Why should skin colour be specified at all? Why not leave it as an implementation detail? Yellow is the popular default choice, but it could very well be green, blue, pink, or anything really.
It seems like Taler has been coming along great and the biggest things it’s missing are more interest and adoption. There has been some first ‘real-world’ use recently, but it’s still far from becoming widespread, which would be a dream come true.
They don’t seem to provide a detailed comparison showing how each compression scheme fared at every task, but they do list (some of) their criteria and say they found Brotli the best of the bunch. I can’t tell if that’s a sensible conclusion or not, though. Maybe Brotli did better on code size or memory use?
It seems to me this point of discussion always tends to get way too much focus. Should it really raise concern?
Of all the people who interact with image formats in some way, how many do even know what an image format is? How many even notice they’ve got different names? How many even give them any consideration? And out of those, how many are immediately going to think JPEG XL must be big, heavy and inefficient? And out of those, how many are going to stop there without considering that maybe the new image format could actually be pretty good? Sure, there might be some, but I really don’t think it’s a fraction of a significant size.
Moreover, how many people in said fraction are going to remember the name (and thus perhaps the format) far more easily by remembering it’s got such a stupid name?
Because JPEG XL is the first format to actually bring significant improvements across the board. In some aspects AVIF comes close, in others it falls far behind, and in some it can’t even compete. There’s just nothing else like JPEG XL and I think it deserves to be supported everywhere as a truly universal image codec.
That’s an interesting speculation, but I’m inclined to believe their official reasoning. (That being they just didn’t really care about the format and/or went with whatever Chrome said at first. A year or so later they changed their mind and said they wanted an implementation in a memory-safe language, which prompted the JXL team to work on it.)
I’m not 100% sure on this in the case of AGPL, but I think you don’t need to relicense your project if you include AGPL code; you only need to make sure your project respects all the freedoms the AGPL requires it to (in a suitable way).
So your own code would still be under Apache, and people could follow only the Apache conditions if they only use your code. But combined with the APGL part, the project as a whole would of course have to follow the APGL conditions.
> you don’t need to relicense your project if you include AGPL code; you only need to make sure your project respects all the freedoms the AGPL requires it to (in a suitable way).
GPL and AGPL typically imply that your entire project is licensed under those conditions is my understanding. I find it silly to licensed something MIT or BSD but pull in some GPL code, since now the entire thing needs to comply. GPL is about end-user freedom by force against the developer. Don't get me wrong I love the GPL, but if I want to use a specific license I rather stick to that license.
it doesn't look like it would be easily derived from Chromium or Firefox, because this code is Python and those don't use Python this way.
By the way is there any feature you'd like to see added to the toy browser? The goal is that one day it's a replacement for Chrome, Firefox, etc. It's being built by ChatGPT and Claude at the moment. Let me know if there are any feature ideas you have that would be cool to add.
> pointless, lazy, selective, quoting that willfully misconstrues what's being quoted
They quoted the part they were replying to. The point was to show what they were asking about. If your question pertains to only a part of the text, it only makes sense to be selective. That's not wilfully misconstruing anything; that’s communicating in a clear, easy-to-follow way. The context is still right up there for reading, for anyone who needs to review it.
> the answer to this question is incredibly clear: for the developer that created this tool
Questions aren’t only ever asked out of pure curiosity; sometimes they’re asked to make the other person give them more consideration. The question you quote was accompanied by an explanation of how the commenter found the approach less simple for them as a user, suggesting that perhaps they think the developer would have done better to consider that a higher priority. (I might add that you, too, chose to selectively omit this context from your quoting—which I personally don’t see as problematic on its own, but the context does require consideration, too.)
> if that makes you unhappy enough to malign them then maybe you should just not use it?
The author of the extension chose to share what they made for others to use. They asked for feedback on user experience and expressed doubt about their design decisions. If someone finds they might not want to use it because of what they consider fundamentally flawed design, why couldn’t they tell the author? It’s not like they were rude or accused them of any wrong-doing (other than possibly making poor design choices).
