Recognition for Pale Moon on review site

[context]

FWIW, I noticed that Pale Moon was included—and fairly rated*—in a recent survey of browsers: https://www.topattack.com/list/best-internet-browsers-review/4

I'd stopped (mostly) looking at such sites because they follow a pretty standard formula of cheerleading for the household names and completely ignoring Pale Moon. After 5 years of continual use of Pale Moon (and of recommending it to others), I'm always amazed that the "top" browsers continue to get the kind of coverage they do. So this was a nice surprise.

*Moonchild can probably speak to the specifics of listed measurements ... and to whether the most important aspects are cited. But to an everyday user, it's good to see Pale Moon "on the big board", so to speak.

[Fedor2]

Opera in the top - this is lol

Speed chart is weird - how it was measured?

[Pelican]

Off-topic:
Any idea how many billions Google has spent on setting up data centres around the globe for caching servers?

Mod comment: Can we stay on track please, this topic's about a review.

[vannilla]

What I find interesting is that memory usage is annotated as "the higher the better".
It's probably just an overlook, but still, pretty funny.

[TwoTankAmin]

I agree it is nice to see pale moon included. But their ranking system leaves out the key features which make most of the other browsers unusable as far as i am concerned and which make Pale Moon the best choice.

Imo, the three worst browser out there now are Edge, Chrome and IE (Firefox was a very close 4th).