Missed an old use of "permafills"

README.md

@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ When judging whether a feature is a good fit for the layered APIs effort, here a
 
 - **Can this feature stand on its own, or does it require integration into existing APIs?** For example, adding methods or properties to existing web platform objects like `Array` or `HTMLElement` is potentially tricky, and we're not sure yet whether we should create layered APIs that, upon importing, have global side effects. For now, features that require such integration are not a good candidate for layered APIs.
 
-- **Is this feature tricky to implement performantly or correctly?** It's better for the platform if such features can be standardized once, and implemented by browsers, instead of requiring developers to get them right every time independently. This criteria motivates the potential infinite virtual list or [tasklets](https://github.com/GoogleChromeLabs/tasklets) permafills.
+- **Is this feature tricky to implement performantly or correctly?** It's better for the platform if such features can be standardized once, and implemented by browsers, instead of requiring developers to get them right every time independently. This criteria motivates the potential infinite virtual list or [tasklets](https://github.com/GoogleChromeLabs/tasklets) layered APIs.
 
 - **Do the APIs for this feature vary wildly across the JS ecosystem, or have they mostly settled down?** Layered APIs will be less successful when they try to pick a winner that excludes popular styles or paradigms. For example, a virtual DOM layered API would likely be a poor idea at this time.