This is a modern motherfucking website.
-
This is a modern motherfucking website.
And it’s still fucking perfect.
@lproven outstanding.
-
This is a modern motherfucking website.
And it’s still fucking perfect.
@lproven@social.vivaldi.net how can you read this? there isn't any cookie banner!
-
This is a modern motherfucking website.
And it’s still fucking perfect.
@lproven I'm sad it didn't mention the glorious backend for frontend pattern.
What about content negociation, inbreeding rot brain?
-
@lproven
A tad disapointed, the amount of swearwords seriously decreases as you read on.
To be improved++@Flo_BWWI_grind @lproven true dat
-
@idiot 4chan can FOAD -- ideally DIAF -- and the world will be no poorer.
Any website that can't handle a few different image formats is dogshit, end of.
@lproven @idiot Yeah... right. Uploading a .avif file to the Mastodon instance I'm using right now gives me "500 Error processing thumbnail for uploaded media".
Are you trying to say that all Mastodon sites are the "dogshit", or do you simply not realize how foolish and childish you are?
Uploading webp images here does work. If webp files are smaller or better or not is of course up to those who create them. Pic related becomes 68K as a 90% quality webp, 484K as a lossless webp, 184K as a jpeg saved with a 95% quality setting and 476K with a 100% quality setting.
A 90% quality webp is fine if you assume that nobody will ever do anything other than display the image in a web browser, but that's not always the case. I suspect that a lot of "news outlets" are serving .avif files compressed to death intentionally in order to discourage anyone from ever doing anything with their images. That's not a good thing.
-
A anderslund@expressional.social shared this topic
-
@lproven @idiot Yeah... right. Uploading a .avif file to the Mastodon instance I'm using right now gives me "500 Error processing thumbnail for uploaded media".
Are you trying to say that all Mastodon sites are the "dogshit", or do you simply not realize how foolish and childish you are?
Uploading webp images here does work. If webp files are smaller or better or not is of course up to those who create them. Pic related becomes 68K as a 90% quality webp, 484K as a lossless webp, 184K as a jpeg saved with a 95% quality setting and 476K with a 100% quality setting.
A 90% quality webp is fine if you assume that nobody will ever do anything other than display the image in a web browser, but that's not always the case. I suspect that a lot of "news outlets" are serving .avif files compressed to death intentionally in order to discourage anyone from ever doing anything with their images. That's not a good thing.
@chaekyung @lproven @idiot says the person posting an AI slop image that's already a pile of residual latent noise mush that compresses like ass.
-
@lproven @idiot Yeah... right. Uploading a .avif file to the Mastodon instance I'm using right now gives me "500 Error processing thumbnail for uploaded media".
Are you trying to say that all Mastodon sites are the "dogshit", or do you simply not realize how foolish and childish you are?
Uploading webp images here does work. If webp files are smaller or better or not is of course up to those who create them. Pic related becomes 68K as a 90% quality webp, 484K as a lossless webp, 184K as a jpeg saved with a 95% quality setting and 476K with a 100% quality setting.
A 90% quality webp is fine if you assume that nobody will ever do anything other than display the image in a web browser, but that's not always the case. I suspect that a lot of "news outlets" are serving .avif files compressed to death intentionally in order to discourage anyone from ever doing anything with their images. That's not a good thing.
@chaekyung @lproven
>or do you simply not realize how foolish and childish you are?
It's this, but there's also a zeitgeist of user contempt among developers right now. If AVIF or WEBP saves a lot of bandwidth, then you NEED to default to those to save bandwidth, because what the end user does with the image is totally irrelevant in the face of what the developer needs to do to deliver that image to the web browser. The fact that JPEG and GIF and PNG are battle-tested and universally supported doesn't matter, because I'm the developer and my needs come way before yours, and if you don't like it, why haven't you fucked off and died in a fire yet?
Many are doing this. Few are acknowledging it. -
This is a modern motherfucking website.
And it’s still fucking perfect.
Note to self: update my personal landing page with a few of these tricks. It's a single HTML page styled with SimpleCSS, no JS besides of a single line to prevent a FOUC on Firefox. azkware.net/site/ -
@2something @lproven unfortunate name, since most people seem to know of Gemini as the google AI. Thus seema like it could be cool though
@nieuemma @2something @lproven I'm sorry but it existed before and was stolen by google.
-
@lproven @idiot Yeah... right. Uploading a .avif file to the Mastodon instance I'm using right now gives me "500 Error processing thumbnail for uploaded media".
Are you trying to say that all Mastodon sites are the "dogshit", or do you simply not realize how foolish and childish you are?
Uploading webp images here does work. If webp files are smaller or better or not is of course up to those who create them. Pic related becomes 68K as a 90% quality webp, 484K as a lossless webp, 184K as a jpeg saved with a 95% quality setting and 476K with a 100% quality setting.
A 90% quality webp is fine if you assume that nobody will ever do anything other than display the image in a web browser, but that's not always the case. I suspect that a lot of "news outlets" are serving .avif files compressed to death intentionally in order to discourage anyone from ever doing anything with their images. That's not a good thing.
-
@lproven @idiot Yeah... right. Uploading a .avif file to the Mastodon instance I'm using right now gives me "500 Error processing thumbnail for uploaded media".
Are you trying to say that all Mastodon sites are the "dogshit", or do you simply not realize how foolish and childish you are?
Uploading webp images here does work. If webp files are smaller or better or not is of course up to those who create them. Pic related becomes 68K as a 90% quality webp, 484K as a lossless webp, 184K as a jpeg saved with a 95% quality setting and 476K with a 100% quality setting.
A 90% quality webp is fine if you assume that nobody will ever do anything other than display the image in a web browser, but that's not always the case. I suspect that a lot of "news outlets" are serving .avif files compressed to death intentionally in order to discourage anyone from ever doing anything with their images. That's not a good thing.
@chaekyung @lproven @idiot that slop "picture" is fucking awful btw.
-
This is a modern motherfucking website.
And it’s still fucking perfect.
@lproven Nice article, even though the "superiority" of webp and avif has been greatly exaggerated.
-
This is a modern motherfucking website.
And it’s still fucking perfect.
@lproven Jokes on you I use Makko for my blog
-
This is a modern motherfucking website.
And it’s still fucking perfect.
@lproven exacly!!! The sites i build, only when a screen size is needed, even has javascript.
I do have 2 that breaks up the page based on user screen size to make it fit phone/desktop sizes to set a cookie but nothing else.
No paywalls, no logins exept absolutly needed... none of the bullshit. -
This is a modern motherfucking website.
And it’s still fucking perfect.
@lproven I couldn't agree more, but things are about to get so very much worse, and it won't just be websites. It'll be firmware, air traffic control, train switch timing, banks' accounts reconciliation. Buckle up.
-
This is a modern motherfucking website.
And it’s still fucking perfect.
“But developer experience!” Well, I'm a developer, and my experience is significantly worsened when I can't even reason about how some big complicated contraption is generating my HTML! Static pages FTW.
And yeah, I do use a static site generator. But I am able to reason about the HTML it generates, because (1) I wrote the generator, and (2) it doesn't generate anything other than what I tell it to generate. Which is why I cringe when I see Next.js on https://jamstack.org/generators/.
-
@lproven Nice article, even though the "superiority" of webp and avif has been greatly exaggerated.
My org's site has an 86kB JPEG that compresses down to a 28kB WebP without noticeably degrading the image. In another case, 233kB JPEG compresses down to 121kB WebP.
I can live without it, of course. If I must use classic JPEG for some reason, then I will. But I am impressed.
That said, these are not hand-tuned JPEGs. They're just blindly compressed at quality 92. I could do better by hand-tuning with GIMP's quality settings. But I probably won't beat WebP.
-
@2something @lproven its still unfortunate that they both carry that name, and that the wrong one is widely known.
@nieuemma@mastodon.de @2something@transfem.social @lproven@social.vivaldi.net which one will win
-
@lproven It is a phenomenon, that certain kinds of people must avoid the simple, and instead make things needlessly complicated and inefficient, in their need to feel powerful and special. Or something. The psychology is baffling.
I'm reminded of the time when I bolted a Java VM to my IRC client so I could run IRC scripts written in Java and BeanShell.
It was big. It was complicated. It probably quadrupled my IRC client's memory usage. It was complete overkill for its intended purpose, namely slapping people around a bit with something other than a large trout.
But it was fun to write and fun to use.
️ -
@lproven @idiot Yeah... right. Uploading a .avif file to the Mastodon instance I'm using right now gives me "500 Error processing thumbnail for uploaded media".
Are you trying to say that all Mastodon sites are the "dogshit", or do you simply not realize how foolish and childish you are?
Uploading webp images here does work. If webp files are smaller or better or not is of course up to those who create them. Pic related becomes 68K as a 90% quality webp, 484K as a lossless webp, 184K as a jpeg saved with a 95% quality setting and 476K with a 100% quality setting.
A 90% quality webp is fine if you assume that nobody will ever do anything other than display the image in a web browser, but that's not always the case. I suspect that a lot of "news outlets" are serving .avif files compressed to death intentionally in order to discourage anyone from ever doing anything with their images. That's not a good thing.
That's a Mastodon bug, not anything wrong with AVIF per se, and was fixed a week ago. https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/40541
As for serving images compressed to death, may I introduce you to JPEG? That is by no means a new phenomenon.
