It’s only cheating if you go over 100% and start pixel peeping. If I’m looking at a 2000px wide image shrinked by my browser to 700px, pretty much everything is going to seem indistinguishable from lossless. Ideally the images would be already resized for the intended display size. The fullscreen option helps, thanks!
score 1 · canonical
On the screenshot example, the brightness of the white changes a lot between avif and lossless (especially noticeable on the underline for links). There is a similar effect on the shine in the woman’s glasses on the People picture. It might be something to do with the scaling algorithm (on 1080p, the image is shrinked quite a bit), but it doesn’t happen to the jxl images (which look exactly like the lossless ones to me). … aaand I just realized I’m on firefox 157, which doesn’t have native jxl support, so I’m just comparing scaling algorithms between a js-drawn canvas and real avif. After trying on 158, there is no such effect. It would be nice to get a link to open the full image in a new tab, to be able to compare the lossless to the lossy without being constrained by the website layout.
score 2 · canonical
Repository syncs to the final primary mirror. First, changed packages get uploaded in one step, then indexes are replaced, and only then old packages are deleted. This is to ensure that users don’t end up with any index that contains packages not present yet.
This is very smart! But now my worry is, do secondary mirrors update in the same way, or do they just rsync from the primary mirror?
score 1 · canonical
The people picture is 1598px wide, but it is displayed with
width: 799px(and in practice it’s 742.5px wide because of the container). I would expect an image reisized to its intended size to match the css width (I guess retina and high density screens throw this off, but then does that mean that we are serving 2x sized images to everybody to cater to the high density screen users?)score 1 · canonical