maria2

That is really deep. Lake Superior’s deepest point is only 1,332 feet.

Have terms of service ever rigorously been tested in court? My daughter created an Uber account for me, and she agreed to the terms of service, not me. Despite having no contractual relationship with me, Uber continues to render services. I wonder what would happen if we were to get into a contractual dispute.

> "I loved Carvana because I bought a great car from them at a better price than the legacy players!"

That's literally the opposite of what the GP said:

> The buying experience was simply excellent for me, and I couldn't be happier with the car I bought. I figured I probably could have gotten a comparable deal slightly cheaper somewhere else, but I would have wasted a ton of time

I mean this politely, but did you really read what you were replying to?

I just feel like there has to be a better use for your power than converting it into a hydrocarbon at single-digit efficiency.

And there are other codecs that compress similarly to JPEG XL that also support other features like animation. So, again, why would I use JPEG XL?

But anyway, this conversation was helpful. I guess there aren't really many reasons to use JPEG XL.

I think you're not understanding my question. You said that the most exciting feature of JPEG XL is the ability to losslessly encode old JPEGs. My point is that, if this is the most exciting feature, then it's unsurprising that the industry is choosing to ignore JPEG XL as the "most exciting feature" is more or less useless.

Technology is a means to an end. Transcoding images is a means. The end is what you do with it. In the 90s and early 2000s, encoding images in JPEG allowed for digital cameras to store vastly more images on their limited storage space. Bandwidth was extremely limited, so JPEG encoding allowed for detailed images to be shared over the web, which wouldn't have been possible in a different format. Today, however, storage and bandwidth are cheap. JPEG already does a decent enough job for old images. Making old images even smaller isn't really enabling any new "ends."

I guess the ultimate question I'm asking is "Why do you want your old JPEGs to be smaller?" What is the end you hope to achieve with smaller JPEGs?

Crypto is programmable money. However, if you use non-stable coins then you open yourself up to exchange rate risk, especially given how volatile the price can be. Stable coins are an attempt to create programmable dollars, essentially.

Why don't you get an electric car and battery instead?

> I don't know what you mean by "unlocking anything new". You have identical images at a smaller size.

Yes exactly, nothing new is unlocked. So why would I use this format? Was the old size of the images preventing me from enjoying them in any way? No. Of all the old JPEGs out there that absolutely must be losslessly transcoded from the already lossy JPEG encoding, how many are prohibitively large? You can still look at both a JPEG and JPEG XL image locally. Most likely you'd be able to serve both images over HTTP, although the JPEG image may take a bit longer to load. And how many cases require the new and old images be exactly the same? My point is that, if the main selling point of your codec is that you can create the same thing as 30 years ago only smaller, then it's going to be a hard sell compared to other formats out there. If the choice was between JPEG and JPEG XL, then sure, let's use JPEG XL. But the choice is between JPEG XL and other formats with better features.

Other image formats like AVIF add new features that enhance images. Yes, the images are smaller, but also way more powerful. Image sequences, for instance, enable new features like "live images." Converting your old JPEG to a smaller JPEG isn't going to magically enable live images.

tldr: I'm looking for a reason to care that I can losslessly re-transcode my old JPEGs. Ok, the re-transcoded images are smaller and exactly the same as before, but what is a real world reason why I would need that vs. using the old JPEG directly or re-transcoding it to AVIF?

Chrome supports plenty of things that are unsupported by Firefox and Safari. E.g. you get set the audio sink id on individual media elements in Chrome. You can’t do that in Safari and Firefox.

Does re-encoding JPEGs as JPEG XL really unlock anything new? The answer is likely no. So this case is not useful to optimize for.

As for people's photo albums. The iPhone is already storing new images in HEIF, so JPEGs are becoming less relevant with each passing day. And of course, you can still view the old images perfectly fine as JPEGs.

That doesn’t seem like a great reason to use JPEG XL. Existing JPEGs are meeting the needs of their users. Sure, maybe those images could be ever more compressed, but it’s clearly not a deal breaker otherwise those images wouldn’t have been JPEG encoded in the first place. Second, the amount of existing JPEGs [that people care about] will decrease over time, both in quantity and as a portion of the total image population. So lossless re-encoding is a solution in search of a problem.

The article states plainly they mean margin expansion.

Comments like this always perplex me. Did you read the article? If yes, what other possible interpretation is there? If no, why comment a question like this that would most likely be clarified in the article?

How old are your kids?

I don't think Google is really making money here. The amount of money they collect for the registration is surely a rounding error to Google. Rather, the high price must be to deter squatters.

I think this is fine. Too many good domains are held by squatters. Domains should be put to productive use, not speculation. I don't know what forum.dev is used for, but when I visit it, I get a Cloud Flare error page.

Even when you love your kids, I don’t think caring for them can be described as relaxing.

If you have kids, you lose "come home and relax" unfortunately.

The article seems to contradict your claim:

> In 1936, all the Montessori schools in Italy were forced to shut. With the help of one of her students, Ada Pierson, Montessori settled in the Netherlands, where she lived until her death in 1952. Pierson gave her a big house in Laren, near Amsterdam, where she dreamed of expanding her method from young children to adolescents, ‘a delicate age, full of surprises’.

Most of the anecdotes in the article are about children younger than 6.

I think the key points you’re missing are that:

1) this is directed at young children.

2) “what they want” is really “what they want [in the context of the environment you’ve created for them]”. So the kids can’t do whatever they want.