pxoe

AV1 decode works well enough even on quite old devices, and it has more favorable quality and size, individually or when considering both. I prefer it to h264 (or vp9 or even h265) at this point, and there isn't a particular need for hardware decode to benefit from it. On Youtube (probably the biggest and most accessible source of av1 video), when comparing size and quality on different codecs (h264/vp9/av1), av1 is either gonna have much smaller size while keeping some level of quality, or have better quality at similar size, or even have both be better.

Maybe institutions and companies are gonna have to get smarter at making use of stuff that they have instead of just churning thru hardware. It's hard to see it being sustainable anyway to be constantly turning over hardware every few years if not yearly. In a way, this chilling of consumerism is kinda neat.

Stupid wiggly and slightly laggy dots with no option to stop motion altogether are making it annoying to browse on desktop as well. Everything is constantly moving and there's hardly any telling what's what among model dots, and they don't have much spatial persistency so you're just constantly lost. The only predictable way to browse is just going thru 755 cards page by page.

Otherwise, extremely interesting materials. Unfortunately, doesn't seem to include later nokia smartphones, like ones with maemo and meego like n900 and n9, even though in my opinion they still very much had something to say and to show with their design, both physically with shape and look of the phones, and with phone interfaces. dare i say, they were quite influential still, and those design sensibilities, at least phone look wise, still echoed for years in later nokia (lumia and even hmd nokia) phones

a lot of funky stuff in presentations, like this one https://repo.aalto.fi/uncategorized/IO_68d7aeff-c4fb-49c0-be... or this one https://repo.aalto.fi/uncategorized/IO_b5225dd0-743a-4b6d-ba...

There's this thing called video compression, and it's gonna work pretty well for something that's mostly a still image with just a mouth moving. If anything, it'll compress that kind of thing the best compared to other kinds of content, like sports or games. Like, gameplay recordings are probably the worst type of content in that regard, needing the most bitrate and bandwidth to reach any kind of fidelity, and always looking bitrate starved with h264 (and likely even with newer codecs if it's at lower streaming bitrates). And due to how video compression works, lowering fps is not actually gonna yield any substantial space savings for talking head type of videos, if all that's gonna do is just cutting off inter frames that are already gonna be pretty small. It's quite literally the case with the least amount of any possible benefit from doing that.

12/15 fps is actually insane, thankfully nobody saying that is gonna be in a position to make those kinds of decisions. (and there are some things that do stream in 15 fps, like 1seg ... which broadcasts tv on a mobile phone screen, and not a smartphone, a tinier flip phone, like 3-4 inches. and it's really more of a technical limitation for a technology and phones from 20 years ago. and youtube can serve 12 fps ...at 144p.) Even for literally just watching someone sit and move lips, 24/30 is gonna look much more natural and believable, and not be jarring unlike going down to that low fps. Like, have you actually watched any 12/15 fps footage of people talking recently? Cause it's not gonna be giving what you think it's giving. It's not gonna look "fine" even at crystal clear 1080, making it feel like a shitty zoom call that might as well be in 240p. Unfortunately there is a reason why it's not a cool and totally useable life hack to just crank it down to 12, because it just looks bad. Some people in these comments really seem to be just saying things before they even try and see them with their own eyes.

40 fps could be a much more workable minimum, it looks quite smooth, wish it was more commonplace of a target instead of 30.

Oftentimes it's not that big of a difference in size, especially with modern video encoding like av1. There are many cases where higher frame rate improves viewing experience, like smooth motion (smooth movements of something, like people or things, panning, etc), heavy motion (when it's just more intense), giving the eye a little bit more to hang onto.

One particular great use case is dance choreography, so that's music, music videos, dancing videos, quite a chunk of videos and viewership. Most of music videos are gonna be released in 24 fps (a few 30 fps here and there), but there's a lot of "extra content" (tv shows, performances, live recordings, etc.) released in 60 fps, and there's some demand for higher frame rate like 60 fps (seeing from uploads of interpolated videos). 30 fps can be enough to have some smoothness to it, but at 24 fps it can become more jarring if not just noticeably choppy, sometimes 24 fps video is just not particularly great to look at in terms of literally just seeing and discerning what's going on. Sometimes things can end up looking choppy (like in daylight, at faster shutter speed, etc), or have more pronounced motion blur (which is good and better for motion continuity, but at 24 fps it can be a bit much). Motion continuity is quite important, and sometimes even made up frames from interpolation can improve viewing experience, even at a cost of some interpolation artifacts, when the end result of smoother motion is more pleasant to look at.

Of course, it can be a case of experiencing something better and then seeing things as choppy looking back (and 24 fps can really look choppy in immediate comparison), and it may not make that much of a difference if you've just been mostly seeing 24 fps video and not thinking much of it, or seeing 30 fps which is smooth enough. But in my opinion, even starting at 40-48 fps, that's already gonna feel much easier for the eyes compared to 24 fps. Sometimes there's just a bit much going on in the frame and 24 fps is not enough. Our eyes don't see in 24 fps after all. (also, higher frame rate doesn't preclude from using cinematic techniques, including motion blur and all)

Words used to have meaning, now everything is "breaking" even if it's literally working and it's just "I don't like it"

Now I'd only wish browsers could come up with more convenient ways to get around when some websites and upload fields don't support jxl or some other image format, and would either do something about it automatically or offer some option to get around it (convert to jpeg or png and upload, or 'paste as an image' which would pretty much be the same as png conversion, or something)

JPEG to JXL transcoding and JXL to JPEG reconstruction are different from converting an image in either direction, it's gonna be a specific option (in something like xl-converter), so maybe it wasn't what was used and it was just a "reencode" into jxl and then into jpeg.

Again, even a "pure" paint app with very limited functionality can have it be implemented badly, and it has nothing to do with how "fancy" or complex or advanced of a feature set it has.

There's a bunch of smaller editors that don't have such problems, like paint.net for example. It's an arbitrary "limit" (accidental even) stemming purely from bad quality implementation of basic features, not from how basic that feature set is.

That's a really fair point, but i'm not sure if that's what they meant by "breaking changes" if that was followed with "autocorrect, rich text, and Copilot"

Key point, saves a bunch of time. Copy, paste, click button, done in three seconds. The app is also just there, preinstalled. It's great precisely because it doesn't require "looking into" anything. Yes, there's a bunch of other apps and services, but that's all besides that point. It also works pretty much on any pc made in past decade and half without crazy gpu/vram requirements for a relatively miniscule task.

It's been a "bug" for several decades now. Not everything was of shitty jagged quality in either 90s or 00s. Particularly when using some more capable image editors.

Background removal is really useful though, saves a bunch of time.

Unfortunately, some of the regular paint tools like eraser don't erase in a smooth antialiased way and just end up looking jagged (also only a square shape for eraser...no eraser brush mode unfortunately), so it ends up being a better looking option (well, when it works properly, which it does often enough to be useful). For whatever reason a bunch of tools and transforms (scaling, rotating), just produce such garbage jagged looking results, it's not serviceable even for those basics.

I wanted dark mode, tabs, and autosave, and now I don't have to use a different app to get those, so that works out great for me. Not sure what "breaking changes" even means for that though. Did it suddenly stop being able to open text files? No, it still just works.

This ephemeral concept of "rare books" with no actual book titles to back it up that lets everyone project whatever they think onto it is so insane and yet it spread like wildfire, combined with bizarre attitudes people have towards books when they're just objects and are a copy in itself already.

Took them long enough to come up with any semblance of "initiative" like this. Hopefully it succeeds and shows how embarrassingly low is the number of actual rare books with no available copy of any sort anywhere, compared to the proportion of performative outrage about it

It is a bit, yeah, but mostly towards this perfectly fine personal blog post being posted here like it's something, with quite a general title too that'd almost suggest there's something more to it that'd be worth reading, when it's not so much actually. Most of that post is just photos of phone and app screens. The "lightbulb moment" is pretty much wholly encapsulated in that short title. "Yeah, you could use an old phone as a music player". That's pretty much it right there in entirety. Even whatever you might imagine an article about that topic to be, after reading that title and having that "moment", might be more worthwhile imagining and thinking about than actually clicking and reading.

Kinda bizarre to see much ado over what's ultimately just installing a music app. The concept of an edge to edge screen with a notch being an "old android phone" is also very bizarre. (that's before even getting into specs and the fact that this was a flagship phone so this is not "slumming it up" by any means, cause it's not a situation dealing with a truly old or weak phone either. like, there's genuinely no hardship there to overcome, besides shitty rom situation)

It's like a preview of some future generations idea of "old tech" and "accomplishing something". Ooh installing some apks. Using two phones, groundbreaking. (with such revelations as, using another phone with a 3500 mAh battery would save battery on some other phone likely with its own 4-5k mAh battery. great stuff.) And there could be a neat and useful writeup about using any and all kinds of phones as 'just a music player' or some other kind of focused device (some older phones may still have pretty good cameras), but this is just barely even instructive at all

They don't "just hand over access". If anything, browsers pioneered permissions for mic and camera on desktops, having them several years earlier before windows even got around to having these things restricted under permissions.

It's not basic at all though. Photos comes with iCloud sync and storage upsell. Preferential treatment, promoting their own paid services and subscriptions. (it also has some ai features from apple, with which they could be literally just a step away from upselling an ai subscription)

Music as well, it's not just an audio player for local tracks, it's upselling a music streaming service.

It kinda seems stupid to have no choice there, or predatory rather, given how the lack of choice is never just coincidental with apple, and it's very much an intentional lock-in first, and then whatever marketing spin second or third. "Privacy, that's iphone ... that's why you should give us access to all of your data, cause you trust us, right? choose yes or yes." Getting suckered into "trusting" something is kind of a pathetic argument regardless of wherever it comes from.

It's not an allegation https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/01/27/anthrop... (if you're talking about the "rare or unique" part, yeah that might be bs)

But in my opinion, treating mass produced books like they're this sacred untouchable object is ridiculous. They're not "source" material, they're just a copy as well, and they're not "priceless" by any means. They're very reasonably priced, perhaps even so cheaply priced that books can be bought in bulk in these amounts. Buying used books and doing whatever you want with them is just legal. Used books, that would probably be just laying in some warehouse, or recycled anyway.

If there's anything to have gripes with, it's the copyright system that makes it easier to take this legal route.

It's not so much "waiting", but rather semi-curiously checking roughly every year if anything changed whenever there's a new 1.x release popping up somewhere like this, and then promptly going back to the old version that actually works.

One thing about pen tool that can be kind of tricky to adjust even in 0.92 is Mass parameter, where even in that version there's not enough granularity literally just between 0, 1 and 2 (it honestly could use about a 100 levels to adjust between just 0 and 2), and the lack of granularity and pen control is made even more severe in 1.x where there's not enough granularity even between just 0 and 1, and even 1 already feels much slower than higher settings in 0.92. Though I'm not sure if fixing that would even be that pressing at all if it was just brought up to 0.92 level of performance.

I don't know if anything is solved in 1.5 dev build yet, but the calligraphy pen there seems to be even worse than before and worse than even in 1.4.4. It's frankly impressive. I take it nobody actually uses that tool for drawing at all (which would explain a lot really), otherwise the issues with it would be immediately glaring a while ago.

Yeah, I'm keeping it in mind. 0.92 still works great. There's basically nothing that's so severely lacking in 0.92, or anything that would be so enticing in 1.x, so there's no pressure to switch at all, and it may as well stay broken forever.

It's a little odd to me that the tool regressed so badly in 1.x and stayed the same for five years though, even despite some apparent attempts to fix it, for something that i assume is a core tool (it's right there on the toolbar), though maybe not so much if it's so low priority that it stays unaddressed. It's not a situation where people are asking for something new to be added, it's a feature that worked fine before that got broken years ago and stayed broken. It's frankly bizarre to see hot new releases get touted year after year, while a part of core experience just stays broken.

But again, it's kinda fine because the old version is just there, it just makes for a bit of an odd caveat when recommending it to people, for them to stick with the old version because it works better (well, actually works at all). It's a little unfortunate for the new users that might not know that and will just get the latest version and won't experience a feature properly though. (like, if I was a new user to it and picked up any 1.x version and tried the tool there, it would be clear that it's unusable for drawing and it'd be immediately dismissed, even though it actually works pretty great in older versions)

Calligraphy pen/tool is still unusable, messy and less responsive (lower resolution, more angular, etc), much worse than in 0.92, and it's been this way ever since 1.0. It also now requires windows ink to be on, and they removed devices panel so you can't even tell if your device is recognized properly. It's bad with a tablet, but it's still just as bad and much worse in comparison even with the mouse. It's kinda disappointing to see this bad of a regression to just linger there for years. Here's the issue for this problem on their gitlab https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape/-/work_items/1473#note_...

also, 'Coming up in the graveyard' makes it sound like something's gonna arrive here like it's newly dead, like it's about to be shutdown with a deadline, when it's just anniversaries, which really should be clearer at the top of that box

Maybe there can be some kinda suggestion box and a voting system for suggestions or existing things? Like an open suggestion box, where people could submit potential entries and vote on whether they belong there and are dead or not. And for existing entries, to vote on whether something is truly dead or not, like 'yep, this is dead', or 'nope, this is still alive' (some things may be less popular, but that's not them being dead/actually completely discontinued and defunct). Not necessarily for ranking or putting it together into one score, but perhaps just showing a number of how many people think either way about something

Especially americans? The popularity and demand for homogenous american products and services (and other similarly homogenous things from other countries) overseas shows that it's not just "especially americans". What point would that even make? If anything the amount of people and customers of such things worldwide could easily outnumber just the people who live in one country, even as big. Desiring a level of service is not really a "uniquely american" thing. Perhaps there's also some impression that there's some "international homogeneity" that blurs things and makes it seem like it's coming from one place (even though it's a mix), but seemingly "cultural and local" things in other countries can be no less homogenous. Going from one japanese ryokan to another you're gonna experience the same level of homogeneity.