NotHereToPlayGames

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!

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!

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.

I'm roughly 1,755,561,600 seconds old. But I don't feel a day over 1,000,000.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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"

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.

That is too complicated.

I tried to simply copy-and-paste directly from my [major] Tampermonkey userscript. No clue why MSFN would not allow it (because I've done it before!). All I can figure is MSFN is still bending over backwards to prevent SPAM ATTACKS - which is great and well-needed. But at what cost? I mean, the only way NEW MEMBERS can join MSFN is if they somehow manage to "coordinate" their new membership via THIRD-PARTY forums.

No worries here. I have the 36-line version saved also (I have it labeled as [minor]). I've never actually needed it but it *IS* a "confirmed fix" for a CHASE web site so I keep it just-in-case. I don't have a CHASE account to know if the [major] version does or does not work on CHASE. If it DOES, then I would throw away the [minor] and just resort to the [major]. But if the [minor] does have SOME web sites that it does work on, then until I can prove that it works where the [major] does not, then I keep both for just-in-case.

Thanks for tracking it down! Yep, that's the one that I use (deactivated by default, I only activate polyfills on a when-needed basis).

The structuredclone that WORKS is 251 lines long! The structuredclone that does NOT work is only 36 lines long!

MSFN is not letting me post the WORKING structuredclone polyfill. Moving on, got more important things to attend to at the moment then to figure out why MSFN isn't letting me post the WORKING polyfill.

That structuredclone polyfill is very limited and was only discussed as a fix for Chase. That is not the structuredclone polyfill that I used and even screencap'd as WORKING for the pdf viewer. Use this one instead: <test - issues with posting at MSFN>

You're not wanting to use Tampermonkey and polyfilling via Tampermonkey. Kind of not "our fault" when we give a method that WORKS but you don't want to use that method.

That's because that is only one half, one third, one fourth of the problem. Only after you resolve array.at does structuredclone error show up. Then after you resolve that, you're likely to encounter even more errors. You do not need an online viewer to view .pdf's - download it then drag and drop into 360Chrome, bypass that "viewer" -- https://storage.enganchesaragon.com/public-websites/ecommerce/Inst/C0801E.pdf

Please provide an example web site.

That was me also. And I had to TEACH MYSELF how to trim XP to the basics. Therefore, yeah, you can also teach yourself to trim 10 to the basics.