this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024
83 points (98.8% liked)

Green Energy

2198 readers
389 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

2bpp with lossless compression is an order of magnitude fatter than what DCT codecs like JPEG can achieve, if you're okay with all your illustrations being kinda shite. Even just 16 colors with no dithering would probably compress better.

[–] JacobCoffinWrites@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You'd have to take that up with them - they might be interested in alternatives that improve efficiency. I wonder if they like that it's very visibly a deliberate choice to modify the images for size, or if they feel they'd be answering constant 'why do your images look bad?' questions with a reduced color pallet.

For anyone else who wants more info, I think these are cool discussions:

https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/about/the-solar-website/#why_website https://lobste.rs/s/9v0ioj/how_build_low_tech_website

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

It definitely conveys that it looks bad on purpose. There's utility in that signalling.