Prefer f-strings and non-printf-style format

[Avasam]

From #2100 (comment)
Prefer "f-strings" (f"{str}") > str.format("") > "printf-style" ("%s" % str)

Due to the sheer number of changes (994), I'm keeping this PR to automated changes only. Ran using ruff . --select=UP030,UP031,UP032 --exclude=Pythonwin/Scintilla --exclude=adodbapi --fix then black . (Ruff re-implements pyupgrade and is configurable)
Ruff explicitly won't make a change if it can't ensure the type of the format value (ie, is it a tuple or a string?) or if the argument count doesn't match. This leaves 580 instances of printf-style format in non-adodbapi and non Scintilla-vendored code.

https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/format-literals/#why-is-this-bad

In Python 3.1 and later, format strings can use implicit positional references. For example, "{0}, {1}".format("Hello", "World") can be rewritten as "{}, {}".format("Hello", "World").
If the positional indices appear exactly in-order, they can be omitted in favor of automatic indices to improve readability.

https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/printf-string-formatting/#why-is-this-bad

printf-style string formatting has a number of quirks, and leads to less readable code than using str.format calls or f-strings. In general, prefer the newer str.format and f-strings constructs over printf-style string formatting.

https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/f-string/#why-is-this-bad

f-strings are more readable and generally preferred over str.format calls.

https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#printf-style-string-formatting

Note The formatting operations described here exhibit a variety of quirks that lead to a number of common errors (such as failing to display tuples and dictionaries correctly). Using the newer formatted string literals, the str.format() interface, or template strings may help avoid these errors. Each of these alternatives provides their own trade-offs and benefits of simplicity, flexibility, and/or extensibility.