I'm surprised that it took me this long to see anybody mention that you can easily choose to go back to the old design. I should probably blame myself for not exploring the user preference options, but I'm still surprised that nobody even mentions it.

On the other hand, how can they justify requiring you to make an account when m.wikipedia.org exists?

"When my student showed me the data I thought she must be wrong," Kenneth Burch

His female student made a groundbreaking physics discovery. Clearly this man is going to win a Nobel Prize. That is, afterall, how it works. Female students make discovery, professor gets Nobel Prize. Congrats.

Yeah, if it wasn't then it's a shitty forgery but the fact that it's not a forgery and yet somehow manages to have all the magical properties required to explain away the skeptics, it must have real magic indeed. Magic exactly like the real Jesus would bestow on it, checkmate, atheists!

Magical elves of secretly repairing part of a cloth with magical stitches that don't exist, just to weave some 14th century cloth into other cloth.

Actually the textiles we have from that time are radically different. This is a much better woven piece than you'd come across in the 1st century.

You missed a couple.

The art is Gothic and dates to around 1100 - 1500 and was likely done as a bas relief of another piece. The person on the image is white and european, the exact thing white Europeans would have as their Jesus. The image has a different height from the back as from the front.

Look, get Forbes to say something like this, but frankly I would not believe anything coming out of the Russian Propaganda mills at this time.

You'd be wrong. It's so extensible that all you'd need to do is add another block type for mPeG that would contain the mpeg data and you're fine. You could easily use a png to store that type of data. This is the kind of joke that only somebody who didn't read the spec would make. It's totally within spec to make different block types that contain other data.

Now let me start saying jpeg is a giant pile of crap that couldn't be fully implemented by anybody but PNG is actually great. It's simple, highly extensible, lets you ignore stuff, has different bit structures, outsources the compression and is perfectly easy to understand. There is literally nothing in this format that isn't already part of PNG. And even putting JPEG and PNG in the same realm is in error, PNG is superior in literally every way. But, saying this Qoi format is as good is both wrong and seriously problematic. You can quite literally write a PNG writer in like 7 lines of code.

        return b"".join(
                [
                        b"\x89PNG\r\n\x1a\n",
                        png_pack(b"IHDR", struct.pack("!2I5B", width, height, 8, 6, 0, 0, 0)),
                        png_pack(b"IDAT", zlib.compress(raw_data, 9)),
                        png_pack(b"IEND", b""),
                ]
        )

Also, the biggest deficit here is that it's focusing on the original code writer for the library not for the user of that library. I don't care what's in the magic stuff Pillow does to process .save("myfile.png") -- I care that it's not lossy, I care that you could extend it to include other things not originally given in the spec, but somebody is going to write that code 1 time, and people are going to use the features in that code a million times. --- Making the former improved at the cost of the latter is a serious problem. We would be much better off if we could focus our efforts and killing non-png type formats.

Humans are great apes. All the great apes, humans included, lack tails.

I really love OLED screens! They have true black backgrounds which is great for use at night. I only wish they were brighter during the day!! Super excited!!

It seems a bit weird but honestly outlaw that stuff.

Clearly... Penguin McPenguinFace

The law is pretty clear, there's a lot of legal restrictions with kids and they suck for ad revenue so you basically everybody just prevents kids from participating because it's the cheaper and better option for them.

I think it's kinda admirable to try to give them a platform at all, it's also a money pit and a waste of time.

Not really-- this solution is even weirder. We've already been moving toward a "thin client" solution with everything running in web browsers, which actually runs a web application on the server. That's already a push toward the "thin client" model.

This then takes that and runs the browser on the sever, and streams the output locally. So it's like saying, "What if we emulate the thing client on the server too, and try to make a thinner client that just connects to the emulated thin client, which then connects to the server to run things."

If web browsers are such resource hogs that you can't even run the browser on your local computer, it's time to reevaluate what you're doing.