JPEG does not support lossless compression. There was an extension to the standard in 1993 but most de/encoders don’t implement that and it never took off. With JPEG XL you get more bang for your buck and the same visual quality will get you a smaller file. There would be no more need for thumbnails because of improved progressive decoding.
I think I know what you mean and it’s true if you look at world class. But that’s the reason why sometimes we use those properties to cluster people into groups to make it more fair. A lot of fighting sports are split into weight classes. We have paralympics, and we split many sports into male and female. Even in chess where almost everybody agrees that there is very likely no performance difference between man and women, but there are so many man playing chess that statistics alone tells you that most outliers (best and worst players) are also men.
But with “fairness” you have to draw the line somewhere or the groups that are able to play against each other would be too small. In the extreme it would mean that it’s only fair if you compete against yourself, like in trying to break you own personal records.
Even paralympics aren’t fair. It makes a difference to shoot with a bow if you are missing a leg, or an eye or an arm. Getting too specific will certainly make it fairer but would result in more groups and less people that would be allowed to compete against each other.
I’m personally not interested in watching any form of spots, so I couldn’t care less about who’s allowed to compete against whom, but I think it’s only understandable if people that went through puperty without testosterone would complain if they would have to compete against more and more people who went through testosterone puperty.
They are Trump supporters. Not voting is also decision. You vote “I’m fine with whoever wins”.
It’s not just like jpeg with extra channels. It’s technically far superior, supports loss less compression, and the way the decompression works would make thumbnails obsolete. It can even recompress already existing JPEGs even smaller without additional generation loss. It’s hard to describe what a major step this format would be without getting very technical. A lot of operating systems and software already support it, but the Google chrome team is practically preventing widespread adoption because of company politics.
If you really think about it a ton of things are way too cheap so in a lot of scenarios it’s way cheaper to buy something new compared to repairing something old.
Think of a nail for example, from digging up some rocks that contain a bit more iron than other rocks, process them through many stages many of us (including me) have no idea, just to ship them around the planet. But if you have a bent or really messed up nail, everybody would just throw that refined material away because it’s cheaper than a cent.
If a person goes through testosterone puperty there are undeniable advantages over everybody that didn’t, in sports where physical strengths matters. I’d really love to get my mind changed on that, could you please name the study and/or journal where it was published.
Only because you consider one of earths poles to be “up” which it’s not.
He is comparing himself to Caesar? Maybe someone should stab him to help him out.
JPEG does not support lossless compression. There was an extension to the standard in 1993 but most de/encoders don’t implement that and it never took off. With JPEG XL you get more bang for your buck and the same visual quality will get you a smaller file. There would be no more need for thumbnails because of improved progressive decoding.
https://youtu.be/UphN1_7nP8U