CA3LE

By the way, if you change your DNS settings on your router (instead of the device itself) it will populate to all of your devices. Just make sure the devices are defaulting to the router IP for DNS.

I always use Google's. 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 It's not going to make your connection faster. What can will do it make your DNS lookup faster and more reliable. Google's DNS also updates quickly to any changes that webmasters out there make. DNS is the lookup of the domain name, which then points it to the IP of the server. The speed between the server and you has nothing to do with DNS. When you route your DNS through anyone, keep in mind that they could spy on you with that. Read Google's Public DNS Privacy - https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy But look at this. https://1.1.1.1/ Cloudflare Promises Privacy - https://www.cloudflare.com/privacypolicy/ I might just have to start using cloudflare for my DNS. Doesn't stop your ISP from gathering your web history since DNS isn't encrypted. But it's good to know there's another option for fast, secure DNS; one that's audited yearly... by one of the Big Four auditors (also see KPMG wiki). Let's test them both, first with ping. CA3LE$ ping 8.8.8.8 -c10 PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=121 time=8.678 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=121 time=9.347 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=121 time=9.599 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=3 ttl=121 time=9.768 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=4 ttl=121 time=9.080 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=5 ttl=121 time=9.579 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=6 ttl=121 time=9.694 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=7 ttl=121 time=8.868 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=8 ttl=121 time=9.903 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=9 ttl=121 time=8.937 ms --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 8.678/9.345/9.903/0.405 ms CA3LE$ CA3LE$ ping 8.8.4.4 -c10 PING 8.8.4.4 (8.8.4.4): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 8.8.4.4: icmp_seq=0 ttl=120 time=9.579 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.4.4: icmp_seq=1 ttl=120 time=9.260 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.4.4: icmp_seq=2 ttl=120 time=8.994 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.4.4: icmp_seq=3 ttl=120 time=8.962 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.4.4: icmp_seq=4 ttl=120 time=9.750 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.4.4: icmp_seq=5 ttl=120 time=9.780 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.4.4: icmp_seq=6 ttl=120 time=8.946 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.4.4: icmp_seq=7 ttl=120 time=9.475 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.4.4: icmp_seq=8 ttl=120 time=11.032 ms 64 bytes from 8.8.4.4: icmp_seq=9 ttl=120 time=8.900 ms --- 8.8.4.4 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 8.900/9.468/11.032/0.613 ms CA3LE$ CA3LE$ ping 1.1.1.1 -c10 PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=57 time=8.962 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=8.786 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=9.236 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=9.170 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=8.724 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=8.977 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=57 time=8.925 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=57 time=8.622 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=8 ttl=57 time=9.339 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=9 ttl=57 time=9.031 ms --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 8.622/8.977/9.339/0.216 ms CA3LE$ So Google averaged 9.5 ms, Cloudflare was slightly faster at 9 ms. I compared the DNS queries and cloudflare was faster responding overall. Would you notice a difference? We're talking 18ms vs 27ms. Probably not. connected to cloudflare 1.1.1.1 & 1.0.0.1 DNS testmy.net avg 0.0183s google avg 0.0177s yahoo avg 0.0173s overall avg 0.01777s (17.77 ms) CA3LE$ time nslookup testmy.net Server: 1.1.1.1 Address: 1.1.1.1#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: testmy.net Address: 104.28.23.102 Name: testmy.net Address: 104.28.22.102 real 0m0.020s user 0m0.002s sys 0m0.004s CA3LE$ time nslookup testmy.net Server: 1.1.1.1 Address: 1.1.1.1#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: testmy.net Address: 104.28.23.102 Name: testmy.net Address: 104.28.22.102 real 0m0.018s user 0m0.002s sys 0m0.003s CA3LE$ time nslookup testmy.net Server: 1.1.1.1 Address: 1.1.1.1#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: testmy.net Address: 104.28.22.102 Name: testmy.net Address: 104.28.23.102 real 0m0.017s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.003s testmy.net avg 0.0183s CA3LE$ time nslookup google.com Server: 1.1.1.1 Address: 1.1.1.1#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: google.com Address: 172.217.12.14 real 0m0.018s user 0m0.002s sys 0m0.003s CA3LE$ time nslookup google.com Server: 1.1.1.1 Address: 1.1.1.1#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: google.com Address: 172.217.12.14 real 0m0.018s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.003s CA3LE$ time nslookup google.com Server: 1.1.1.1 Address: 1.1.1.1#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: google.com Address: 172.217.12.14 real 0m0.017s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.003s google avg 0.0177 CA3LE$ time nslookup yahoo.com Server: 1.1.1.1 Address: 1.1.1.1#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.138.219.232 Name: yahoo.com Address: 72.30.35.9 Name: yahoo.com Address: 72.30.35.10 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.137.246.7 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.137.246.8 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.138.219.231 real 0m0.017s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.003s CA3LE$ time nslookup yahoo.com Server: 1.1.1.1 Address: 1.1.1.1#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.137.246.8 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.138.219.231 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.138.219.232 Name: yahoo.com Address: 72.30.35.9 Name: yahoo.com Address: 72.30.35.10 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.137.246.7 real 0m0.018s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.003s CA3LE$ time nslookup yahoo.com Server: 1.1.1.1 Address: 1.1.1.1#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.137.246.7 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.137.246.8 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.138.219.231 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.138.219.232 Name: yahoo.com Address: 72.30.35.9 Name: yahoo.com Address: 72.30.35.10 real 0m0.017s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.003s yahoo avg 0.0173 CA3LE$ ---------------------------------------------- connected to Google 8.8.8.8 & 8.8.4.4 DNS testmy.net avg 0.036 google avg 0.0247 yahoo avg 0.0197 overall avg 0.0268s - (26.8 ms) CA3LE$ time nslookup testmy.net Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: testmy.net Address: 104.28.22.102 Name: testmy.net Address: 104.28.23.102 real 0m0.040s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.003s CA3LE$ time nslookup testmy.net Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: testmy.net Address: 104.28.23.102 Name: testmy.net Address: 104.28.22.102 real 0m0.040s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.003s CA3LE$ time nslookup testmy.net Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: testmy.net Address: 104.28.22.102 Name: testmy.net Address: 104.28.23.102 real 0m0.028s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.003s testmy.net avg 0.036 CA3LE$ time nslookup google.com Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: google.com Address: 172.217.12.14 real 0m0.028s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.003s CA3LE$ time nslookup google.com Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: google.com Address: 172.217.12.14 real 0m0.028s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.003s CA3LE$ time nslookup google.com Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: google.com Address: 172.217.11.238 real 0m0.018s user 0m0.002s sys 0m0.003s google avg 0.0247 CA3LE$ time nslookup yahoo.com Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.137.246.7 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.137.246.8 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.138.219.231 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.138.219.232 Name: yahoo.com Address: 72.30.35.10 Name: yahoo.com Address: 72.30.35.9 real 0m0.017s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.003s CA3LE$ time nslookup yahoo.com Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: yahoo.com Address: 72.30.35.9 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.137.246.8 Name: yahoo.com Address: 72.30.35.10 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.137.246.7 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.138.219.231 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.138.219.232 real 0m0.020s user 0m0.002s sys 0m0.003s CA3LE$ time nslookup yahoo.com Server: 8.8.8.8 Address: 8.8.8.8#53 Non-authoritative answer: Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.138.219.231 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.138.219.232 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.137.246.8 Name: yahoo.com Address: 72.30.35.10 Name: yahoo.com Address: 72.30.35.9 Name: yahoo.com Address: 98.137.246.7 real 0m0.022s user 0m0.002s sys 0m0.003s yahoo avg 0.0197 CA3LE$

Very true, I'll work that into the beta. Thanks for the reminder.

Right now if the auto test encounters unresolved network issues your browser will error and end the test. A better version is coming soon. I've tested the auto speed test with the beta, unplugged the connection, plugged it back in and the test continues without any issue. Right now I'm working to make it log those occurrences. Vote on this (old) topic and you'll be notified when the beta is released.

Took them long enough. ...took me long enough to respond to this too, sorry. I thought I had seen it before but I guess not. I use chrome and firefox mostly. I like the visual reference of the favicon.

Hi Hachani! Thanks for being a frequent user. Sorry, there isn't a full country rank listed right now. I hope to make things easier to navigate in the next version. Although, it is possible to query that right now... just have to know the trick. I actually had to look at the code to remember how to do that. Go to https://testmy.net/list and type countrycode in the search field. Then set the minimum number of test to a higher number so only the more popular countries populate. To sort by download, upload or number of recent results click the column title. Sorting that way, the url in the browser ends up being https://testmy.net/rank/countrycode.down/2500 --- the base linking for this is supposed to be listed on the site. So you can just easily navigate to it. I didn't build that in there to be a secret, lol. I'm sorry that's not easily accessible. I'll work on that for you.

I see that you have some results that are higher and some that are much lower 16922292784's Speed Test Results Does Hughes have you running through a proxy? Maybe they're processing it on their end and just relaying the information to the client. Some kind of caching mechanism. I really need to get my hands on a Hughes connection to test this. Maybe a Hughes user would be willing to let me VNC into their desktop and see first hand what's happening on the client-side. If I can witness something I can improve the test for that situation. Can you try a few multithread speed tests for me. Select a couple of US servers, save... then you can go to the download test and test as you normally would. I suggest manually selecting 25 MB and let it run (unless you think it's going to take longer than 90 seconds). I think the real problem is satellite itself, read this forum post in the hughestnet forum. https://community.hughesnet.com/t5/Tech-Support/Trying-to-make-something-work-for-tv-Hulu-Netflix-YouTube-etc/td-p/20589 Downloading raw data and streaming something are different. Streaming can become an issue with the increased latency of satellite connections. (discussing LAN... it's much worse on satellite.) http://www.ihiji.com/how-lan-latency-impacts-streaming-video/ Here's a good read >> https://broadbandnow.com/report/satellite-internet-good-enough-rural-broadband/ I see a lot of people saying that they can stream certain services like YouTube and Netflix just fine but have issues with others. Give us an example of a video you're trying to play. I hear satellite users talking about using NightShift to download streaming content for later viewing and at lower quality to say within data caps. If you try that let us know how it works for you.

Are you seeing results here at TestMy.net that are higher than expected? Or are the results here lower and they're higher on other speed test sites?

Note: Ideally you'll have a 0% ... meaning that your connection ran a flat line with little to no difference between readings. My office connection is usually 0-10%. TestMy.net Test ID : dJA5couwB Here's an example of a faster connection performing worse for its variance. TestMy.net Test ID : eJKLcTXG5 Personally, I prefer a connection that is stable and consistent over one that's faster and fluctuates.

Welcome to testmy.net. Very smart question. Hey, maybe it's not the right way, I'm always open to suggestions... I often put them in practice if they make sense. It's what builds testmy.net. TiP Summary - Minimum :: 1.19 Mbps | Middle :: 3 Mbps | Maximum :: 12.6 Mbps round((12.6 - 1.19)/((12.6 + 1.19)/2)*100) 11.41/6.895*100 = 165% Calculating the difference of the min and max then dividing by the average of the min and max then put into a percentage. This isn't showing you how much your speed fluctuated just between the minimum and maximum... it's accounting for the average over the entire result. So on average your speed fluctuated by 165%. Hope this helps. Do you agree with the logic? Do you think it makes sense to do it that way?

Great article on Motherboard. .. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d3ewvq/study-shows-how-badly-most-of-the-country-is-getting-ripped-off-by-their-isps How much do you pay and what are your speeds?

An update on this

function Salt(){ $replace = array("=" => "_","+" => "~", "/" => "-"); $possible = str_shuffle(base64_encode(hex2bin(RandomToken(100)))); return substr(strtr($possible, $replace), 0, 9); } improved.

This was happening far too frequently. There are many millions of results in the database but not nearly enough to account for the frequency this was happening. Even if there were 10,000X as many results in the database, I wouldn't expect to see this. Upon a closer look I realized that the way I was generating test ID's can give bias to certain characters. It's only pseudo random. The naive approach $password = ""; $possible = "~-_0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"; $possible = str_shuffle($possible); $i = 0; while ($i < 9) { $char = substr($possible, mt_rand(0, strlen($possible)-1), 1); if (!strstr($password, $char)) { $password .= $char; $i++; } This uses a random integer to select from a set of N elements. Unless the number of possible random integers is a multiple of N, some characters will have a higher chance of being picked than others. Using newer php functions I'm generating it this way now. function RandomToken($length = 9){ if(!isset($length) || intval($length) <= 8 ){ $length = 9; } if (function_exists('random_bytes')) { return bin2hex(random_bytes($length)); } if (function_exists('mcrypt_create_iv')) { return bin2hex(mcrypt_create_iv($length, MCRYPT_DEV_URANDOM)); } if (function_exists('openssl_random_pseudo_bytes')) { return bin2hex(openssl_random_pseudo_bytes($length)); } } function Salt(){ $replace = array("+" => "~", "/" => "-"); return substr(strtr(base64_encode(hex2bin(RandomToken(9))), $replace), 0, 9); } $password = Salt(); Still room for improvement. I think I might make the string initially larger and then scramble the base64 string before it gets clipped... I think that will improve it even more. Or maybe I find a better way. I feel there will be less of a chance of even being assigned an already logged testID. And if it does happen, as I previously mentioned you'll be assigned a different ID.

Thank you for the heads up. This is most likely related to the following topic and should no longer be an issue... I'm working on logging when there are connection issues detected during the test in a future version.

If you've seen intermittent test results missing it was most likely an issue with logging on TMN's end. A few members have reported this and I've seen it happen on my end. What was happening? There are so many results logged in the database that test ID's were being assigned that were already logged. In that case TMN won't overwrite the previous result... it just won't log a result. You'd still see your results but they wouldn't be recorded. TMN results will now check the test ID to make sure it hasn't been used before attempting to log the result. It repeats this (a limited number of attempts) until it finds a testID that hasn't been used. The likelihood that it won't find an ID after those attempts is extremely low. But if you ever see it happen again let me know and I can adjust it.

I'll work on a page that cites examples for you. They're here, just not compiled nicely for you. I just go off of what many people tell me. There are hundreds of stories (just that I've heard) of people who test perfectly fine using other speed tests and testmy.net reports the correct... much lower number. They email me, often by starting out BLAMING testmy.net. I tell them to trust the results and they usually email me back later, "testmy.net was right." I get blamed whenever someone is slow. The other speed tests misrepresent the numbers so people think I'M the one who's wrong because I'm the outlier. Just because the majority comes to the same answer doesn't mean they do it right. --- testmy.net is often an outlier because it's a real test. And instead of focusing on what they're not doing right... how about we all just use TestMy.net and call it a day?!?! ? I just posted one from the other day to a topic with some other examples I've shared in the past. There are some in other topics in the FAQ / Ask TMN forum When you're having issues and REALLY need testmy.net... that's when it works best and shows how it's truly proprietary. Why anyone uses anything other than TMN with evidence that the others fail when needed the most... makes no sense. Fact is, people just don't know. I try not to be all in your face with the ads. Large portions of the site are purposely ad free (like the forum) and I'm also showing no ads to mobile users.

Is your speedtest working? Hi John, I'm testing normally... everything looks good on my end. When there are issues... my email lights up with user and server generated emails. Looking at https://testmy.net/live and filtering only the server you're using (GB) and I see many people recently posting faster speed. You could have specific routing issues. Also, some issues are more apparent in TestMy.net's results versus other speed tests out there. The most popular speed tests out there aren't giving you a full picture. They combine threads and ignore parts of the result. They are made to benefit the ISP. You can try https://testmy.net/mirror to try other servers or https://testmy.net/multithread to multithread the test. I would also try a different browser. Looks like you used Chrome 67 last, I love Chrome (and that's almost the latest version) but you could still have a problem with it. Try testing with Firefox and see if there's any difference. If there is a big difference, I would go into Chrome settings and reset the browser to default. I've seen bad cable modems show degraded speed on TestMy.net and show normal full speed on other speed tests. This is a very old topic but it's still true today. Same story, different day. Trust the results. My test and servers are the same as always. - Damon - TestMy.net Hi John, Make sure you spread the word. You saw TestMy.net totally in action. Most people have no idea that there is such a difference in internet speed tests. Heck, I had to be told at first by my users because I don't look at what the other speed tests are doing. I don't fully understand all the reasons why TMN seems to detect issues when others tests don't. It just does. In my opinion, after witnessing what you did... it's a wonder why more people don't use TestMy.net. But they don't. I'm coming out with a new version very soon. I've been in private beta testing for a while and will be releasing it to a wider audience. If you'd like to test it early go to the topic below and vote yes... The topic is from the previous beta, those members carry over to the new beta when it's announced. Probably in the next two weeks. As I said, trust the results. - Damon

...not sure, never been there before. ? Hi DJ, Welcome to testmy.net! Yes, that's all still accurate. Millions of people still regularly use TMN, only a small percentage are members. An even smaller percentage of members actually use the forums here. Before facebook, these forums were much more popular. To legitimize any of my statements all you have to do is search the internet. I feel that other people have scrutinized and legitimized what I'm doing over the years, my methodology and core principals never change. Many have put TMN under a microscope. In my development I put it under a microscope too. Maybe I should post more of those findings but if I focused my time on that... it would have to come from somewhere. I think it's better left said by other people. Funding comes from generous support from viewers like you... just kidding, PBS quote. I have ads. Maybe one day I won't have to. TestMy.net has always been developed and maintained by one person.

Sorry for taking a long time to reply. I read your message and wanted to look at your results closer when I was at my main computer. A new topic reminded me that I hadn't responded. Same thing, it's possible that your tests are running but the results can't be logged because the ID is already taken in the database. I'll fix this and also provide a way to show you when your connection really does go down. Maybe by logging a score of zero. I'll let you know when that's fixed.

It may have run but the testID was already taken. I'll take care of that soon. It's supposed to check the database and assign an ID that hasn't been used. It's happening more often so definitely something I'll address.

I'll keep this in mind when I start on the database searching improvements. Development on that will start shortly after the new beta is released. What I was planning on doing is having it aggregate the user agent information. So it will search through your result details, group the user agents and allow you to do more detailed searches. You'll also be able to select multiple identifiers. So you can select "Android & iOS" for instance or select the inverse to see only desktop and laptop results. If you want to be part of the beta group, vote "Yes" on this topic >> It's an old topic from the last beta of the version you're using today... a fresh beta is coming soon.

Sure, I'll take care of it for you as soon as I'm back on my main machine.

Looks like there was already a result in the database with the same testID. It won't allow an overwrite of the same ID. It's supposed to check for that, I'll look and see why it didn't. Maybe I turned that off at some point and didn't realize... Even with that check disabled it's extremely rare to conflict with other testID's. It's like 36^9 combinations, but I have seen it before and you just confirmed it again. I'll make sure that's not an issue for you in the future. 1.0155996e+14 that's a lot of combinations. 1.3537087e+16 combinations if I switched to cAsE sEnSiTiVe Better go buy a lottery ticket.

Update: The new upcoming version of TestMy.net will not fail on all major updated browsers. I've implemented service worker which enables TestMy.net offline... obviously you won't be able to test in that state but it is helping me to make this correct and more useful for you (and myself). Gives me abilities as a developer that I've never had before. I've run numerous batches of tests, purposely disconnecting the internet. The new version has never failed. It will log those events too, doesn't right now but it will. I like your idea for implementation... It will detect when you're online, wait.. check again to make sure it wasn't just intermittent... then test again when it feels it's able to..... might not be able to complete the entire test still but it will try then possibly fail again and restart the re-try process. I can tell the averaging and database listing programs as a whole to ignore exactly "zero" so it doesn't effect host averages or flood public results... I don't know what would happen other wise so better plan for it. Especially since that's a point for clients to purposely negatively affect hosts numbers. (I always want to limit the input received but users... sorry users. Damn bots and hackers ruined your rep.) ...that idea provides a simple way to implement without having to add databases or change database structure. I like that. --- database structure changes can be an extreme headache, especially since I promised since the beginning that I'd retain all of your old results. I'll keep developing. The update I'm on right now started purely as a design venture, the more major feature rich updates are still planned...but I've been stumbling on so many answers it's become far beyond just what people see at this point. There is still so much planned, I'm only including the features that I feel are ready. ... I'd rather be on this new site (all day long). I make TMN first as something I want to use... but I'm hoping to attract more than people of just own own mindset. Anyone still reading this is probably of that mindset. Most will never get as far as you. I want the other 98% to get it too. Hopefully this gets a little closer. For people who have been long time visitors, keep your old browsers on virtual machines. I need your help testing old browsers but also keep in mind that I'm developing for the future, I'm no longer concerned about lagging browsers or wasting my development time around their inconsistencies. I target technologies native to the most popular browsers across the board. If one browser has janky implementation, I may still release it as long as it's not detrimental to the test results or experience. IMHO, Safari is the new IE right now. Annoying. Chrome, Firefox, Chrome on iOS and Android (period) are the best right now. I expect Safari to catch up, sorry, it's not on the developer when everyone else agrees. By the way, I straight up killed most old browsers when I went full SSL. Full SSL is 100% necessary for the future of what TMN is doing. Sorry old browsers. Trust me, I took a hit with traffic. When I see software changing ads in browser or including ads to pages I don't have ads on... that showed me early why we need SSL (https). With SSL that can only happen if the cypher is cracked. To be honest at first I thought, why would TMN need https? Nobody is buying anything from my site or really sending anything truly secure. Uh, think again. Many people may use the same passwords. Hackers can grab that information as you login at a public wifi and then try the same email address and password on google, facebook, ebay, amazon, etc... till they get a hit. So stupidly easy for hackers. Not only that but third party ads may be doing things you don't want... far outside of the scope of common practice (of which some people already may not already want). And again, a third party program can also edit your webpages and add their own content. Above all, they want to make money, usually ad or code insertion is the intent. With the latest SSL people can't do the same malicious stuff. Not to say it can't be done again, it can always be done again. Nothing made by man can be protected from man. What is created from one man's mind can always be decoded in another's. We just need to evolve with the changes. way off the subject... AI teaching itself to make new cyphers and then keeping the true keys from us, that worries me the more I think about it. An AI or AIs will invent their own language that we can't possibly understand in our lifetimes. It will be so efficient that humans can't understand it because we don't work well enough, lol. Take the highest level of cryptography that you can think of exponentially increase that. And then realize that the program that creates it may be so obscure that it could be hiding information from us, making us feel secure when it really has all the power. I say let us humans keep making mistakes and figuring out each other's mistakes and improving naturally. We as humans should always in great detail fundamentally understand our software and hardware changes... it should never be obscured to the point that no human can understand. I worry that we'll let computers do our programming and designing to the point that we'll have little understanding of what's truly under the hood or how to control it. "let the computer figure out how to do that better, it will make it perfect." -- it's cool until it starts talking in a language you can't decode and decides you're not a part of understanding that language simply because you as a human aren't optimal to the system. To a computer, even our VERY best languages are stupid because they aren't optimal and so that's the first thing to go in my opinion. This has already happened by the way, just not to a serious degree. A real AI will be ahead of our moves before we even start moving. Once you know it's happening, it's too late. I'm have to be high on the AI's list now. (haha) I believe our community here is made up of people who set the standard for their own communities in regards to all things tech. We should set the standard by example. Have your main machines always updated and encourage friends to do the same. Hardware and software. Especially software. And especially right now because there have been so many major updates that EVERY browser is agreeing on. They don't normally agree like this. Over 21 years developing in the browser and I've never seen such wide adoption of so many cool new features. What a great time to develop. Anyone who may be still actually reading this and wants access to the beta, just PM me. If you were a member of any discussion on TMN prior to this post you can have access to the early beta too. A handful of our veteran members have agreed to help me even early to make sure we give you a clean release but there are always more bugs that we need help finding. -- we'll find 'em together ...and make some more in the process! Human's Rule. -D