NotHereToPlayGames

Not on a Win11 machine at the moment but I think that's the "most recent used" list. You'd have to turn off the "most recent used" tracking. Unsure where that is in Win11.

Done. Got my 10 in. For my own reference, I need to pick up tomorrow on page 6.

I'll even start today. I may not remember to hit the daily allotment every day. But I'll start with a full allotment of likes for the day. I should be able to find that daily allotment in this thread alone. I want this to be EASY though, so please reply, reply, reply, reply. So that I can easily hit the daily allotment again tomorrow... and tomorrow... and tomorrow... "Creaps in this petty pace" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_and_tomorrow_and_tomorrow

Disappointing that you see it that way. 2016/2021 ??? This is 2025 and you and I both use a browser from 2024. Web browsers evolve MUCH FASTER than anything Darwin ever cited! Let's play a little game, shall we? I want to do everything that I can to get you to that 10k "rep". Let's you and I reply back and forth CONSTANTLY so that your "friends" can easily find their daily allotment of "likes". I want to see how fast we can get you to 10k. All of MSFN has witnessed how this little scheme got you from 2k to nearly 7k in less than a year. It would be one thing if USEFUL posts were being liked, but when *everything* is being liked no matter how *USELESS*, some days going back *YEARS*, it really does seem to me to be rather POINTLESS. But it isn't against Forum Rules. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Or is the Forum Rule that we agree to our terms in a PM versus a Post. New to this Rep Farm, so I'm learning the rules as I go. It's been going on for about a year or so WITH NO END IN SIGHT. At least it feels like it's been that long. If not, then the 2k to nearly 7k is even MORE impressive. So I might as well JOIN, eh?

Not relevant than. You made it sound (intentionally mislead?) like this was a modern browser throwing that warning TODAY, not a browser from 2016 posting a bug way back in 2016. I cannot replicate this 2016 bug in a 2024 browser. So no problem, no bug, no issue. Nothing to see here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuAKnbIr6TE

What browser gave you this? I can not replicate on six different versions of Ungoogled Chromium. All on Win10 LTSB (year 2016).

Even if I try to FORCE a request, Ungoogled Chromium WILL NOT ALLOW ME TO. No DNS record, no traffic at the router, no "broadcast". I guess we can assume that was NOT THE CASE back in 2016.

Cannot replicate. Here, Ungoogled v122 redirects https://mcdonalds.fi to https://www.mcdonalds.fi with no certficate error on the www.mcdonalds.fi and no blocked attempted request. I could probably replicate if I installed a version of Ungoogled from 2016, but WHY, you are going to believe what you want to believe regardless.

That doesn't say much. We both hate hate hate Firefox. It took Firefox *25 years* to fix a "tooltip bug". Only 22 years if you count from the SECOND bug report years after the first was never fixed. Despite having "fixes" posted DOZENS of times per year during those 25 years. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40431444 https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/10/22-year-old-firefox-tooltip-bug-fixed-in-a-few-lines-offering-hope-to-us-all/ My Ungoogled Chromium v122 is not even ONE YEAR OLD, it too was last patched/fixed/upgrade in 2024. I "can" use NEWER. I'm just NOT INTERESTED in anything newer. That day will be forced upon me one of these days.

You are vulnerable to bugs discovered in 2016. You are *dense*. They cannot be knocked into. This is 2025. Not 2016. Your next post is going to cite the sixties?

You have me confused with somebody else. I do not use youtu-dot-be. I do use YOUTUBE.com. The Tampermonkey scripts that I sometimes post "do". That doesn't mean that I've ever visited a dot-be-wanna-be. I use YOUTUBE.com.

That PORTION of the patch may not have changed, along with my tt -> xx, BUT the way that the BROWSER renders HAS CHANGED. Nobody that uses Ungoogled has ever cited that notification/warning that you reference from a 2016 bug report. I have *NEVER* seen that notification/warning. **NEVER** So yeah, a 2016 citing is IRRELEVANT. If you have this notification/warning using anything *newer* than Chrome/Chromium v109 or so, please screencap it! I cannot visit the .fi link from here at work. I'll go ahead and visit AT HOME, but I would bet your-never-wrong to I'm-never-wrong that a MODERN browser does not have the same BUG that was reported in 2016!

Perhaps. But the *excuse* is that they lack "security features" such as TPM 2.0. You can blame "money" all you like. I'll sit back and equally blame "security hype".

And for what it is worth, THANK YOU, "that" is the type of discussion/proof/documentation that will serve us all well !!! But can you find one that is more recent than from 2016 ?

I have never seen that notification! Never! But I also did not use Ungoogled Chromium in 2016 when that issue was reported. I cannot verify the .fi link from here at work. I would be sent to HR for clicking such a link. Technically, I have NO USE for any web site that isn't a .com, .net. .edu, .org, or .gov. There's probably an exception or two, though none come to mind.

I'm done here. I have confidence in our readers being SMART ENOUGH to see right through the little "conflict" you are trying to create here. You clearly have no clue just WHY the Ungoogled Team uses .qjz9zk. There is no "broadcasting". Moving on... Your Lemmings will be by shortly to REP FARM your "likes". Congratulations!

For starters, the "rep" on this web site is B*LLSH*T. You know it! I know it! You yourself are amongst the KIDS on this site that REP FARM. You know it! I know it! Everybody else on MSFN knows it! Second, the ch40m1um.qjz9zk is DODGING THE CLAIM YOU MADE !!! Everybody, and I do mean EVERYBODY is aware of the .qjz9zk. You missed one, for the record, there is also .9oo91e.qjz9zk. THAT WAS NOT YOUR CLAIM. Your claim was that these are BROADCASTED. THEY ARE NOT BROADCASTED !!! THEY CANNOT BE BROADCASTED! You can create a web site with a .com, or a .net. or a .gov, or a .edu. YOU CANNOT CREATE A .qjz9zk - THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF UNGOOGLED USING THAT "CODE". The "patches" are PUBLIC DOMAIN. Anybody can "ungoogle" a Chrome/Chromium fork. Supermium doesn't create the patches, they use what UNGOOGLED shares PUBLICLY. ps - I don't use the CAPS LOCK, I hold a SHIFT key down and type with a SHIFT key held down, NO CAPS LOCK WAS USED IN THE MAKING OF THIS POST.

To be honest, I kinda of DON'T CARE (but am interested in the PROOF of your CLAIM for the sake of YOUR 6.7k Reputation). I wholly and fully believe that *ALL* browsers can be *identified*. Call them fingerprints, call them user agents, call them client hints, IF YOU ARE ON THE INTERNET, YOU LEAVE AN "ID" BEHIND. No If's, And's, or But's.

You'd have to put your money where your mouth is with that claim. Post the link/discussion. Otherwise, don't believe you, don't care, and won't believe future advice from you either without documentation/links to back up such claims. Let's be honest, if *I* posted such a claim, you'd have yourself and a couple Lemmings jumping all over me. So yeah, I think it is fair to ask for proof/link in this case. If you cannot find proof of such a claim, then I don't mind informing the Ungoogled Team so they too can learn the name "D.Draker" and the others that will come by to post the "like". I'll sit on the sidelines... Ball is in your court...

Even the TITLE of your post is ALL CAPS. That's just INSANE.

Listen, I like to use CAPS for emphasis as much as the next guy. Bold, underline, italics - they can all be USEFUL. But CAPS for the ENTIRE POST ??? Your post should be DELETED for no other reason than it being in ALL CAPS.

Agreed. But you also cannot send data to "hxxps" and "hxxps" is not a "redirection". There are no loopback "clock cycles" being consumed.

This link is dead. I use uBlock 1.52.2 and have a couple profiles (such as at work) that run 1.59.0. I do notice that 1.52.2 "seems to be" a little faster, but I've not technically performed any quantifiable measurements outside of "never believe gut feeling placebo effects" that suggests 1.52.2 to be a little faster.

I think that was supposed to read: <font: sarcasm;>hate is childish; if it aint newest then it sucks ...</font>

That yellow exclamation mark was introduced in version 1.48.0. I myself tend to be "impatient" at times when it comes to computers, so I myself can not trust versions prior to 1.48.0. Not because they don't work, they do, but because I tend to start clicking bookmarks or whatnot before uBO is actually "ready". So I actually like the yellow exclamation mark as a reminder that I can wait half a second before opening a bookmark.