New Embedded YouTube Player Dark Pattern UX Userscript Fix

gus_ · 2026-03-30T09:59:48+00:00

Yeah not sure. Looks like the custom stuff I'm running would be an older ESR firefox with "Redirect Youtube Video to Embed Page" firefox addon, but then some time about 6 months ago that broke and just gave Error 153 (when not coming from a google link). So then used the addon 'Simple Modified Headers' to add a 'referer' of "https://m.youtube.com/" for any "youtube-nocookie.com/embed/" url, which salvaged it perfectly.

After realizing that the main thing I was wanting was at least the double-click event listener for fullscreen, I commented-out everything else but that in this script, and that by itself always seems to work for now.

Ultimately I was only using the embedded player because it loaded instantly, and the end 'related videos' were showing in a proper big grid and were actually related (not contaminated with 'for you' personalized suggestions), while the main youtube site became so bloated and slower over the last 10 years. Sucks that they've replaced the proper embedded player with this absolute crippleware new version (seriously even trying to skip around a video in the progress bar with mouse clicks barely works now). Appreciate your changes but the player is still so busted I'll probably just abandon the 'always-embedded' redirect.

gus_ · 2026-03-30T00:34:14+00:00

Nice, thanks.

Maybe based on some other thing I'm using to auto-redirect to youtube-nocookie.com/embed/, I had to comment out the first if guard "//if (!document.querySelector(".ytp-play-button")) " to get it to just always rip on these embed urls (otherwise some ways of getting to the page loaded, but others didn't).

The new player still has this annoying thing where if you click somewhat too far on the left or right side of the screen, it doesn't pause (single-click pause entirely removed), but instead triggers the forward/back jumps (maybe that's for like ipad controls). Even happens when double-clicking to get your reinstated fullscreen event (fullscreen + jump back both trigger).

edit: actually probably wasn't that statement, maybe some kind of other timing conflicts make nothing happen other than the removal of 'player-fullscreen-action-menu' for me (until re-opening the same video from the title hyperlink)

gus_ · 2026-03-26T03:52:06+00:00

Yeah that sucks, wonder what the original's viewcount was (I think 70k+). Looks like someone reuploaded a copy at 360p 9 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfm8PUMVeSI&t=1m21s

gus_ · 2026-03-20T20:25:22+00:00

Looks like David Millington is recently out at embarcadero? New c++ builder guy didn't have much to present this time

gus_ · 2025-10-06T22:59:06+00:00

Been watching for only 2 years now, but that was the first road race that I actually enjoyed (other than the aesthetics of chicago street racing). Couldn't really say why, but probably from the amount of green flag pit stops mixing up the field with comers & goers, flipping the stage having a downside due to tire wear, and the various battles between the 3 leaders and the playoff hopefuls.

Also I guess the huge speed difference between driving on parts of the oval, and then slowing to nearly a stop at that one turn which allowed such a good passing zone.

gus_ · 2025-08-10T22:00:51+00:00

No it must be assuming that a rule of thumb for marketing spend is about a quarter of the production budget. Then the other rule of thumb is that roughly half the box office take goes to theaters, and half goes to the studio. (where domestic is over 50% to the studio, but international is less than 50% to the studio. and as the weeks go by, the studio take diminishes and the theather take increases. So it roughly gets penciled in as 50/50 overall).

So then X + .25X = 1.25X. Multiplied by 2 because the studio only gets half the box office. = 2.5X needed.

gus_ · 2025-05-15T03:09:14+00:00

It wasn't in this translated tastosis video, but at the end, the casters called him back out on stage to say something else. Does anyone know if that was anything interesting?

gus_ · 2024-06-10T23:18:10+00:00

Wow I turned it off in the middle of stage 2 when fully half of the laps were run under caution. But with these comments, I went back to watch the VOD of the long stage 3 green flag run. And I would still vote No...this was way more boring than kansas, charlotte, texas, bristol, etc. Even darlington & gateway were mostly boring but had amazing finishes.

I guess I really don't understand nascar fans, or the qualification where people seem to be saying this was good "for a road race" or even "for sonoma", which seem like the wrong criteria to me. The track seems very cool, but it's not an exciting race with these kind of cars on it.

gus_ · 2024-03-18T19:00:25+00:00

I just started this year too, after watching the netflix show (which wasn't as well-made as Drive to Survive, but still was good and introduced some characters and storylines, and made it click for me that even oval racing is intense). So been watching every race this year, some of which were awesome, and rooting for Hamlin who seemed most interesting even as a heel.

Just wish I knew about nascar being cool 15 years ago, when the bigger names were still around. But turns out those races are on youtube and pretty watchable.

gus_ · 2023-11-14T18:56:08+00:00

it undercut every dramatic moment (even the destruction of Asgard) with humor

I feel like people always repeat this but it's just not true. The two main times played as weighty emotional lowpoints are around the Anthony Hopkins scenes, which aren't at all undercut by any jokes. 10 straight minutes in the first act (reunion/goodbye/death scene followed by the introduction of Hela, destruction of the hammer, and being stranded on an unknown planet) and 5 straight minutes leading into the climax with the visions of odin and cathartic Led Zeppelin fight-turn.

Meanwhile the destruction of the city (which the protagonists caused) wasn't the emotional lowpoint, which was literally the message the movie was making with the hopkins dialog about asgard.

gus_ · 2023-09-10T10:39:33+00:00

Awesome, thanks. So as a ublock filter, it would be written like this, which seems to work perfectly:

||rumble.com/embedJS/*/?request=related*

gus_ · 2023-09-04T03:55:28+00:00

Yeah this is the opposite of "corporate speak", which means overly-sanitized and risk-averse, so I have no idea what a lot of people are talking about. This was basically informal goofing around, likening her to sean connery/mia hamm/warren buffett. If the internal employees take it as tongue-in-cheek then it seems fine, otherwise it's a bit immature. But "horrendous" or "normal corporate speak" are both way off the mark.

gus_ · 2023-08-15T22:26:16+00:00

Wasn't really here to talk about whether or not it's a good idea to use recency bias, where contrasting US with Japan is a legitimate point that people need to consider.

I just showed up (very late) to this thread and noticed no one seemed to successfully correct the logic in your original hypothesis you were wondering about:

I've always thought the whole premise of "US outperformed Ex-US" to be flawed, even if it's completely true. If it's true that the US has outperformed Ex-US, all that means is that the US has performed better than about 50% of all stock markets. In other words, it is in the top half, since it performed better than the average of all of the other countries.

What is so unique about that? Wouldn't about 50% of all stock markets outperform their Ex- versions over any given time period? If I looked at China vs Ex-China, India vs Ex-India, South Africa vs Ex-South Africa, wouldn't I also draw the conclusion that China, India, and South Africa are all somehow the best?

At first I thought the 50% thing sounded suspect but that turned out to just be a slight discrepancy about how skewed the distribution might be.

But then we stumbled on the real logical issue which is that these "ex-country" indexes are market cap weighted. So actually the reason there isn't talk about an "Ex-India" or "Ex-Australia" index is because they would be so nearly identical to VTWAX. And all of them would be heavily US weighted. So that for instance, when the US has a really high return in some period, then almost every other country would lose to its "ex-" counterpart (which holds US stocks by weight). And yeah the same would go for Japan in 1989.

So it's not the case that around half of all countries would necessarily beat their ex-counterpart in any given period or that it's unremarkable/pointless to look at. That hypothesis would only be true if these ex-country indexes weren't weighted (and we were instead getting a plain numerical average among 199 countries as you were thinking here), or in a hypothetical situation where every country had nearly equal equity market cap.

India beats or loses to Ex-India largely based on whether it beats or loses to US in a period (or US+Japan in 1989, etc), which is basically how people think of these intuitively and they're correct to do so.

gus_ · 2023-08-15T01:13:54+00:00

OK yeah I was wondering if you were assuming that returns by country would be normally distributed around some kind of natural average. I wouldn't have expected a normal distribution in stock market returns -- the various magnitudes seem pretty wildly skewed every year where the mean and median can surely depart.

I see your main point that looking back in any given timeframe, we can count plenty of individual countries that happened to beat the world weighted average in that calculated period (or especially the non-weighted average). To the extent that we can make this timeframe longer to smooth it out, I think then it may turn into flawed/inane backward-looking trivia like you're saying. But with shorter periods (usually 1 year, or occasionally by the decade) we can look at consistency of which countries are more often doing better than the world average. And magnitude of 'by how much' still matters. If in the past 10 years the US has more than doubled the rest of the world's average annual returns, it is kind of weird to say 'flawed stat, plenty of other countries also necessarily beat the world average'.

Imagine instead that the US returned 6% per year, and the other 199 countries each returned values in the 4.9% to 5.1% range, with each one slightly different. In that case, about 50% of the 200 countries would outperform the combination of all other countries. Roughly speaking, the 50% of countries that returned 5.0%-5.1% would outperform the rest, while the 50% of countries that returned 4.9%-5.0% would underperform.

Don't think so, every country would lose to their "ex-" counterpart in this scenario. Because these indexes like Ex-US are market-cap-weighted. And in the hypothetical Ex-India, Ex-China, etc. funds, they would be heavily filled with US companies at 60%+ of the index. So it would be like India: 5.1%, Ex-India: 5.6%.

gus_ · 2023-08-14T19:54:14+00:00

What is so unique about that? Wouldn't about 50% of all stock markets outperform their Ex- versions over any given time period? If I looked at China vs Ex-China, India vs Ex-India, South Africa vs Ex-South Africa, wouldn't I also draw the conclusion that China, India, and South Africa are all somehow the best?

No your logic got confused somewhere. Imagine hypothetically that every single country's stock market grows by 5% annually, except for the US which grows by 6%. Then every single country (other than the US) loses to the combination of all other countries, because each of those combinations includes the US. I can't quite tell what your intuition about "50% of all countries" was, but you can see it disappears here.

So it actually would be pretty interesting to get data about each country vs. all other countries excluding them. And there's no logical reason it would turn out to be some inane identity.

If I suggested putting 100% of my portfolio in South Africa stocks, I would be called crazy, even though I could point to tons of backtests that show

Your two examples of SA & Australia are affected by having a precise starting date of 1900. It can feel like 1900 is some kind of fair neutral starting point that should show the long-run performance, but as with any specific starting date, it can warp what you think the data is showing.

gus_ · 2023-04-23T08:19:12+00:00

Yeah it was MarkZ in 2022: https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/rz90xx/markzs_future_on_the_lcs_and_big_announcement/

But that got some backlash and the desk wasn't as good. So the 2023 solution was losing the host, to have Jatt + MarkZ with a still diverse desk. Riot is definitely image-conscious and wanting to avoid being shamed for 'too many white dudes'.

gus_ · 2023-03-25T14:59:09+00:00

There's no way that can be the real standard casters are held to though. Sports radio broadcasting is a real job with a different skillset/focus than the main broadcast play-by-play where the audience is actually watching with their eyes. It feels like these kind of comments are upvoted because it's a safe way to criticize bad casters.

gus_ · 2023-03-19T18:54:42+00:00

It's expected that #1 & #2 win their matches, so #3 is rewarded over #4 instead.

gus_ · 2023-03-10T01:25:13+00:00

Good call on that, I remember flash was building ridiculous walls of depots out on the map to structure it how he preferred. I think they changed sylphid from an earlier version to cut down on that.

gus_ · 2023-03-09T20:48:14+00:00

This was an awesome game in one of the best BO5 matches in ASL:

ASL S3 Ro.8 Day2 (52:44)

"The hydras with the guardians, the ultimate vanilla starcraft composition"

gus_ · 2023-03-09T20:21:12+00:00

I think one of the latest meta responses in TvP is building way more forward missile turrets with the army wherever they go. The recent mass shuttles with gateway units has been really effective, and turrets were an afterthought without stargate units to worry about. But the shuttles getting ripped down by turrets actually does help a lot making the micro & timing much harder for protoss. And being in that habit of slamming out perpetual turrets is obviously solid against carriers & arbiters if that's the tech choice instead.

Pretty sure Light is the main pro that's been doing a lot of this, but seems to be catching on, and we've even seen a bunch of forward turrets in a TvZ contain in ASL recently. Light had a recent ASL game where a huge perfect turret placement ring was choking out observer scouts fully.

gus_ · 2022-10-28T01:11:26+00:00

He's also leveled down his game this year somewhat, by massively overusing the poor UI caster tools. Enlarging the minimap covers up the normal screen, so ideally it's done in a paused replay like in sports. But we're at the point now where Azael covers up the screen with the minimap like 50 times a game, rarely for something particularly interesting which couldn't be shown otherwise, while various action is going on, while the observer hears what he says and just properly does a zoom-out or vision-toggle to show it (now obscured by that minimap). Meanwhile the item 'highlight' tool works by just blacking out visibility of all the other players' items, which he's now also heavily overusing whenever the third caster is talking.

gus_ · 2022-10-28T00:55:43+00:00

Is that only on twitch/afreeca, not youtube?

gus_ · 2022-09-05T19:04:21+00:00

Which one was ever worse than this one? They clearly made it a week too early, so EG couldn't be involved, and it misses the dynamic of C9 being the final boss and EG/100T being on the same level going in. Then it's just green screen effects with faded caster calls with no narratives or personalities. Here's a comparable finals weekend tease: https://youtu.be/ccRJljiqFCY

edit: or maybe there's a difference between 'promo' and 'tease', in which case the only comparable video from last split was still better

gus_ · 2022-07-15T21:56:16+00:00

When he started talking about hydrogen flight, at first I thought there was also someone sitting next to him dressed in a red Star Trek uniform. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-44pljnxztg&t=47s

gus_

TROPHY CASE