I don't think it's blocked. On Firefox it's just blank, not even a thumbnail, but it works fine with IE9.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by luxury_pie.

Actually, addendum / full disclosure to that: The video wouldn't load at all in my Firefox (I get "Video not found") but I assumed that was because it wasn't playing nice with my combination of NoScript, Adblock, and Cookie Monster plugins.

I tried Chrome, and it successfully played the ad so I made the post above, but then I got the same "Video not found" when it got past the ad and tried to cycle through to the actual video.

I then tried in IE (my "last resort" browser), which I have just today "upgraded" to IE9, only to discover that apparently there isn't a solid version of Flash for IE9 on Win7 x64.

I'll try again later.

Wow, great explanation! Thanks!
>> ^DonanFear:

>> ^Skeeve:
Very interesting.
I'm surprised that IE 9, which can only run on Microsoft's newest OS, only made it to 95/100 on Acid Test 3, while on my computer (running Vista) Chrome gets to 100/100 flawlessly. Why would they release a "brand new" browser that couldn't keep up with an existing and competing one?

They did this on purpose. They didn't implement features that aren't finalized and might change in the future to avoid ending up with another IE6 situation where sites/apps made for IE6 don't work in newer browsers because they don't interpret the code the same way the old browser does. In theory a page made for IE9 should work fine in IE11 or Chrome 17 as long as the new browser supports the standard and the features supported by IE9 don't change.
Google uses a different approach and releases new versions supporting all the latest stuff very frequently. The problem with this is that a site that tested fine with for example Chrome 9 will not necessarily work properly in future versions because parts of the standard aren't set in stone and might change.

>> ^Skeeve:

Very interesting.
I'm surprised that IE 9, which can only run on Microsoft's newest OS, only made it to 95/100 on Acid Test 3, while on my computer (running Vista) Chrome gets to 100/100 flawlessly. Why would they release a "brand new" browser that couldn't keep up with an existing and competing one?


They did this on purpose. They didn't implement features that aren't finalized and might change in the future to avoid ending up with another IE6 situation where sites/apps made for IE6 don't work in newer browsers because they don't interpret the code the same way the old browser does. In theory a page made for IE9 should work fine in IE11 or Chrome 17 as long as the new browser supports the standard and the features supported by IE9 don't change.

Google uses a different approach and releases new versions supporting all the latest stuff very frequently. The problem with this is that a site that tested fine with for example Chrome 9 will not necessarily work properly in future versions because parts of the standard aren't set in stone and might change.

Good catch. I'd say wait and see how IE9 final. Not that Microsoft ever listens, but they actually put some ad dollars into Reddit as part of some kind of feedback campaign and (thank Zeus) most of the users are clamoring for better CSS rendering as the top priority.

A quiet and garbled meander through the UI of IE9.

Still it's good to see Microsoft making some effort to catch up to FF and Chrome in the browser department.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Bummer. Hopefully we can find a fix. On the plus side MS has released a developer preview of IE9 which has HTML5 implemented. I don't think it's available to the general public though. I wish they would just give in and use Webkit for their engine. That was a very smart move on Google's part for Chrome.