yes. for 3 reasons:
-when you get a CA, you want it to work in all browsers... market share may not be high, but it is still a very popular browser. spread the word that the site do not work in all browsers is enough to cause panic in many people

- mozilla, microsoft, google and apple are usually in sync about CA issues. This was found by mozilla and they decided the action they will take... other companies will now analyze this and take their own actions. As mozilla action is a good one, it may be accepted by the other companies as well. The political power of mozilla is a lot higher than the 8%

- MS Edge have 5%, less than firefox... would you ignore it? market share numbers change a lot across countries, sites, user type and type of device. Mozilla on mobile have a very low market share and higher on desktop... all this is just junk numbers, when users start to complain, the perceived small market share number seems to increase by magic :)

no need for that... firefox will distrust NEW certs, but keep old ones working (minus this 62 back issued certs)
there is no info to make the other certs invalid, you will be only breaking random Innocent sites

read the article: only NEW certs will be distrust, existent ones will keep work, until they expire.
In a year, if they behave and follow all rules, they MAY be trusted again.... if they keep doing wrong things, they will be removed.
basically, mozilla removed the CA market from then for one year as penalty

what make you think that cutting off even 15% of market is something that people can ignore?
also, what makes you think that google, microsoft and apple will not do the same thing? this was found by mozilla, but all browsers are usually in sync on the CA matters

please read the article... only the NEW certs will be distrust, old ones will keep valid until they expire. You might have problems only on renews...

If they behave well and follow all the rules, in one year they may be trusted again... if they keep trying to issue certs using past dates, they will be totally removed and if they ever try to reenter the CA business, they will have to follow again all the audits, tests, checks, etc... takes ages, log of money and in the end, mozilla can still say "NO"

After reading the document, they are breaking the rules and lying about that. Also, they tried to hide they control startcom (startssl.com for many people) and changed the way they worked. For a type of service based in TRUST, this breaks all the trust on their actions and leadership.

They are luck to ONLY get one year suspended trust. If they survive, they may learn and issue again certificates later on... Lets also see if they will inform the users that mozilla will stop trusting then (although i suspect that google might also take similar action) or if they will try to do any "marketing" stunt and "forgot" to warn the users about it.

Anyway, firefox will disable this CA and the ball is in their side now... other CAs will also see what can happen to then when they agree to get in to shady practices.

This is why i trust mozilla (at least for now, we never know what the future holds), they really try to make a better web

Agree

This is the correct way to solve direct loading of images, not courts... change the image and let the other side suffer by the mistake
If they copy the images, apply copyright... if they update the link, keep changing it or use the referer... it is a lost battle for the abusive site.
you can also simply block serving the images without the correct referer, but messing other people sites is way better :)

The problem with leaked scores is trust... it is not the first time someone fake some leaks (even if joking) and those quickly spread as real benchmarks.

So you read the future? where are your benchmarks, we also want to see then!

At least wait for the benchmarks to show up before trying to look like a nvidia zealot

humm... how would that work? i have tons of dirty money, buy a item for $400, then what? sell it for $1 ? even if i sell it for $200, how do i get my money back? steam do not give you real money back... maybe i could buy some games and sell the account? you still have to explain where did that $200 come from, of i sell 2000 accounts, that would be VERY hard to explain.

Stupid and rich kids and greedy people, i do believe, money laundering i do not see it

most "memory leaks" today are add-ons related... add-ons had too much access to the firefox internals and simple errors could cause problems.
mozilla tried to limit what add-ons can access and is trying to push then to external process, so it is easier to see where the leaks are coming.

Try to disable add-ons and restart firefox to check where the leak is coming

first, from your text looks like it is a huge difference, but it is inline with the other ones
second, edge is preloaded, chrome tries to have multiple process and be modular, so for this test might not need to load everything... but firefox is monolitic (mostly), so the at startup will load everything. If there is any flash loaded, even worst, as the flash in firefox is still a separate process and will always eat more cpu. Yes, all this are firefox problems, but... read below

finally, mozilla knows that for several years. they already have some code blocks in multi-process (but it was hard, as the base code was build as monolitic since day one) to sustain firefox until the new firefox (called servo) with rust is ready. That one will be more secure, modular since day one and be faster than any current browser. So yes, know problem, already being fixed

Servo should have the first public alpha (beta?) release in the next few months