so almost paradoxically, projects might want to reduce liquidity for the sake of protecting governance.

It's a chicken-and-egg-like problem: If we use module: 'commonjs', then if any TS files import ES Modules (indirectly in their dependency graph), then Node throws an error because CommonJS modules can not import ES Modules.

Oh, silly me, that won’t work. We can’t update index.html at all, so we certainly can’t remove the call to register!

the behavior you want happen is actually a chicken and egg situation, you need to initialise FancyList in order to get the value for let:prop from the FancyList, however you can't initialise FancyList without the value of id which comes from within FancyList.

if you lack the consent necessary to contact users, then you likely lack the consent needed to even email them to ask for consent.

Unfortunately, loading their code from their CDN is the only way those services permit their use.

Mozilla does not permit extensions distributed through https://addons.mozilla.org/ to load external scripts. Mozilla does allow extensions to be externally distributed, but https://addons.mozilla.org/ is how most people discover extensions. The are still concerns: Google and Microsoft do not grant permission for others to distribute their "widget" scripts. Google's and Microsoft's "widget" scripts are minified. This prevents Mozilla's reviewers from being able to easily evaluate the code that is being distributed. Mozilla can reject an extension for this. Even if an extension author self-distributes, Mozilla can request the source code for the extension and halt its distribution for the same reason.

To complicate things further, if you classify your social-sharing-plugins-usage as required functionality, and those need to set their own 3rd party cookies (as they themselves classify those as required), hello to 3rd party cookies being set by default and no way for users to opt-out (except by turning them off via browser, which means the whole thing is redundant, might as well just instruct users to disable third party cookies if they don't want to participate in social sharing crap?)

And this is where we can all see dark clouds forming: if Recaptcha is opt-in (as the GDPR requires) then all a spammer needs to do to bypass Recaptcha, is to not accept cookies, right?

Also note that the first two opt out tools are currently cookie-based and prevent Oracle from using, sharing, or selling your personal information for interest-based advertising on the browser on which they are installed. As a result, the opt out will only function if your browser is set to accept third-party cookies and may not function where cookies are sometimes automatically disabled or removed (e.g., certain mobile devices and operating systems). If you delete cookies, change your browser settings, switch browsers or computers, or use another operating system, you will need to opt out again. Oracle does not use persistent, unique identifiers to revive a previously opted-out profile or deleted cookie.

Note that the scope of personal data is truly broad, which makes processing complex and tricky. So, even though, for instance, you employ anonymization in Google Analytics to get rid of all information that falls under this category, you’re still in a catch-22 situation. This is because GA stores a visitor online identifier in a cookie, and under the GDPR that file constitutes a piece of personal data. That means you still need to obtain consent from visitors to process their data.

That's the problem with therapy: The people who really need help are often the onesnot trusting others (as a result of bad experiences)not recognizing they have a problem in the first placebeing too scared to open up (or leave the house)being too exhausted to goless likely to be able to afford it. (That's only an issue in countries without a proper health care system.)