I haven't looked up the history, but I would imagine that the "XL" is for the fact that it can handle images up to 1B x 1B pixels (1 exapixel).

Chrome just added it a couple days ago. I guess that must mean an upstream library was finally deemed production ready. Also presumably MS Edge will get it within the next few days downstream of chromium.

Both lossy and lossless, and so much more.

It's this.

And on the compression side, there's a lot of really cool stuff that lets it happen. For example, it dynamically resizes the blocks from 2x2 to 256x256, and they don't even have to be square. It may apply DCT in one, AFAS in another, etc - whatever is most efficient. It uses edge preserving filters to keep the edges of features clean. It can draw in splines and clone regions from one part of an image to another. Where it has to throw away high frequency noise (film grain, noisy textures, etc), it statistically samples the properties of the noise and saves that, and then regenerates equivalent noise. In "busy" areas, like say tree bark or whatnot (where the human eye isn't good at discerning changes), it throws away more precision there, and instead allocates it to details located in fragile flat areas, such as skin and shadows, that the eye is attracted to. It works in default in XYB colour space, based on the actual interactions of the cones in the eye, so it can aggressively quantize things which the brain cannot detect. And in the choice between fast but not-great Huffman coding vs. better but slow and patent-encumbered arithmetic coding, they instead use rANS, which is nearly as fast as Huffman but as efficient as arithmetic coding, and faces no patent challenges. Which is also why you can take a legacy JPEG and rapidly losslessly reincode as JPEG-XL and get a file that's ~20% smaller - you're swapping Huffman for rANS.

(That's the lossy mode - there's also a dedicated lossless mode)

Why even ask someone whose business is hurting people with desperately banal web tech how risky he thinks his new product is?

I agree, the real danger of this is that the documentation requirements will swiftly become so complex and verbose that only an AI can write them, and only an AI can read them. Humans will no longer even know what the effect of the documentation requirements is, they can only hope some of the remaining original purpose (keep the reactor safe) survives the AI rewrite.

The AI fanboys still seem to be buying, money is no object.

I did some price checking a couple weeks ago and you can still assemble a non-AI capable AM4 system mini ATX system for about $800. I did not include the video card in that list as I'm not a gamer, AMD's APU integrated graphics are good enough for me. I currently use a 4600G.

Of course people should beware. Anyone who has a problem with Flock is surely aware that they are only a fraction of "the problem," though among the more visible.

I'm concerned that some Flock haters might take us down a slippery slope to where you can't have a camera in your house if it looks out onto the street, or that you shouldn't be allowed to record cops, or that I shouldn't be allowed to have a camera attachment on my Manhattan apartment balcony telescope that I normally just use to furiously goon to the good people of NYC who don't close their curtains. (Oops, forget that third example.)

I can't say I'm a fan of Flock but if their rights are infringed in a way that might possibly expand to everyone else, then they will need to be defended.

That said, I have a modest proposal for the law-enforcement-related problems of surveillance vendors. Require non-warrant sharing with LE to be unreliable. For every geo search, remove a random half of the applicable results and replace them with deliberate, randomized false positives, so that LE will know the data shouldn't be taken too seriously on its own. If cops act without confirmation while KNOWING it's _at least_ 50% likely to be wrong, that'll help with the civil suits for false arrests.

Ahem

Don't we all! Hard drives, RAM, *and* GPUs, I'm in the market for it all.

I also want to buy silver-tin alloy for casting, and hey, what do you know, silver and tin are also both at astronomical prices due to in no small part the AI boom.

At one point you have to just stop waiting. Prices could start falling tomorrow, but then again, that could have been said at any point for the past several years.

They don't have the revenue to survive much longer,

They were profitable in Q2. You can't extrapolate that endlessly, but they're not a cash incinerator anymore. And they have $15-20B on-hand pre-IPO. They're fine.

Anthropic is more or less breakeven *despite* being engaged in a massive 10x YoY scaleup for approaching 4 years running. Companies undergoing even "normal" scaleup rates are almost never profitable, let alone 10x/yr. Any slowdown in scaleup, or any shift in market pressures from intense jockeying for position to starting to pay back investors, and this drives them into deep profitability

The threat to Anthropic has nothing to do with whether its current business is sustainable or deeply profitable at its core. It is. Its threat is one I've been highlighting for years and now we're really starting to see: once something is "good enough", people start to question why they should be paying more for better. We now have the rise of a bunch of crazy cheap, yet quite coding-competent models like GLM 5.3 Flash, Qwen 3 Flash, MiMo 2.6 Pro, MiMo 2.6 Flash, Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor, etc. The latter two are almost too cheap to meter. Now, you still need an orchestrator, for planning, supervision, management, etc; it can either be a human or a higher-end model. But you don't need to pay for, say, Opus to get good coding done these days. Anthropic, like OpenAI, is built on charging a sizable premium over inference costs because they have the best and people will pay for it. And sure, in non-verifiable fields (say, medicine), maybe people keep paying for the best, whatever it may happen to be. But the more of the "bulk" coding and the like moves off these premium models and into dirt-cheap models, that seems to represent a real threat to their business model.

Anthropic's response thusfar seems to be "join them". Claude 5.5 Haiku is a good model "flash" model, and they've set quite affordable pricing for it, definitely fitting into the above category. But that doesn't really solve the problem. Their best hope is that Jevon's Paradox kicks up: that now that big projects are so cheap to implement, people keep taking on even bigger projects, scaling their income from cheap flash models like Haiku, orchestrators like Sonnet and Opus, and non-verifiable tasks where people will generally always want to pay for the best. But will that compensate? Hard to tell. This is the threat to Anthropic.

There are probably literally worse uses; but 'compliance' seems like an exceptionally bad place for a system that effortlessly produces high-plausibility/low-information text walls; and lies relatively frequently but at unpredictable intervals.

It often gets proposed for the purpose; either by people who overestimate it or with that little sneer at 'paperwork' that assumes that plausible nonsense is fine because whatever the 'paperwork' is it must be a fake problem imposed for stupid reasons, so it really deserves syntactically plausible nonsense; but is an exquisitely bad solution. Not only does it replace actual data with plausible nonsense in places where, surprise surprise, someone was actually maintaining records because something matters; but lowering the cost of bullshitting a report to close to zero removes one of the main incentives for process improvement.

If bad process hurts you can only really maintain it through fairly disciplined commitment to an oppressive, unreasonable, management approach that rejects process improvements out of hand; or the cultivation of a profoundly dysfunctional organizational culture where as many FTEs as possible owe their paychecks to nonsense requirements and can be recruited to defend them.

If bad process just means spinning up the nonsense printer with a cynical smirk; why bother even looking at what the process was intended to do; or getting your hands dirty with what records are important and what records are just historical accretion? Just prompt for a prompt that tells the bot to do them all, and some extras if you want to look diligent, and call it good.

Huh, does stuff like this work in vim? /prompt write me an implementation of the Navier-Stokes equations for a zero-turbulence boundary condition in python, with a sleek modern GUI and test geometry

Unrelated aside, but back in the day when there was just vi, there was always a debate as to whether it's pronounced "vee" or "vie". Eventually my friends and I agreed on a way to settle the debate: we'd have a text-to-speech program read it out for us, and treat whatever it said as canon.

It said: "six".

Even if there are zero Flock areas where you live, the faulty AI might mis-identify some other car or person in a different area as you.

Flock anywhere means false arrests everywhere.