NotHereToPlayGames

No clue. I do not use DRM of any kind and no user that does has chimed in during the last half a dozen or so times that DRM was enquired about.

I guess that kind of gives a sense of "staying power" for v86 engine if v85 is being used in 2020 smart TV's. I for one do not use YouTube as a barometer to judge a web browser or a TV.

Of course I do! But NOT for downloading and testing new software that I want to test-run. I never "try" software on my live XP machine until that software has been thoroughly tested inside a VirtualBox VM.

I download a TON. But I download from a VM clone and delete the clone when I'm done then create a new clone from my base install VM. The base VM never gets touched. edit - and I never actually "install" software. I extract the installers, poke around to see what the installer is "doing", edit to my liking, MANUALLY copy files, MANUALLY create registry entries. I do not "install" software by "executing" an installer.

Agreed. I haven't used antivirus in well over 22 years (I relocated from one end of this midwest state to the other in the summer of '01, then 9/11 hit, so very easy to recollect). I find them to be gigantic performance bottlenecks! HOWEVER, that doesn't subtract from the "importance" of this thread for a very large segment of the population that "believes in" antivirus, so I still find this thread "useful" (even if not to me personally).

That seems to be the NORM to me. McAfee. Norton. Avast. Avira. Kaspersky. Panda. They all have "uninstall/removal TOOLS" that you have to download because the Operating System's normal "uninstall" routines don't do the job.

This thread is typically too "defensive" to want to participate. But the only thought I have is this - what antivirus product out there does NOT have a service running 24/7 and what antivirus product out there does NOT "collect data" from its users? My perception has always been that they *ALL DO*. The line in the consumer-sand is generally NOT that data is collected, but rather that the data is then SOLD to other companies.

It's also the decreased diameter of the under-inflated tire and the engine rpm relative to the transmission rpm relative to the tire rpm. Unsure which has a greater effect. Bike owners (be it mountain bike, skooter, or motorcycle) can attest to how much more leg power is needed to peddle on under-inflated tires or push-reverse a motorized motorcycle on under-inflated tires.

First, I have to LOL that a thread from 2005 is on the active threads list. Allowed, of course, just LOL. According to here ( https://www.freewayinsurance.com/blog/auto-insurance/fact-or-myth-over-inflating-your-tires-increases-gas-mileage/ ), the decrease in fuel efficiency is 0.4% per 1-psi of under-inflation. After reading several articles that aren't exactly DETAILED enough for the SCIENTIFIC MIND, this 0.4% seems to be when ALL FOUR TIRES are under-inflated 1-psi. Anybody and everybody that has ever owned a vehicle knows that all four tires don't miraculously under-inflate symmetrically across all four. Even if they did, how can any vehicle owner NOT "notice" all four tires being "half flat"? 32 to 40 psi is typical for a passenger car. Let's run with 36. Now deflate all four tires to 18 psi - HALF FLAT. Foreget that this level of under-inflation is visible to anybody over the age of FOUR, let's drive on those HALF FLAT tires anyway. At 0.4% per 1-psi, that 18 psi under-inflation affects our fuel efficiency by 7.2%. Not to underestimate, that is a big number. Per here ( https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.php?t=pTB0208 ), a light duty vehicle is around 22 mpg in 2005. According to here ( https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/11/general-motors-vehicles-averaged-23-mpg-in-2020/ ), the INDUSTRY average was 25 mpg in 2020 (GM's was 23, Honda's was 29). 25 mpg with a 7.2% loss brings us down to 23. What percentage of people are "blind enough" to be driving around in a car with HALF FLAT ALL FOURS? Just saying, this 2 mpg loss by such a tiny portion of the driving population isn't exactly going to "save the planet" from the doom and gloom the environmentalists forecast.

Kind of makes my wonder why a government computer would require any anti-virus at all. I would think a government network had "government" software/hardware as opposed to "commercial" software/hardware.

I applaud the open mind. If I recall correctly, WiseVector X (I forget the actual name) was high on the list at one point in time and it didn't work so well on my setup.

Nope. Rebuild 1 linked in the first post is the latest. The embedded translate context menu item no longer functions in the "regular" and that context menu item was already removed in "ungoogled". Any links in later discussions are superceded by the links in the first post.

It's always kind of been a fine line on what off-topic enquiries are allowed and which cause an uprising. Just pointing out that your attempt at making Bing your default and removing Google as your default would have been answered faster if it were in the correct thread. I personally don't mind off-topic enquiries, no conversation I've ever had in my entire life didn't "wander" from one topic to the next at seemingly random moments, it's not just me, it's human nature, that's how CONVERSATIONS unfold. The strictest of adherance to "on-topic" conversations would have you walk away three senctences in to basically every conversation a normal human is ever engaged in - that would make you the RUDEST person on the planet. I see online conversations not much removed from that paradigm, only the RUDEST of members throw out a "off-topic, move on" each and every time they encounter one. Hovering over their keyboard like a hawk or eagle in a tree tracking a field mouse or bunny rabbit, quick to POUNCE with their "gotcha moment". Kind of like how members LOVE to correct sspelllinnnngg mistaques hear at EM ES EFF EN. But I digress... </end off-topic>

At first, I had NO idea what you were talking about !!! "_oogle" ??? NEVER HEARD OF IT !!! So thanks for the SCREENCAP because now I can see what you are talking about - it's GOOGLE, not "_oogle". I thought maybe this "_oogle" thing was something Humming Owl came up with and not your "fear" of typing out Google. The handling of extensions is ON PURPOSE - if you want the Chrome Web Store to communicate with Google (why would you if you label them as "_oogle") then you MUST use the REGULAR 360Chrome version and NOT the "ungoogled" 360Chrome version. This is also true for Official Ungoogled Chromium, the Chrome Web Store is intentionally "broken". Regarding search engines, set your Bing as DEFAULT then you can remove GOOGLE (default). edit - ps: your enquiry regarding 360Chrome or any future enquires regarding Official Ungoogled Chrome should not be in Roytam's "My Browser Builds" thread.

Already did. Did you?

Not sure why, but feel free. It's for the Admins to resolve. Brilliant detective work though.

I've long held the belief that VPN's should not be granted login access. I no longer think that, but I admit that I used to. I know that other countries possibly require VPN's in order to reach MSFN so we perhaps need to allow VPN access. But I will submit that any MSFN Member with a history of suspicious activity (which I am not claiming that legacyfan falls into this category, I'm just "talking out loud"), should that MSFN Member be denied VPN login privileges? Moreno Valley, California hosts several VPN servers based on a quick non-thorough search. So does Los Angeles, California.

Not relevant.

I also prefer a totally wiped clean base-state session-only type of profile for my Roytam browsers. I find "loaders" more powerful than a .bat file but both are sufficient depending on what you're wanting to do. With the "loader" route, I often have three or four loader .exe's for the same Roytam browser and can change the .exe's icon accordingly. My NM28 has four loader .exe's all associated with their own .ini and all with their own moon logo icon. NM28 was my default before I migrated to 360Chrome and I find myself returning to NM28 every once in a while now that I can pay my utility bills just fine now. But it can likely never be my 100% default due to I must be able to make calls from Google Voice and that's a no-go anything non-Chrome (BNav used to work, but that was over two years ago). The loader route is what Official Pale Moon Portable uses and it is derived from winPenPack.

Found it! Within the last week or two, I opted to ENABLE #enable-experimental-web-platform-features in chrome://flags (saved in Local State file which I also migrated when cutting corners). It is that flag that crashes music.youtube.com. I suppose it could be a "combination" of things, but I disable (default) that flag and music.youtube.com WORKS, I enable and it does NOT work. I wish that flag could be enabled/disabled per domain or something instead of "all on" versus "all off" because I seem to recall enabling that flag was the "fix" for two or three web sites discussed here at MSFN so that's why I opted to enable. I don't even remember what those two or three web sites even were - meaning I'll likely never visit them ever again, lol. But music.youtube.com on the other hand, as much as I like Jango for background music or regular YouTube for background music, I can see liking music.youtube.com at some point in time, so back to DISABLED for that flag for me.

Found the culprit. When I switched from using 13.5.1030 to 13.5.2036, I copied my 1030's Web Data and Preferences files over to 2036 instead of building my profile anew. Unsure just what is no longer compatible, "rookie mistake", I was just trying to cut some corners and generally always build my profile anew with any new build. Funny how it took over two months to stumble into a web site that didn't like the 1030 files, lol.

What user agent are you guys using on music.youtube.com?

music.youtube.com definitely does not work for me. hmmm

Oh, but by your screencap, you are SIGNED IN. I don't have a YouTube account. Can you visit music.youtube without being signed in?

Hmm. I'll have to try at home. Here at work, certain domains are blocked. YouTube is not blocked, so it would surprise me that music.youtube would be blocked.