NotHereToPlayGames

Maybe... But so is any "minority" that can play the "race card", so is any "minority" that can claim their "kind" is discriminated against, et cetera. Here in America, our justice system is flawed, make no mistake about that. But... did O.J. Simpson "get away with murder" because he was "rich"? Or because he was a minority being accused by the majority. Again, don't read between the lines, the American justice system is flawed! I am not claiming that it isn't. Here in America, mob mentality rules!

Right there is your "first mistake". There are a ton of ad-blockers out there. You would have to try several to find one that fits your needs. They are not "one size fits all". SN's suggestions are the most popular. Odds are high that you will be happy with any one of them. But there are others. As far as that goes, "newbies" that don't really want to learn the full how-to to use an ad blocker are likely best served NOT by adding an extension to their browser, but using a browser with an "embedded" adblock feature. More "advanced" users tend not to use the embedded types, but that does not invalidate their "worth" for newbies/beginners (who later promote to non-embedded). You really have to "trial and error" and see for yourself which you like best.

There is NO WAY for us to answer that! We would have to know what web sites you were visiting before, during, and after this notification popped up.

The creator has already cited at GitHub that he is returning to normal defaults. I doubt that he will release an updated v126, but v132 will be back to normal defaults.

The creator of Supermium enabled it because users at the time requested it ( read here ) in order to be able to log into "Twitch" (whatever that is).

From work, I can only report on the latest official Edge v134 - which "should" be the same exact behavior as official Chrome v134. I could check in an official Chrome v134 if really needed, but I would rather not have to spend that much more time on this, to be honest. The identity page does not work when the flag is enabled (non-default) - The identity page does work when the flag is disabled (default) -

Nor are they coded to go off in March of 2025. The "time bomb activation" is improperly coded - it will crash on August 1 of 2024 it will crash on September 1 of 2024 it will crash on October 1 of 2024 it will crash on November 1 of 2024 it will crash on December 1 of 2024 But it will NOT crash on - January 1 of 2025 February 1 of 2025 March 1 of 2025 April 1 of 2025 May 1 of 2025 June 1 of 2025 July 1 of 2025 But then it WILL crash on - August 1 of 2026 September 1 of 2026 October 1 of 2026 November 1 of 2026 December 1 of 2026 But it will NOT crash on - January 1 of 2027 et cetera

It's bigger than that! The "problem" is that the author set a flag to ENABLE EXPERIMENTAL features to make v126 compatible with web sites requiring v13x. But then KEPT that EXPERIMENTAL flag ENABLED in v132 (enabling EXPERIMENTAL features that will not become stable/vetted/good until v135, or v138, or v140, etc). THIS IS A PROBLEM for folks thinking their browser is "secure" because these EXPERIMENTAL features are designated as EXPERIMENTAL for a reason!

Okay, that was more than "two words". But come on, you cannot fully answer your question in "two words". Oh, wait, I CAN answer in TWO WORDS == SUPERMIUM ONLY.

Supermium author changed the naming of an internal flag and also changed its default state. This is only in Supermium v126 R6 and higher. So all Supermium versions beginning with v126 R6 behave *DIFFERENTLY* than all other v126 and higher for *ALL OTHER* Chrome/Chromium forks. This causes *great confusion* for anybody UPGRADING and keeping a profile from R5 or older. Especially if that profile sets/unsets this flag. The UPGRADED profile now has this flag doing the OPPOSITE of why the user set/unset it in the first place. Most importantly - this is Supermium Only. Users that set flags now have to comb through all of their flags to see if the Supermium Author now has it doing the OPPOSITE of all other Chrome/Chromium Forks "on the planet". Unless, of course, those forks don't fork from upstream but fork from Supermium directly (I have not checked nor tried any forks of Supermium, if they do exist).

This thread is nothing more than a bunch of know-it-all's (myself included, lol) talking in circles because, well, because we know it all. There is now a REAL followup to this at GitHub (which I have been requesting all along) - https://github.com/win32ss/supermium/issues/1229 And this **IS** a Supermium issue! No other Chrome Forks changed the name of the flag and its default state, only Supermium did this, no others! "Your subjectivity has biased your objectivity."

I have 'normal' Chrome v122 and 'normal' Edge at work. Both of them display the identity page correctly. Unknown version of Edge (company IT updates it often). I can prevent company IT from updating my Chrome v122. I also can *not* run any Ungoogled at work. I can only run Official Chrome or Official Edge. But have more control over which version of Official Chrome. I've tried over a DOZEN different forks of Chrome/Chromium v126, ungoogled and normal, clienthints enabled/disabled, different useragents, comparing flags/command switches - this really is something that is *ONLY* happening in Supermium R6 and higher. It is not flag-related, it is not client hints, it is not user agent, it is something in Supermium R6 and higher that DOES NOT EXIST in any other v126. It would be one thing if a flag or command switch solved this in OTHER v126's also, but again, this is something that is happening *ONLY* in Supermium R6 and higher (requiring a flag to fix). Again, it would be one thing if Browser X v126 was effected and it required the flag *AND* Supermium R6 v126 was effected and it required the flag. THERE ARE NO OTHER v126's THAT NEED THIS FLAG TO RENDER THAT PAGE. NO OTHER CHROME FORKS ARE EFFECTED. NONE! Okay, none that I can find (there are a LOT of forks!), and I spent all weekend HUNTING. This is something *ISOLATED* to Supermium R6 and higher.

Supermium R6 and higher is BROKEN. Users should consider R5 as the most-recent working version of Supermium. Creator should be brought to this attention at GitHub (will not be by me!). Out of the box, no changes, R5 works (for cited web site) in XP and in 10. Out of the box, no changes, R6 does not work (for cited web site) in XP or in 10. R5 and R6 are both v126's and I cannot find any other Chrome/Chromium v126's to not work for the cited web site. This is a Supermium R6 and higher issue ONLY. It's not going to "go away" in new releases without the creator addressing whatever he introduced in R6 and is carrying over to everything newer. That's the best I can gather, at least. I really strongly and wholeheartedly feel this needs addressed at GitHub (again, will not be by me!).

Keyword is "suggested". VistaLover would have to stop back in and tell us if he is or is not enabling/disabling. Until then, we should not be "guessing" VistaLover's configuration. As a test, we could revert the flag and add this polyfill. At the very least rule out one of the flag features. https://glitch.com/edit/#!/close-watcher-demo?path=polyfill.js

no sh#t... they communicate through headers... PERIOD... done here, you just want to confuse issues instead of solve them...

It's gonna require someone with a Discord account to track down. Maybe it can be polyfilled. Maybe not.

For me, v132 FAILS that web site in XP and 10. I don't recall, as I'm not at home at the moment, but I'm fairly certain that v126 R5 works in both and that the issue "half-started" (fails in XP, works in 10) in v126 R6 and became "full-blown" (fails in XP and fails in 10) in v132.

That's from Official Ungoogled, not Supermium. I only run Supermium from inside VMs and I've devoted enough time to this before leaving for work as it is. The author uses the Official Ungoogled patches. The results "should" be the same. I have not confirmed this directly. No time to at the moment. I leave the rest of this "debate" for the rest of you. Moving on... "Toodles"...

I will not waste my time. I'm here to help DAVE resolve his issue. The web site in question DOES NOT send Client Hints headers. PERIOD! Your conspiracy theories are helping no one! Moving on... "Toodles"...

I don't think that it is Client Hints. Repeating Conspiracy Theories over and over does not help find a solution. v132 has a flag to disable Client Hints and that is having no effect on the rendering of britishgas.co.uk v122 pre-dates Client Hints and changing User Agent has no effect on the rendering of britishgas.co.uk Needs to become a GitHub Issue.

Perhaps a GitHub ticket needs created? Just-downloaded no-changes Supermium v132 in XP x86 - Just-downloaded no-changes Supermium v132 in Win10 x64 -

Correction. It is something inside Supermium. I get the "correct" rendering (includes elements above and immediately below red bar) in 360Chrome v13.5 in both XP and in Win10. So that rules out it being the OS. But I do not think it is flag or command line.

I can confirm that this is not a Supermium issue, but it is the Windows Version that is making the difference. My Supermium 126 renders your (and VistaLover) view in Win10. But the same exact Supermium 126 carried over to XP (no flag changes, no command line changes, no changes whatsoever) renders the version without the elements above and immediately below the red bar. I didn't dig any deeper than that.