Because it was in the “social posts” section that was renamed to “off topic”, good sir .
I will move it to somewhere better.

See the above post...
Reference the following:

https://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=835.0
https://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=6143.0

...pertaining to image sizes and embedded images within posts.

---

Since the recent transition / upgrade, it seems that the Insert Image button under Modify (message) no longer auto inserts the (bracketed) img /img as it did previously for manually embedding image sizes.

Now instead of using that button and manually inserting and defining viewing width in that manner... NOW manually inserting size parameters text strings works to define onscreen viewing of larger files (at a smaller size) for older browsers without using that Insert Image button.

Here’s an example using a 900 pixel width file embedded with two different display widths, defined in two different strings. (See: https://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=5364.msg54976#msg54976)



Again, refer to: https://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=5364.msg54976#msg54976

---

It was previously recommended that embedded images be limited to or defined as 300 pixels (keeping in mind limitations of older browsers / smaller screens). For the last few years I’ve been using 600 pixel width embeds instead as base. So the question here is... for those of you using older browsers, is 600 pixels too much?

Who cares? Well, for those that wish to embed larger, much higher detailed images... and for those with larger screens and newer browsers... an original 1200 pixel width image displays very well on a 20” monitor and is much easier to view smaller details via a “click” on that smaller defined, 300 or 600 pixel width embedded image.

So, 300 pixels or 600 pixels for “clickable” embedded images - from originals up to 900 or 1200 pixels wide?

---

*And why are these guidelines now under the Off Topic heading?

P.S. Original image used here and on reference page, courtesy of @gert79.
 

In the macrumors post that I linked in a previous reply (top of this page) is an attachment.

Try the get-new-world-rom.command script first.

So, if I understand it correctly, I have to install DirectHW.kext first by using KextUtil.sh, right?
And then I have to put flashrom binary into what? /usr/bin/ ?

Nice!

A bit more detailed instructions would be helpful. All I can see at the moment is a ton of .c files. Do I have to compile them first? And where/which is the script you're talking about?

In the macrumors post that I linked in a previous reply (top of this page) is an attachment.

Try the get-new-world-rom.command script first.

The read-rom-internal.command might work but it might cause a hang. It would be interesting to know if there's a Mac that this method works with. @dosdude1 has a linux version of flashrom that uses this method which works for some Macs.