Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | encrypted_bird's commentslogin

Paint.NET has a *lot* of legacy code that cannot just be discarded. The dev said as much in their original post.

>You could probably just use an extension that unloads inactive tabs from RAM

Doesn't Firefox already do this? (Or at least have an option for it?)


Some of it, yes, but you get finer control with extensions.

Exactly this. I used to be a tab minimalist, but vertical tabs + tab groups made having lots of tabs open viable for me.

Genuine thought: maybe it's the separate windows?

Maybe, yeah. It did seem a bit slower around the 400 mark, though -- there are definitely limitations.

Of course it's QT. One might even say it's adorable.

>because the technology needs to find it's way into applications and appliances.

I hear what you're saying, but speaking for myself: can we *not*? I really have absolutely zero interest in having ChatGPT on my microwave or refrigerator. In fact, I'd rather have my appliances *not* be connected to the Internet, all things being equal.


>I'd rather have my appliances not be connected to the Internet,

It's getting harder and harder to find things that don't connect to the internet as time goes on. The moment a manufacture figures out how to sell your appliance data for more than it costs to add it, seemingly every model they produce gets it added with the only choice of going to some other manufacture if you don't want it... and even then finding one not internet connected gets nearly impossible.

In general most people don't care enough for people like us that don't want connected devices to move the dial.


>Note also that converting jpeg to jxl is 100% reversible, you can convert it back to exactly the same image (byte for byte identical) if you need to.

Speaking as someone who loves JXL, I have a serious question: I once used ImageMagick to convert a JPG to a JXL, and then back to JPG, and the final JPG was a noticeably different file size compared to the source JPG.

What am I misunderstanding here?


Not sure imagemagick supports lossless transcoding. This old discussion from 2021 mentions that it didn't (in 2021):

https://github.com/dlemstra/Magick.NET/discussions/872

cjxl / djxl do lossless transcode reliably when called with all defaults (no arguments). Just re-checked:

  $ cjxl src.jpg out.jxl
  (some output)

  $ djxl out.jxl rev.jpg
  (more output)

  $ cmp src.jpg rev.jpg 
  (no output: files identical)


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.


It probably used pixel-by-pixel conversion (decode input format -> encode output format), which is lossy, not the libjxl native way to convert JPEG (it needs to know about the original JPEG data, not the raw image data).


Image Magick re-encodes into an internal format, before output. If reproducibility is the goal, I'm afraid it just isn't the right tool.

(The IR used to be PixelPacket. Not sure how modern versions handle it.)


What is "hot desking"? Is it as horrifying as it sounds?


It's where you're in a pen with rows of desks and you just have to use whichever desk is free, you don't have your own desk. If you have any stuff you need to work beyond what's on the desk (say, accessibility equipment), you might get a locker (these are often underprovisioned) and you have to cart your stuff to and from the locker every day. It is awful.


That...sounds horrific. Oh my goodness.


>you have to cart your stuff to and from the locker every day

Yeah, you might. I assume you're a principled person.

In my experience, the less principled simply leave their shit all over the place for us to deal with.


Why blame them? They didn't create the shitty environment.


I blame them because they're the ones taking advantage


What does DMV stand for in this context?


DC, Maryland, and Virginia, a term only used in the DC area because those not in DC proper take offense at being lumped in with it or something I guess.


That seems like a really niche term. Parent really should've specified what it meant instead of assuming everyone in the world would automatically know what it meant.

On that note, thanks for explaining it to me.


You know, people would be more receptive to you if you wouldn't talk down on them. I mean, for gods' sakes, parent specifically partially agreed with you(!) and yet you *still* talked down to them.


"Partially agreeing" while baselessly denying the central point is what exactly in your book?

You fall for rhetoric tricks at your own expense here. This matter has a host of important consequences and implications. Treating it at the same level of effort as every other infotainment piece is a failure of judgement.


>"Partially agreeing" while baselessly denying the central point is what exactly in your book?

It means partially agreeing, and quite respectfully, I might add. You, however, were only *dis*respectful, downright rude in fact.

>Treating it at the same level of effort as every other infotainment piece is a failure of judgement.

I'm not treating anything as the same as any level of effort. All I'm saying is if you act like a dick, people will be much less likely to give you any attention, even if something you say is correct.


No, it doesn't: it means to mislead people like you into getting the appearance of agreeableness while actually still baselessly denying the salient point.

Denying without giving any rational reason is again a rhetoric trick to gaslight people not trained in applying formal logic into believing something in spite of contradicting evidence.

How do you act here? You attack me personally while adding nothing to the actual topic at hand.

You're right about people who appear more likeable getting more attention. Does that make their standpoint actually more valid or valuable?


>You attack me personally while adding nothing to the actual topic at hand.

My goal was never to contribute to the discussion but merely to explain that your attitude will not win any converts to your arguments.

People are having good discussions in good faith here and you're angry and contemptuous toward them.

Anyway...it seems you have no as much interest in hearing me than you have in admitting your self-sabotaging emotional state. I am done with this topic.

Good day.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: