I don't really mind the trend in browsers over the last several years to give explicit access to more OS resources, it frees us from both Flash and Java Applets, Adobe's PDF reader, and other crap. But I'm not sure the browser replacements, at least in the short term, will actually get the security models any better. Is there any reason to prefer all these new JS APIs over allowing a Java Applet, besides "Java Applets are insecure"? It's certainly not performance -- I know many people chuckle when someone demos the latest X in JS (with or without WebGL) where X was done better with less hardware years ago via an applet. Secure or not, it's incredibly difficult to actually run an applet these days, and it's a strange disconnect with how the browser is fine doing so much else without warning. Will we see a similar increase in difficulty for running JS that can be just as insecure?
I've been a NoScript and adblock advocate for many years, but the first is often met with alien stares and the second is only successful when I install it on their browser myself or when I'm recommending adblocking to either other technical people or people who really hate ads even on TV. There's a weird resistance some people have that can get brought up in both cases, though, and it's probably going to take more than a few big public fails due to malicious websites before people will stop bringing it up. The argument adblocking users have been making for ages: this is my computer, my browser, and neither is under any obligation to act in a particular way based on the contents of what your server sends me. I don't like your ads? I can choose not to see them. I don't trust your JS? I can choose not to execute it. I don't like your theme? I can load my own. It's very weird to me that people oppose this view.