Is this one of those stories people repost on purpose to build up HN points?
Solar-powered, Self-hosted Low-tech Magazine
11–20 of 28 posts
Re: Solar-powered, Self-hosted Low-tech Magazine
#12So close but still using AJAX ...
Re: Solar-powered, Self-hosted Low-tech Magazine
#13I swear I’ve seen this a dozen times here already. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29531145 6 months ago, 1225 points, 357 comments. So a dupe it is.
Still puts a smile on my face every time I see it posted. xkcd 1053
I'm one of today's lucky 10000, so I really don't understand why people are complaining for something they last saw 7 months ago.
Re: Solar-powered, Self-hosted Low-tech Magazine
#14The dithered images are fun, but I thought PNG is optimized for large continuous areas of an identical color (or pattern?). Is JPG or WebP not better?
I tried to do a comparison once.
It was approximate, because I didn't have the original images (Or I only had one), but IMO JPEG looks better per pound of bits than dithering. At the same bitrate as their dithered images, it looks a bit crummy, but you can still pick up details that the dithering loses.
They won't admit it's for the aesthetic. If dithering looked as good bit-for-bit as JPEG, independent of aesthetic, nobody would have invented or adopted JPEG.
Re: Solar-powered, Self-hosted Low-tech Magazine
#15Re: Solar-powered, Self-hosted Low-tech Magazine
#16The dithered images are fun, but I thought PNG is optimized for large continuous areas of an identical color (or pattern?). Is JPG or WebP not better?
I tried to do a comparison once. It was approximate, because I didn't have the original images (Or I only had one), but IMO JPEG looks better per pound of bits than dithering. At the same bitrate as their dithered images, it looks a bit crummy, but you can still pick up details that the dithering loses. They won't admit it's for the aesthetic. If dithering looked as good bit-for-bit as JPEG, independent of aesthetic,…
They would have to admit to transmitting more data (thus using more carbon) for aesthetics. That would undermine their blog and make some of their posts look very hypocritical.
Re: Solar-powered, Self-hosted Low-tech Magazine
#17The dithered images are fun, but I thought PNG is optimized for large continuous areas of an identical color (or pattern?). Is JPG or WebP not better?
> WebP
No to webp as it's a still vp8 video frame meaning an image codec is burdened with a huge video codec dependency.
Re: Solar-powered, Self-hosted Low-tech Magazine
#18The dithered images are fun, but I thought PNG is optimized for large continuous areas of an identical color (or pattern?). Is JPG or WebP not better?
I tried to do a comparison once. It was approximate, because I didn't have the original images (Or I only had one), but IMO JPEG looks better per pound of bits than dithering. At the same bitrate as their dithered images, it looks a bit crummy, but you can still pick up details that the dithering loses. They won't admit it's for the aesthetic. If dithering looked as good bit-for-bit as JPEG, independent of aesthetic,…
Am I reading it wrong that they're not doing this for file size but for processing power reasons?
I'd be curious (really, not being snarky) if you tested for that as well.
EDIT: nope, I'm wrong, they say they're doing it for bandwidth.
Re: Solar-powered, Self-hosted Low-tech Magazine
#19I swear I’ve seen this a dozen times here already. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29531145 6 months ago, 1225 points, 357 comments. So a dupe it is.
I don't care how often it's reposted (within limits), this is a really cool site. Stuff like this needs more exposure.
Re: Solar-powered, Self-hosted Low-tech Magazine
#20Why publishing a page on the topic of sustainability, and the page (markup) is 257KB big, when 54KB is the author's HTM and and the rest, _four fifths_, are visitors' comments?!