Reposting this since the original got deleted (except on the instances where it was federated in time) when my beehaw account was erased alongside a week worth of data a few months ago.
Came across the image and thought “why not post again?”, I don’t know if I still stand by the meme, but frankly I don’t care…

I just want to schizopost 
⠛⠛⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡷⢶⣦⣶⣶⣤⣤⣤⣀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠉⠉⠉⠙⠻⣿⣿⠿⠿⠛⠛⠛⠻⣿⣿⣇⠀
⠀⠀⢤⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⢸⣷⡄⠀ ⣀⣤⣴⣿⣿⣿⣆
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠹⠏⠀⠀⠀⣿⣧⠀⠹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠿⠇⢀⣼⣿⣿⠛⢯⡿⡟
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠦⠴⢿⢿⣿⡿⠷⠀⣿⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⣷⣶⣶⣤⣤⣤⣤⣤⣶⣦⠃⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟
  • la508@lemmy.world
    101·
    1 year ago

    I don’t understand any of those at all. Anyone got an idiot’s guide?

    • QuazarOmega@lemy.lolOP
      10·
      1 year ago

      Someone linked this: https://jpegxl.info/why-jxl.html
      I think explains well why it’s good, here’s a comparison linked from within that website

      TL;DR If in the past, to achieve the best file size to image quality efficiency, you had to choose to use PNG for clean graphics (like to export simple vector drawings, text, etc.) where boundaries are clearly defined; and JPEG for photography where the subject is very complex (think trees, rich landscapes, etc.); now you can scrap all that and use JPEG-XL to deliver all kinds of images on the web.
      It’s not a new thing, in fact WebP (literally Web Picture) and AVIF want to do the same, but they’re simply worse in performance and both are Google’s bitch creation, where AVIF (and AV1, which is it’s “parent” codec) has some patent shenanigans that could in theory stifle competition, while JPEG-XL supposedly doesn’t have that crap