Show newer

@icedquinn
LZMA is more multi-purpose. When you make something more targeted for one specific thing, it's gonna be more efficient. It's just how things are. :blobshrug:

Never did anything with PPMd myself. Maybe I'll test to see how epubs behave with it compared to LZMA. I wouldn't have any other use for it.

@furgar
I know what they are, but from movies (I think). They were never a thing in my country.
This is what we used.

@Effortless@noagendasocial.com
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the second most secure election in US history.

That's an interesting blast from the past.

If you don't get the reference, jesus fuck are you a zoomer.

@icedquinn
Webp/avif are kinda weird. Being video codec derivatives, I think they get to play looser with chroma and other stuff, because normally you'd get another frame in a split second that would compensate for the loss of information of the previous one.

But in a still picture, you never get that. Webp suffers from that. Avif manages to perform well despite that. Which makes me wonder, just how powerful a good, high quality encoded AV1 must be. I haven't had the pleasure of experiencing that to be honest.

@icedquinn
jpeg doesn't have lossless though, and it still inflates a lot, going from 99 to 100.
webp, in imagemagick does seem to go for lossless at q100, confirmed.

@curtis
While I overall approve of what he's doing with Twitter, I kinda hate that this is the guy we managed to find to lead the charge in this battle.
His tweet makes it seem like he's the next Washington or Lincoln, but Elon is so not the person to memorialize as one of the historical heroes of America for fighting for freedom.

@yangwenli
That's the most stupid shorthand for American. Also, would it have hurt your fingers to just say "Ami is shorthand for American"?

Fucking germans...

@icedquinn
The defaults for webp usually lands around 75-80. Did a quick test for imagemagick, and it seems that with no quality parameter given, it defaults to 99 (tested for jpeg and webp). It's quite ludicrous how big of a file size difference going from q 99 to 100 gives. Definitely NEVER test any image format at q100. It completely skews any result.

>lowering quality made the image garbage in an instant
By how much did you lower. I'm sure going q65 or lower fucks it up a lot, but imo anyone going that low with any image format is just plain ol' stupid to begin with. 80-96 has always felt the sweet spot for me, for any image format I've tested. Anything below 80 has never been worth it.

>tends to fuck up the chromatics somewhat
Yes. Avif does the same.

@icedquinn
I saw, but the issue I always have with the webp tests, is that they're usually done with something like q75, compared with jpeg at >q90, and then they ignore the significant quality loss.

At the very least you should test both at same q, but even then webp can be so bad, that it needs a bigger q factor than a jpeg to achieve similar final quality.

I can't get over how stupid and inconsistent people at Google/YouTube can be.
They took the time to make Webp a thing. They promoted it. They made it the default format for YouTube's thumbnails. Even the animated ones. Probably saving a good amount of bandwidth.

But... user's avatars, that are so small that you're definitely not gonna see a quality loss from higher compression, are still being served as jpeg.

Why? No clue. It surely wouldn't take much processing power to transcode them. It wouldn't take effort to change code to display them. I can understand that it wouldn't offer that much gains in freed up bandwidth, but surely someone at YouTube would be autistic enough to be bothered that they're using multiple image formats on the same page for no good reason?

@pimeys @icedquinn
That would explain why they keep making and destroying chat apps.

@icedquinn
Let's be honest, there's wasn't any demand for webp either, and there still isn't that much. It didn't stop Google from pushing it VERY hard.

@yangwenli
So it would be politically neutral.
There's literally no other color that couldn't have been interpreted in a political way.

@icedquinn
I do wonder what Google were thinking with pulling out support out of Chrome already, when they barely put it in, and it wasn't even a default feature either.

@fribbledom
What I've generally found more useful is not even a star or score rating, but review length. The longer it is, the more confidence I have that the product left a profound impression on the customer, enough to inspire him to take the time to write an in depth review.

As for the ratings themselves...

I've found that 1 star reviews are also gonna include the most frustrated users, that had severe issues with the product. It's where I usually start. I look for any review that is at least a few sentences long. If it's too short, I just consider it a hater and ignore it. There's not gonna be a lot of good reviews, but when you find them, they are worth the effort of wading through the "this sucks!" reviews.

For 2 and 3 stars I probably pay the most attention to, even to very short reviews. Whenever there's a dogpile hater review bomb an a product, they ALWAYS go for 1 star. But giving 2 and 3 stars is ignored as an option for most people, so I have a good degree of confidence most of these are honest.

At 4 stars is where I look for honest positive reviews. Nothing in the world is perfect. Anything has flaws, and it takes an upstanding person to admit to the flaws of something he still likes. While I tend to be risk adverse, and put more weight on reasons why I shouldn't buy something, if you're looking for positive feedback to give you confidence in your purchase, this is the place to look at.

5 stars reviews are probably the worst. The most frustrating ones are when someone makes a long review, states plenty of positives, but also some negatives, and then gives it 5 star, when it's clear that the user's experience is of a 4 star. I hate these reviews the most, and even prefer the 1 star ones over these, as a source of information.

Show older
Game Liberty Mastodon

Mainly gaming/nerd instance for people who value free speech. Everyone is welcome.