> It looks like garbage

Sigh. Not like the garbage in the link above it doesn't. If this was the image in the link we all would have nodded and said "yup, looks about worth a doubling of byte count" and we'd all be in agreement.

Instead, the absurdist misencoded nonsense above gets thrown around as proof that BPG is some kind of revolutionary technology, and a bunch of us have to step in to debunk the silliness.

It's twice as efficient (roughly). Just say that and leave the spin.

What spin? You're the one getting confused about the point of the demo - to show that for very low byte count you can get a reasonably clean BPG image (when compared to JPG it's much much much better or can't you see?); so that people can be more informed about it's relative size/performance ratio at one data point.

I find it amazing that you seem to be adding in all sorts of nonsense about scaling images and filtering and such. It's not relevant to the discussion about at X filesize and res JPEG looks appalling and BPG looks pretty passable.

This is the widest distance between the two formats for sure, but if you want large hires images at very small file sizes BPG is a pretty nice format. As I go on to say the savings are outweighed by the cost of including the decoder plugin and the probably battery and memory cost this incurs.