• Stamets@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Neither do I. I’ve heard so much from so many people about it being a ‘better’ extension in all these ways but I mean… it just comes off like audiophile-style conversations about how this specific record player with x speaker set allows for the warmth better than this other set that costs the same amount of money. That amount being your blood, various organs, and the life energies of everything in a 50 mile radius.

    How is it better when no one fucking supports it?!

    • bjorney@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      When your site serves each user 20+ images and you get millions of unique users a year, saving 25-35% on each image translates into a LOT of saved bandwidth

    • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      “No one supports it” because support doesn’t just happen overnight. These things happen slowly. Same way they did with jpg and png.

      Sure, part of the “better” is the audiophile “better quality” thing. But the major point is that it’s objectively a better compression. Which means less data needs to be transfered, which means things go faster. Sure people claim they “don’t notice” an individual image loading, but you rarely load one image, and image loading is often the bulk of the transfer. If we can drop that by 30%, not only does your stuff load 30% faster, but EVERYONE does, which means whoever is serving you the content can serve MORE people more frequently. Realistically, it’s actually a greater than 30% improvement because it also gets other people “out of your way” since they aren’t hogging the “pipes” as long.