shadowfaxRodeo

It’s not dangerous?! Somebody tell the nuclear power companies. They’ll save so much money on security and safety. They could have a side hustle doing tours for school kids.

Of course it’s safe! This explains why Fukushima has such a thriving beach front community — and why three-mile island is such a tourist hot spot.

I guess that means dirty bombs aren’t dangerous? I guess nuclear weapons aren’t dangerous either!! Someone tell the CND, they’ve been wasting all their time protesting.

Wait, this is huge, the biggest conspiracy of all time. what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they must be in on it too. Did they fake it?! Was the Cuban missile crisis an inside job? Is the Bikini atoll an advertising ploy for two-piece swimwear?

Does e=mc^2 or are Oppenheimer and Einstein sipping mojitos in the Bermuda Triangle with Elvis and Tupac?

> That doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion. I don't know what you're getting at.

I'm explaining why I'm against building nuclear power plants — it's a very simple point really:

- Do nuclear power plants require stability to be safe?

- Is the world becoming more or less stable?

All the other stuff sounds like a conspiracy theory.

You could make the exact same argument about nuclear energy. The same promises were made, and it has failed to deliver.

It doesn't address the main issue of nuclear — it's incredibly dangerous. For nuclear to be safe you need human security, human experts, funding, you need to not have tsunamis, earthquakes, pandemics, wars, terrorism, economic collapse.

That's not a promise nuclear can make — especially given that we've almost certaintly have passed tipping points that will make unrest and extreme weather likely.

At this point it's not about stopping the climate crisis, it's about limiting the damage, and preparing society for the inevitable consequences.

If you think there's no prospect of coal consumption going down, then we're headed for global calamity.

Knowing that it's a likely scenario that the world becomes wildly unpredictable, it's not responsible to also build nuclear reactors that require stability and maintenance to be safe.

I don’t think you’ll find many anti-nuclear people on HN that are also pro-fossil-fuel.

It’s a false choice, we can choose to not use fossil fuels, and decrease the risk of nuclear meltdowns and dirty bombs at the same time.

This is a false choice.

As the world gets more unstable due to climate change — an increased risk on pandemics, civil unrest, extreme weather events — do we really want abandoned nuclear power stations added to the mix?

So, don’t do either. use way less energy, rely on renewables and batteries for the rest.

Because it doesn’t collect personal data to sell to advertisers.

This is an excellent point.

I’m no influencer, but i do have a big family and lots of very close friends. I’m very lucky.

Many people are isolated and struggle to make and maintain friendships — especially over the last year. They don’t have the luxury of being able to take a stand.

Which messaging app do you think most people would join… one with nobody else using it, or one with everyone else using?

My issue is with Facebook, not with the network effect itself. Happy to use the network effect to get people off Facebook.

Understandably, people who don’t use WhatsApp, don’t think it’s weird that other people don’t use WhatsApp.

People who do have WhatsApp, probably have it, because most of the people they know have it.

I got rid of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp about 4 years ago. Facebook and Instagram was easy, but people who have WhatsApp really think you’re weird for not having it.

Deleting WhatsApp, while annoying for me personally, has resulted in many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent.

If you don’t want to have a conversation about why you deleted WhatsApp, simply say it’s a moral issue, nobody wants to know.

I've tried it out, I'm still getting smaller AVIF files with dithering. Not like the saving you get by using a dithered png instead of a jpeg.

Depends on a lot of factors. You can keep turning the quality down on avif and get it lower than a dithered image. At some point I'd prefer the crispness of a dithered image over a blurry full color image.

Also, avif seems to do a really good job of lossy compression on dithered images.

But you can also use a dithered AVIF — and save even more.

But have you tried dithering AND using modern image formats?

Hi there author of the article here, I did a lot of testing when I wrote the article, and even made a tool for dithering.

https://doodad.dev/dither-me-this/

It completely depends on what kind of dithering you do — ordered dithering with a small color palette will give you a much smaller file size than a full color jpeg.

WebP and AVIF also support lossless compression and can be used for even smaller file sizes using dithering.

If you try to use lossy compression on a dithered image it will increase the file size. Using dithering and saving in a compressed lossless format will have drastically different results.

I wrote that previous comment before I fully understood the new specification. I'm still not entirely sure, but it looks like you're right.

I thought the rules were static, I see now they can be updated dynamically — which works perfectly for my use case.

I have a firefox version, and a safari one in the works. It has about 50 users on firefox and 1500 on chrome.

It works a bit differently to most content blockers, you can take a look here if you're interested:

https://prodtodolist.com

Anyway, the whole point is to allow people to get out of addictive loops, to take control of how they use the web, and most people aren't that tech savvy — they deserve to not be addicted to facebook too.

Removing webRequest's blocking will completely destroy my web extension.

It helps people get work done by blocking website's they're addicted to.

I've just started out on a new version, not sure what to do.

it's the opposite way round. png is especially good at compressing dithered images.

It's a reduced color palette, (in this case just black and white) so there's lots of repeated sequences. Which works very well with lossless compression.

The carbon emmissions of the internet are often simplified to more data = more carbon — making streaming video the worst offender.

Streaming video happens most on fast, more energy efficient networks — so I think we overstate it's effect, compared to say a website with lots of images and scripts hosted on different servers, and accessed over 2g.

I'd love to hear from anyone with experience in this area who can suggest a place to learn more.

Video streaming is about 60% of the web. Not 99%.

But, in what sense in video streaming not part of the web?

Sustainable web design is just as applicable to streaming as e-commerce or a blog.

It’s also not at all the same as turning off a lightbulb.

It’s more like one action resulting in turning off millions of other peoples light bulbs.

And almost comically CRT screens.

Anyone remember blackle.com?

The energy usage is very small — as mobile devices are generally very efficient. But the impact it has on battery life is big — and using more battery results in the battery dying sooner and then the consumer needing to get a new phone.

A simple half-way solution to this is just to support a dark mode. People generally prefer it anyway.

Yeah, I'm not sure when that calculator was made, but somebody needs to make a better one.

In my experience, making a sustaible website means doing more talking, and a lot less coding. You are making less stuff after all.

It's also about creativity, having pride in your work, living your values.