Jump to content

NotHereToPlayGames

Member
  • Posts

    5,005
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    83
  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country

    United States

NotHereToPlayGames last won the day on June 19 2023

NotHereToPlayGames had the most liked content!

8 Followers

About NotHereToPlayGames

Profile Information

  • OS
    XP Pro x64

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

NotHereToPlayGames's Achievements

2.7k

Reputation

  1. I am NOT familiar with "Dune" (I've heard of it but have ZERO familiarity/insight). Regarding the part I've bolded, "emotional connection" is ONE (of MANY) reasons I do not watch movies! I hate hate HATE watching actors/actresses do "fake tears" and I immediately stop watching no matter what when actors/actresses do these STUPID "fake tears". Look up "The Flash" on Netflix. HATE IT! HATE IT! HATE IT! Because the "superhero" is always always ALWAYS crying like a BABY!
  2. I've only been to a theater twice in the last 20 years. And I had to walk out to the car for my work-use noice-cancelling headphone hearing protection for both of those visits!
  3. My birthday is two days away from Christmas - I stopped celebrating my birthday at 14 because of it. My sister's birthday is on St. Patrick's Day - she started celebrating her birthday at 21 and has been an alcoholic burden to society ever since.
  4. I'm roughly 1,755,561,600 seconds old. But I don't feel a day over 1,000,000.
  5. I always have to laugh when people use acronyms that may be everyday knowledge for their inner circle but that others have never heard of. I seriously thought this "FUD" meant "F'd Up Display" (ie, web page not rendered correctly) and it was acronymized (yes, I made up that word) because the "F Word" is not allowed here at MSFN.
  6. There are always two sides to every coin. I personally "hate" the preview box and want links posted as a link that the user has to click if the user wants to go there. I block these preview boxes "without prejudice". They just "invite" cross-domain privacy and security vulnerabilities. "To each their own", of course.
  7. If you think this is going to win the developer over to your side of thinking, "all the power to you". I don't see it working though.
  8. I think you are overthinking. There really is NO REASON to make an x64 version. I'm more OCD then the next guy, but to have it x64 just because everything else you use is x64 is not really a justifiable reason.
  9. I technically don't agree with this 100%. Not saying it's not true, just saying the entire picture cannot be painted with this one brush and this one brush stroke. I'm not referring to .pdf's but "web browsers" in general. The constant push for "new and improved" isn't being led by the "web designer", it's being led by the hype and propaganda behind "security". "Use our browser! It's more secure then theirs. Just look at our upgrade rate relative to theirs, we find and fix vulnerabilities faster then they do. Use our browser!" Paraphrasing, of course. In regards to .pdf's, totally and completely agree! It makes NO SENSE for a web site to host a "viewer" when Mozilla-based started embedding a built-in .pdf viewer in 2011 and Chrome-based started in 2010. One uses HTML5 and .js. The other uses C++. This would have been Firefox 5 and Chrome 7. Where are we at now? I've lost track because they both update 7 times a day (exaggerating, of course).
  10. I really think you insist on looking at it the difficult way. Tampermonkey is a Difficulty Level 4 on a scale of 0 (very easy) to 10 (very hard). The "separate extension" route where you insist on creating your own manifest.json, your own content.js, and your own polyfill.js, then packaging those as your own extension, is a Difficulty Level 6. And the self-create method hasn't actually been tested or verfied as even working. I see no theoretical reason that it should not work, but nor have I seen anybody demonstrate that it does work.
  11. SWEET! I've added it to my MSFN userstyle! edit: and added some very specific "members" who do make valuable contributions every once in a while despite the vast MAJORITY of their posts being nothing but walking right up to the line without actually crossing that line. a "pink background" now visually tells me right from the get-go, "warning, possibly inciteful and not insightful, proceed at your own risk"
  12. Although, to be perfectly honest, if that is the way to display "code" that shrinks and expands, then I have always felt that roytam's very very very long scroll-scroll-scroll then scroll some more should always be done that way.
×
×
  • Create New...