.net/91b0e018fb06ec3668cdb99990b37858c4d897f8/facc6/img/avax-coin.jpeg the Avalanche blockchain's tokens.

• Ava Labs corp's stock (Ava Labs holds AVAX for founders and investors).

Kyle Roche says he was the very first person to receive Ava Labs stock after Andreessen Horowitz, a venture capitalist that provided their initial funding.

So if Ava Labs was flush with cash having just received investment from Andreessen Horowitz, why did they need to pay for "legal services" in this way?

The answer is that they were not paying for normal legal services. The massive payments of AVAX and Ava Labs stock established a secret pact. This was so unusual, that it required the grant of assets that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars today.

Kyle boasts he has a full point on AVAX, and Ava Lab stock...

Kyle says he has about a third of what Kevin Sekniqi has, who is the co-founder and current COO (Chief Operating Officer) of Ava Labs.

Kyle says that he helps control the AVAX token supply, and helps Ava Labs with "regulation issues," and "competitors..."

Kyle refers to Emin Gün Sirer by his nickname, "Goon."

He says he trusts "Goon" and Kevin "like brothers," and that they have the "same interests..."

As the conversation progresses, the truth about the pact begins to emerge: Kyle confirms that they litigate against (sue) other parties in crypto as a "strategic instrument" to "support Ava Labs" to a level where they made him an "equity partner." Kyle says litigation "is an underused tool."

Kyle describes participating in the pact as a:

completely different way than being a lawyer

Kyle Roche moved to Miami for "tax purposes."

He moved in with Kevin Sekniqi, Ava Labs' COO, reflecting just how tightly the organizations work together.

In the years since he moved, Kyle Roche has failed to update his LinkedIn profile, which still lists his location as the "New York City Metropolitan Area," which is a more prestigious place to locate a law firm.

Naturally, Kyle's profile makes no mention of Avalanche or Ava Labs.

Behind this elaborate smokescreen, Kyle is working from Miami with two key objectives: 1) to increase the price at which he can sell his AVAX tokens and Ava Labs stock, and 2) to reduce the amount of tax he pays when he sells.

Ah frick there's still a lot to go and I can't be bothered so go to the article link: https://cryptoleaks.info/case-no-3

OMFG this screwdriver is made by my favorite YouTuber, Imma pay the insane markup because it's made by LTT!

I am a moderator in a small open source project support forum completely unrelated to Linux Mint, so my below discussion is not about me whining over a ban, but a discussion about how unprofessional the Linux Mint IRC support channel is and the way the Linux Mint project has permitted a default tool in the OS to become captured by moderators engaged in what I view as very juvenile behavior.

In #linuxmint-help I was pinged by a user, and on discovery I reviewed the user's activity, and it was comprised primarily of pinging other users, including pinging users within seconds of the user's first posts and as the subsequent post.

I then posted to the channel:

User respawn is spamming. Please ban.

To which the moderator responded by banning my user with the following comment:

User banned per user request.

This is a snarky ban reason and it is provided without explanation to the user. I also interpret the moderator enjoys the employment of the ban tool, instead of viewing the ban tool as necessary under certain circumstances.

After being banned, I was pinged in #linuxmint-chat by the same moderator:

or maybe he's asking to get banned like that paul guy

The post I was pinged from was part of a discussion of moderators and other users are friendly with were mocking another recently banned user, and then began mocking me.

My tone with the moderators may be overly firm for a user not part of their clique, but as a somewhat experienced user I was very annoyed with their behavior (and was pinged into the discussion):

respawn pinged me. If you can't read your feed, you have no business moderating an IRC.

There are further posts and both threads can be viewed in the screencap I posted in Linuxmint GitHub[1], but another moderator chimes in:

who wants to kick or ban this wanker?

The combination of snarky reason for initial ban along with overy-chummy clique mocking banning of users is not the kind of tool I feel should be default in a highly visible user-facing open source project.

SHOW MORE

I made a very very simple tool that makes some noise every time your computer sends data to Google. Here a demo on the official Dutch government jobs site. The noise starts while typing the domain name already. Code, currently Linux only: https://t.co/ZjKeOSfYff pic.twitter.com/dEr8ktIGdo

— Bert Hubert 🇺🇦 (@bert_hu_bert) August 21, 2022

Demo in FireFricks: https://x.com/bert_hu_bert/status/1561650689474011136

github

orange site

HN

A common argument I read from proponents of student debt cancellation is that cancelling student debt is essentially destroying money. Some amount was sitting in a ledger somewhere as an asset in a government agency and now poof, it's gone. Essentially, it's an accounting gimmick not impacting much of anything else apart from benefiting borrowers.

But this is opposite of what's really happening. When the loan was made, money was sent to the school and the student promised to pay it back. Had the student went on to pay back the principal, no money would have been created. It would only have been money transferred through time. Take money from the future and use it today; basically an investment.

What happens when debt is cancelled is the money doesn't have to be paid back. But the school still got paid. So cancelling debt is money creation.

How does this affect money supply?

M2 money supply is a measure of the money supply that includes cash, checking deposits, and easily-convertible near money. Cancelling student debt means debtors will have more money available to them than they would have otherwise. Cash sitting in the coffers US Department of Education isn't included, while the accounts of the debtors are included. Since fewer payments have to be made from checking accounts of individuals (included in M2) to Department of Education (not included), cancelling debt will increase the money supply over time.

How does this affect inflation?

More money available to debtors means more money to pay for rent, cocktails and avocado toast. So this could drive inflation. It won't necessarily drive inflation but increasing disposable income of young people without much savings will likely increase their spending and the overall price levels. Or it could inflate asset prices as we've seen with the $12 trillion from Covid relief.

How does this affect taxes and spending?

At this point taxes are fairly uncorrelated with overall tax levels and spending. There will eventually have to be a reckoning with government debt, but it won't be immediate. So it's wrong to say that tax payers are directly funding borrowers who made poor decisions. I would prefer that as the effects would be transparent. Instead, we'll likely see a higher overall net debt burden and higher prices through inflation. This isn't the win that proponents of debt cancellation think it is.

The ones that will be hurt with higher price levels is the less wealthy. The people living paycheck to paycheck will suffer as they see everyday items become more expensive. Wage employees will suffer because wages tend to be sticky, especially on the way up. Retirees on fixed incomes will suffer as well. The wealthy will be okay as higher prices will likely inflat asset valuations like stocks and real estate.

Won't the banks be the ones taking the hit?

No. In 2010, the Obama administration changed how federal student loans were administered. Prior to 2010, federal student loans were granted by private parties and the government guaranteed the credit as long as certain criteria were met. Now the loans are made directly from the US Department of Education.

Some legacy FFEL student loans are still held by private parties, but the fate of those loans is uncertain:

But if your FFEL loan is commercially owned by a private company, it's unclear if your loan will be eligible. Contact your loan servicer to determine which type of debt you have

I imagine that the US will either exclude those loans from forgiveness or backstop the private parties that will lose on the principal.

A thought experiment: cancel all consumer debts owned by the government

Here's a thought experiment for those that are unconvinced that cancelling student debt will have any real impact on the economy. If it's just an accounting gimmick, why not cancel 100% of student debt? Why not cancel mortgage debt backed by the US government (e.g. Ginnie Mae loans)?

If you honestly believe cancelling debt has no real negative impact, surely you'd be in favor of cancelling more debt. Ginnie Mae (and to a lesser extent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) loans are guaranteed by the US government, meaning even if they're held by private parties, any losses in principal will be reimbursed by the government.

If you're hesitant at all about the economic impacts of this move, you should be equally as critical of student loan forgiveness.

You can accept all these premises and still be in favor of cancelling student loans. But let's not pretend like this is a free lunch.

https://mleverything.substack.com/p/cancelling-student-debt-is-essentially