NotHereToPlayGames

I should also add that when I first trial-ran "arkenfox" several months ago, I did not do so in a brand-new fresh-and-clean profile. I have since revisited and without arkenfox, IceCat (v115 ESR) Speedometer 3.0 scores range from 5.06 to 5.10. With arkenfox, my scores range from 6.00 to 6.17. I'll cite that as a significant improvement. And while IceCat does not yet have a v128 ESR branch (I patiently await), the v115 scores are HALF that which I get in an Ungoogled Chromium Fork (Huiaei v131) which range from 12.3 to 12.6. Before finding the Huiaei fork, my Official Ungoogled v122 only scored 9.3 to 9.7.

I still kind of find your benchmark scores "confusing". ie, they don't seem, to me at least, to "agree" with majority of publicly shared scores. By that, I do specifically refer to your ability, in the past at least, to score higher scores in Firefox than Edge. Your most recent post does report what I would expect - a higher score in Edge than in Firefox. I cite that as a newfound Big Fan of IceCat - but I cannot for the life of me to get it to score anywhere near as good as Chrome/Chromium forks - NOWHERE NEAR. I found this site interesting as far as benchmark historical trends - Source Link - https://arewefastyet.com/win11/benchmarks/raptor-desktop-speedometer3?numDays=365 You can even see some "bump-ups" in the historical trend. Early Nov 2024 bump-up for Firefox would be right around v132 and v133. So tests from v131 through v134 would prove interesting. There's another Firefox slight bump-up in mid Feb 2025. Would be right around v135. So perhaps directly comparing v130 to v135 would also prove quite interesting. Chrome's July 2024 bump would be approx v127. Chrome's Nov 2024 bump would be approx v130. Chrome's Feb 2025 bump would be approx v132/v133.

My bad. I saw the file name "VxKex" and that threw me.

Don't blame me, blame the author for claiming that it does.

AGREED! Trip cited that only ONE cert is expiring. That is easy to track down, easy to export from a newer Firefox, easy to import to preferred-older. Moving on... "Toodles"...

D.Draker - there is no need to be so... no adjective is going to be typed! I offered a solution that I have used in the past, one that works, one that may POSSIBLY be considered "over-complicated", Trip can use the info or disregard it, no skin off my back either way.

I did not know that there is a "cert folder". I provided a solution that I know works as I've had to implement it in the past (on Pale Moon, not on Firefox, but they are identical for the sake of this discussion). Over-complicated? Perhaps, especially if it is indeed as easy as copying a "cert folder". Speaking solely for myself, I would *NOT* want to copy an entire cert database from "new to old", I would only copy (export from new, import to old) ONE CERT at a time, not "all at once". My thinking though is from the XP Days. There are certs that work in Win7+ that do not work in XP. So why import them into XP?

Track down "which" certificate is expiring. Export that certificate from a newer version of Firefox running in a VM. Import the certificate to the version of Firefox that you want to keep.

Here ( link ) is a v127 that is supposed to work on Vista with the extended kernel. I do not run Vista or extended kernels but I have ran this browser in Win10. In fact, it actually dethroned my Official Ungoogled v122 on Win10 because it scores higher on "not everybody trusts" benchmark scores. On my system, Official Ungoogled v122 scores 156 thru 162, this v127 scores 204 thru 211 [Speedometer 2.1]. I've since found an even better ungoogled fork v131 ( link ) [scores 208 thru 214, basically within margin of error but is a "newer" engine] but that one is "OT" for this thread, just citing for reference.

YOU POSTING TOPICS (RUSSIA) OF PMS VIOLATES FORUM RULES. PERIOD. I'M DONE HERE! You always "toe the line" and are VERY GOOD AT IT.

Your thread regarding Russian Disagreements via PM violates forum rules. Please remove.

NO! Not publicly! YES! THREE times in the last five years alone! Satisfied?

I have to also disagree with raising minimum wage. Here in the States, we have a FEDERAL minimum wage - THAT NEEDS ABOLISHED. What would help is that every STATE had their OWN minimum wage !!! California and New York have a very HIGH cost-of-living. Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Iowa, N/S Dakota, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Nebraska all have a very LOW cost-of-living. Having the same EXACT minimum wage in California that you have in Arkansas is just plain STUPID. I also submit that MINIMUM WAGE is a TEENAGE PROBLEM !!! Unsympathetic? No, not really! If you are in your 30s, 40s, or 50s and earning MINIMUM WAGE, then that is YOUR FAULT for working the same jobs that TEENAGERS WORK !!!

I personally disagree with universal healthcare. BUT there *IS* a case to be made that it would "improve" quality of life in America. I am "biased" AGAINST universal healthcare and have seen just as many documentaries AGAINST it as I have seen for it. I *FIRMLY* support healthcare that is *RISK-BASED* !!! If you smoke, you pay a HIGHER PREMIUM - *PERIOD*. If you drink alcohol, you pay a HIGHER PREMIUM - *PERIOD*. If you are diabetic, you pay a HIGHER PREMIUM - *PERIOD*. Universal healthcare wants to treat everybody as "equals" - F Dat! If you are HIGH-RISK, then you either pay a HIGHER PREMIUM or you DIE YOUNG, the choice is yours. Unsympathetic? MAYBE. But we have PHILANTHROPISTS that can pay the way for those that cannot "afford" their HIGHER PREMIUM. We have PHILANTHROPISTS that can pay for your infant/child/toddler with life-threatening conditions. If you are a homeless drug addict and DO NOT WANT to clean yourself up for a free place to sleep at night (there are millions of them, but you must WANT to sober up to qualify as a resident!), then TO H WITH YA, the world is better off "without you". Unsympathetic? MAYBE. But I know for d#mn sure that I AM NOT A BURDEN ON THEM and neither should THEY BE A BURDEN ON ME !!! CARRY YOUR OWN WEIGHT !!! Learn from mistakes, be sympathetic and assume that a first or second strike is just that, a mistake, but there comes a point where ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, you do not throw good money after bad. Unsympatheic? NO! NOT IN THE LEAST! Not when the "money" paying for the DEADBEATS is taxes redirected from MORE NOBLE OF CAUSES. H#ll, for that matter, maybe, JUST MAYBE, the "money" spent on the DEADBEATS here in America is better served on "this thread topic" (climate change). You decide!

AGREE, AGREE, AGREE !!! But it's also RELATIVE. The "covid generation" is HURTING BIG TIME right now (those that were forced into "home-learning" and unable to attend their final year of high school). This has actually *HELPED ME* "much more" then the amount that it has *hurt them*. IT'S ALL RELATIVE. Trust me! Companies are much bigger into "employee retention" instead of hiring anyone from the "covid generation". Good for me. Bad for them. It's all relative. Retention is the new Recruitment. Companies no longer want to hire just-graduated college kids. It's more cost-effective to pay your talent and pay them well so that they STAY. I feel bad for the "generations behind me". Will things get better? I hope so! For THEIR sake. Me doing better should not come at the cost of them doing worse. But then there are days where I have *ZERO* sympathy towards the "generations behind me". ADDICTED TO THEIR PHONE so much that you can *NOT* get an "honest day's work" out of them !!! Work Hard! And you do great in America. Play on your phone all day, then NOT MY PROBLEM if that "addiction" is HOLDING YOU BACK. But YES! AGREED! Quality of life in American *IS* getting worse. Especially for those addicted to phones, games, alcohol, Mary Jane, opioids, et cetera. The more "they" keep doing this to themselves (and yes, many CHOOSE the addict-lifestyle and do NOT want "out of it", not sure if that's a minority or a majority), the better MY life becomes. IT'S ALL RELATIVE.

I will PM you. This is technically none of your business, but sure, I'll answer in a PM. With the reminder Forum Rule - 7.d Posting the contents of a private message (PM) in the public forum, for any reason, is expressly prohibited. Posting the contents of a PM in any public thread will result in an immediate ban. If this occurs, please contact any moderator via the "report" button at the bottom-left of the post.

I'm done here. For one, that's TOO MANY posts where you ego-chest-pound dating profiles/apps. For two, "bad air doesn't come here" is just so narrow-focused and misguided that I "have no comment" outside of "So what, the tree-covered mountain in CHINA will NEVER put CHINA at the top of any Most Eco-Friendly countries and NOR DOES THE WIND IN YOUR SMALL AREA OF FRANCE, a country that is NOT DOING SO WELL at meeting climate agreements even NAMED AFTER one of its most popular tourist-attraction cities". Your arguments are subjective versus fact-based. Start showing FACTS from renown global sources regarding "bad air doesn't come here" and we may possibly resume this "discussion". But at this point, I DOUBT IT, it's just gonna keep reverting to DATING PROFILES.

Doesn't matter, in my opinion. Pollution is ranked by country and France is doing worse then USA. It's that simple. There are very VERY likely cities/towns here in the USA (I may even live in one of them!) that have the *LEAST* amount of pollution, be it per square mile or be it per capita, but they do NOT get "special recognition" if they are part of a State with massive pollution. Pollution is pollution, it "diffuses" across all of the State, across all of France, et cetera. NONE OF US LIVE IN A VACUUM. France is a high-pollutant country, *overall*. So is the USA. So is Canada. So is Mexico. So is China. I cannot scour the country of China and pick an awesome tree-covered mountain and claim China is "very special, cool, fine, and dandy" based on the climate of that tree-covered mountain.

It's not working. France (and the US, in all fairness) EXCEEDS WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION GUIDELINES ON POLLUTION CONCENTRATION https://www.iqair.com/us/world-most-polluted-countries I basically have to assume that "pollution" and "toxins" are one-in-the-same. Seems a reasonable assumption. France is #99 on the list of most polluted countries. USA is not much better, but at #102 the USA can claim to be doing BETTER than France. But what is *MORE* important as far as this list goes (to me anyway) is that Canada is #93 and Mexico is #46. I'll say it again, IT'S ALL RELATIVE.

Also, something tells me that what "eco-friendly" homes 'look like' is the LOS ANGELES WILDFIRES last month. I'm betting (just knowing California compared to the rest of the US) that each and every one of those burnt-to-ashes homes was "eco-friendly", right down to the city-controlled water supplies bottlenecked in the name of "climate change conservation". Climate Change Agenda == Good Climate Change Extremism == Bad IT'S ALL RELATIVE.

Unfortunately, that's not how our government works. We have "regulations" that must be met. Flame-retardant tests have to be passed on the materials used to build a house, et cetera. Lumber is "chemically treated". Yeah, probably TOXIC, no clue. Lead paint will last a very VERY long time. TOXIC, but also no longer allowed in US homes. Again, define "eco-friendly"? Is it using materials that last FOREVER so we don't have to cut down trees? Or is it using materials that an 18-month old baby can put in his/her mouth? Here in the US, we run a delicate balancing act between the two. And the "rules" change every few years.

Not really sure what you mean. My house isn't made of straw or clay or bamboo or mud holding sticks in place. My house is concrete, wood, iron, steel, fiberglass, asphalt, ceramic-coated mineral granules, gypsum plaster (ie, "drywall"). NOTHING in my house is "plastic". I've never heard of houses (roof or otherwise) made out of "plastic". Just how does one define "eco-friendly" ??? Don't cut any trees down for lumber? Use all plastic? I guess I'm "lost". My house is not made of "plastic". I'll even go so far as to add, "If being eco-friendly means that my house needs made out of plastic, THEN TO H#LL WITH ECO-FRIENDLY AND TO H#LL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE !!!" That's not my "sarcasm font", I DO NOT WANT A HOUSE MADE OUT OF PLASTIC !!! And yeah, "I could care less" if a PLASTIC house "saves the planet". Plastic houses, plastic cars, plastic jewelry - save that sh#t for BARBIE DOLL TOYS.

Here in the US, many (not me!) will add new doors to their house *NOT* because a new door is needed, but because the GOVERNMENT throws out a "tax credit" every few years just to update the door on your house !!! As part of some "home insulation efficiency" tax credit or something. That you are allowed to claim over, and over, and over, and over again - just add a new door and claim the tax credit. Americans are *STUPID*, no offense to my fellow patriarchs, but we really are a *STUPID* nation. Spend $800 (yeah, those ugly doors cost anywhere from $500 to $2000!) on a "door" that IS NOT ANY MORE THERMALLY-INSULATED THAN THE OLD DOOR, all to add $80 to $160 or so on your "tax refund".

18 y.o.'s here in the US are "worthless". But every genereration for the last 3000 years has said that about 18 y.o.'s - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC3kBsRpkZQ Again, NOTHING CHANGES.