NotHereToPlayGames

I am unable to replicate. Violentmonkey and scripts install and execute just fine for me in 360Chrome v13.5.1030 ungoogled, v13.5.2036 ungoogled, and in v13.5.2036 regular. Both in XP and in 10. The only thing I did during my testing which seems different from your testing is that I did not "import" scripts. I installed "new" because I had nothing to import at the time. So I just ran some greasyfork font scripts just for testing. Everything worked as expected.

Yep, that's the one. I keep it at the HIGH preset ALL OF THE TIME. I'm too old to have to turn up the volume to hear the normal scenes then get BLASTED TO H#LL with LOUD VOLUMES during action scenes.

@VistaLover - I'd be interested in the Promise.withResolvers() (first implemented with Chrome v119) polyfill code.

Not quite that simple. I run 15 extensions and only have 12/13 processes running. I don't know the exact "formula", so to speak. But I know my Chromium will run eight (or is it four?) processes when I have NO EXTENSIONS installed. And I've had times where I'm testing extension after extension after extension after extension to look for one I want to keep and may have FORTY extensions installed but have NOWHERE NEAR forty processes running. Update: For me, zero extensions equals 5/6 processes. So adding FIFTEEN extensions only "added" 7/8 processes.

I do not use Supermium (I use Official Ungoogled Chromium v122 in conjuction with the PortableApps Portable Chrome loader). I personally have zero interest in anything based on Chrome v126 or higher! (Time may change that... eventually...) Using Supermium or not is irrelevant to the question, everything that I use for my YouTube experience can be used in Supermium. I've actually flip-flopped on YouTube. Six months or so ago, I dang near NEVER used it! Nowadays, I use it DAILY and even stopped paying for Netflix and Hulu in favor of YouTube without any advertisements! Project VORAPIS is "good"... But not great! It will wholly and fully depend on your own use/expectations/wish-list. It does not work "for me", but it may work "for you". Only you can answer that. For starters, one must realize that it isn't all about number of chrome.exe processes. YouTube with no extensions will run a higher CPU than YouTube with FOUR OR FIVE extensions and SLIGHTLY higher RAM consumption. For YouTube ads, I use uBlock Origin v1.59.0 (modified, I defuse the whole "blocked since install", "blocked on this page", et cetera as I see them as "usage tracking telemetry" that serves no purpose for functionality [and is inaccurate compared to other measurements]). But my YouTube experience relies on much MUCH more than just blocking ads. Tampermonkey v4.13 (modified to prevent Google Analytics telemetry, no "thanks for installing/uninstalling" auto-visits, cosmetic changes, et cetera) is used to set default preferences for Closed Captions, Annotations, Stable Volume Ambient Mode, home page view, what codecs are allowed, disable mouseover inline play, remove "shorts" as I am not interested in the general "lack of intelligence" of users that submit "shorts", disable "most replayed" graph as what OTHER people like to replay has no bearing whatsoever on what I may or may not replay, add autoplay button for playlists, et cetera. Stylus extension (modified) to add my own userstyles. Enhancer for YouTube extension (modified) for selecting playback quality on initial load versus entering full screen mode, for the popup player to watch the video while scrolling the list of suggested videos, for the "loop mode" control. Ears Audio Toolkit extension (modified) for equalizer effects (not limited to YouTube). Audio Compressor extension (modified) to alter dynamic range of audio (not limited to YouTube). PiP Floating Player extension (modified) to be able to minimize video as an always-on-top resizable player with its own player controls (not limited to YouTube, very useful for watching YouTube or news at work). Fullscreen Videos extension (modified) for NOT using Chrome's "full screen" mode, but using a "windowed" full screen where the video uses the entire browser window but maintains the Operating System's taskbar and the browsers tab/address/title bars.

I do not get video ads or static ads. And I'm not too keen on disabling my ad-blockers just to seek a solution. My main point is that all of these methods can be *combined* into a script that does what you are wanting it to do. ie, if one of the previous scripts is what you prefer, but you want to be able to pause then restart, then simply add the mouse/keyboard detection from the third script to be included in whichever of the first two scripts that you prefer to use.

So did you try this script?

I had the same experience with one of the disable autoplay scripts but forget which one it was, to be honest. The two previously cited scripts attempt to target "all" web sites, not just YouTube. For me, I pause and restart YouTube with the keyboard shortcut "k" and it would not start replaying when using one of those scripts, maybe even with both, I forget at the moment. This is the stop autoplay script that I am currently using and it seems to be working fine for me -- https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/372780-stop-youtube-autoplay/code Please report if this one also works for you. I'm always looking for better YouTube experience, lol. Not having autoplay at page load is one of those improvements that never dawned on me until you brought it up. Note that this one only targets YouTube and does not attempt to stop autoplay on "all" web sites. That limitation also makes this one much easier to see what it does and much much smaller of a script. It literally just forces a pause "continuously" every 200ms after loading a YouTube page. And unloads itself whenever the user pressses any mouse button or keyboard key to interact with the YouTube page. I have noticed a very tiny number of YouTube videos where there is audio within the first 200ms of the video and so you might occasionally hear a tiny blip of audio before the script performs its pause. The 200 could always be reduced to a smaller number if this becomes too frequent, but for the most part 200 seems just fine. Generally, audio that quickly into a video is just a very bad practice on the video itself, no "fade in" time.

Yep, surprisingly similar! I did not have an ad-blocker installed and was looking only at Supermium + Tampermonkey + the four tabs that were posted by the OP at the time. I don't even recall what the Tampermonkey's "thanks for visiting" home page URL even is, but I have a hunch it is likely a bit heavy with ads. The OP at the time, if I recall correctly, wasn't even a fan of ad-blockers.

Be warned that these "user-disabled" settings (in Tampermonkey) do NOT prevent the at-every-browser-launch line-of-communication to Google Analytics. I cannot speak towards "what" data is transmitted as I never allowed this at-every-launch transmission to ever occur, not even from within a VirtualBox VM. I did once give Violentmonkey a trial run. I do not recall having any issues with it, per se.

<quote> On January 6, 2019, Opera banned the Tampermonkey extension from being installed through the Chrome Web Store, claiming it had been identified as malicious.[7] Later, Bleeping Computer was able to determine that a piece of adware called Gom Player would install the Chrome Web Store version of Tampermonkey and likely utilize the extension to facilitate the injection of ads or other malicious behavior. The site stated, "This does not mean that Tampermonkey is malicious, but rather that a malicious program is utilizing a legitimate program for bad behavior," going on to call Opera's blacklisting the extension for this reason a "strange decision".[8] </quote> Personally, I never (and advise others [at least the savvy ones that become members of such sites as MSFN] to also never) install any extension without looking through their javascript files &/or monitoring your DNS connections after installing! I actually also go so far as to never install via Chrome Web Store, or Edge Store, or whatever other "stores" that are out there. I personally quite enjoy downloading source and modifying to my liking before ever even installing. Mainly because I *despise* "phone-home" telemetry and equally *despise* "donation links". Donations should be solicited from where the extension is obtained, not annoyingly from each and every time you view the GUI. Just an opinion, of course.

That line only applies where the original before-adding-shadow font has an alpha channel parameter in its original coloring. While I only spent a few minutes to hunt, I cannot find a web site that defines text with an alpha channel. I would kind of need to see in real life to see how the math is working. ie, if the original alpha is 0.5, maybe it is intentional that the shadow uses 0.45 (plucked from the air, not a mathematical resultant of Opa formula) for visual aesthetics. Again, I'd kind of need to see it in action. edit - on second thought, look at the next line. ie, if (Lum<128) Opa=1. I think right there is your answer on why Opa is not "full range", because Lum<128 is already reducing the Opa range. edit2 - this is also why I'm a fan of this font improvement as a Tampermonkey script. Full control. And even could use "alternate formulae" on 'whitelisted'/'blacklisted' web sites.

Profound disconnects are almost always an "internal struggle". I certainly wouldn't cite MSFN as the proper place to externalize an internal struggle. Coming from a family with adopted siblings with internal struggles, with uncles and siblings both with addictions, with nephews and neices both with psychological trauma, with family with PTSD from military service, I could go on, I can only add that "I feel your pain". But must conclude with "MSFN is not the proper place to externalize". H#LL, as far as that goes, families of this "wide array" are just a "sign of the times" here in 21st century America. Perhaps 21st century ALL COUNTRIES ON THIS BLUE ROCK. But I digress...

Out of intellectual curiousity, please install TAMPERMONKEY and ALLOW it to open its "thank you for installing" HOME PAGE. I have NEVER witnessed Supermium open up OVER A HUNDRED chrome.exe's until I installed TAMPERMONKEY in a fresh Supermium profile and as the first-ever Tampermonkey "default as-is" install.

<OT> My only reference here is that I once had a girlfriend that experienced both and preferred the "surgery". To the point where she would ask any guy interested in her before even considering "dating". The 20s (age, not era) was a very different age. Even more so to be 20-something in today's world. I wouldn't wish being 20-something in today's world on my worst enemy! At least not to anybody who carries a MOBILE PHONE. But I digress... </OT>

While *I* agree with this, I suspect that *most* users will tend not to agree and that in their mind they have "modern capabilities" (a step or two behind but not a thousand steps behind). One only needs to look at bug reports to see this. A "modern web site does not work" so-called bug is reported. It gets "fixed" with the next release or gets re-reported as still being a bug. Has the developers EVER replied with, "We are not a modern browser, we will not implement the functions required on that modern web site." ??? ??? ??? edit - I ask rhetorically as I do not follow PM bug reports. Some do get cited here at MSFN and from those, no, I don't ever recall reading the developers reply with "We are not a modern browser, we will not implement the functions required to resolve that issue."

I suppose there are a few ways to look at this. The font "fingerprint" is basically a javascript MATHEMATICAL function that detects the available fonts on your system and the MATHEMATICAL OUTPUT is a thirty-two digit number. It's that 32-digit number that is your "fingerprint". Just send a completely RANDOM 32-digit number that has NOTHING TO DO with your actual installed fonts! Note also that each "slot" of the 32-digit number is not limited to 0 thru 9. It also contains HEXADECIMAL digits. So each "slot" can be 0 thru 9 or A thru F. That's sixteen available "digits". That's "only" 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 different available fingerprints. 16^32. You could just as easily not use a RANDOM number but just sequentially send in sequence. 000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000001 000000000000000000000000000002 000000000000000000000000000003 000000000000000000000000000004 But DO NOT DO THIS! Why? Because the resulting 32-digit number is then DECYPHERED and I guarantee that a very VERY large number of those 16^32 "fingerprints" result in a DECYPHER ERROR. Look at that this way. A credit card only has SIXTEEN numbers. But there are NOT 10^16 different credit card numbers because the first four digits must correspond to an actual bank and is a FINITE SET.

<OT> Watching "Archive" on YouTube and look what came up. </OT>

Had to google/bing/duck that one. I'm not that old and that hasn't been an "American standard" for a very long time. Precisely! Unfortunately, so do most browsers. Some are easier to "fake" (ie, "blend in with the crowd") than others.

Font fingerprinting has been around for OVER A DECADE. BLOCKING them is NOT the way to INCREASE anonyminity! FONT fingerprinting is one of the EASIEST to CONFUSE. Install a font one day, uninstall it the next. That's TWO fingerprints left behind. An operating system whose fonts NEVER CHANGE stands out like a sore thumb because it only has ONE fingerprint. There are certain fonts that only exist because a user installed LibreOffice or Microsoft Office or runs Vista instead of 10 or 11 or uses Acrobot Reader. The list is endless. If you don't want your fingerprint revealing you run Office 365, then remove the font "Calibri". If you don't want your fingerprint revealing you run Win11, then remove the font "Segoe UI Variable" and "Segoe Fluent Icons". Even an EMOJI font reveals you as you and creates a very unique fingerprint. Unique is NOT good when it comes to a "browser fingerprint". Install Supermium's emoji font and it does not matter if you remove client hints because OS + Browser + that font is a very UNIQUE fingerprint. As for HOW - via JAVASCRIPT. Like almost (but not "all") fingerprinting, YOU BLOCK JAVASCRIPT AND YOU PREVENTED THE FINGERPRINT FROM LANDING ON THE WEB SITE YOU TOUCHED WITH YOUR FINGER.

Not important to me at the moment, but SOMETHING is happening on that TAMPERMONKEY "thanks for installing" HOME PAGE. I shall make note of this and MY APOLOGIES for even RECOMMENDING to install Tampermonkey, I HAD NO IDEA IT OPENED A "thanks for installing" home page that is clearly DOING SOMETHING very VERY suspicious (at least in Supermium on Server 2008 R2).

Supermium is definitely NOT FOR SERVER 2008 R2 !!! Every background chrome.exe should be between 20 to 30 MB or so. Not 120+ per chrome.exe. If you really want to know "why", you would need to ask the creator/author of Supermium at his GitHub page.

I don't have the rebase issue on a fresh install. But every process should not be at 120+ MB either. It's something with the Tampermonkey HOME PAGE. I technically never install ANY extension from the Chrome Web Store. I always download the .crx, MODIFY IT, and use the MODIFIED version. I technically didn't even know Tampermonkey opened a "thanks for installing" web site until 'just now'.

It's the Tampermonkey HOME PAGE that automatically opens right after you install Tampermonkey from the Chrome Web Store (which I generally avoid like the plague!). If you do not KILL THAT HOME PAGE, it keeps opening new chrome.exe's and keeps opening new chrome.exe's, and keeps opening new chrome exe's. I was up to over A HUNDRED befoe I *killed the home page* and *ALL* of the EXTRA chrome.exe's closed with it!

Doesn't really say much. My "one process" of Serpent with only TWO tabs hovers between 650 MB all the way up to about 1.2 GB (at which point it gets "terminated" and started over [UXP browers have HUGE memory leaks!]). I grabbed a copy of Server 2008 SP2 from work. I'll install into a VM and see what Supermium does here.