Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bawolff's commentslogin

Its also a context that the reader is expected to know in order to interpret the book.

You get a fantasy novel? Living in the ruins of a great civilization that lived in the distant past and faced some sort of calamity (or decline of some sort) is one of the most common setups for a fantasy novel.

I think most scifi (that isn't just action adventure) tries to reframe the problems of today in a different context for the purposes of social commentary. Despite the future setting, it is fundamentally a genre about the present.

If the point of your book is to show X is bad, taking X to the extreme is of course going to have to result in a bad outcome. That is the entire point. Not doing that would be like writing a romance without the romantic lead.

That doesn't mean we can't have hope. A warning is one of the most hopeful things: It means we still have time to change our ways.


> I think most scifi (that isn't just action adventure) tries to reframe the problems of today in a different context for the purposes of social commentary. Despite the future setting, it is fundamentally a genre about the present.

Allegory is allegory whatever the setting. The genre is just the setting. Some settings are more useful for allegories than others, but that's very specific to the culture and literary tradition that produces the work. Eg. fantasy writers in western countries pretty much never use the setting for allegory, they use scifi more often. Writers from China that I've seen are the opposite, almost every other work in xianxia is deeply political, but the scifi is just scifi.


What percentage of the web is that 0.1% ? 0.01% ?

I think its correct to say a use case that is very niche on the web isn't super important to the web. Especially when there already exists a bunch of lossless formats. After all, the value proposition of jxl is to save some bytes. It would be different if the point was introducing images as a whole.


count .png-s in the web. There's a lot. And .jxl's lossless is much better than png's. Basically any image with sharp lines (screenshots, image of a button etc) or gradients should be lossless.

This is outdated thinking. AVIF is really good at sharp lines & gradients. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2026/08/intent-to-ship-jpeg-xl/#:~...

> It won’t be know until it’s been tried

We can reevaluate when and if improvements are made. The problem with statements like this, is its really easy to miss the showstoppers when imagining what something could be. All plans are amazing until you have to actually do them in the real world.

As the saying goes: Never fall in love with potential.


Not to mention if you for some odd reason wanted to do gif-style animations, you can also do it with apng or webp. You shouldn't, real video format makes more sense, but even if you did there is still no reason to use gif.

Browsers only supported animated gif, not any other animated format

What do you mean? Most browsers support animated jpeg xl, avif, webp and apng just fine.

Perhaps the clue is in the past tense "supported". Nowadays browsers support many formats, but in the "olden days" gif was the only way to get animations in browsers without plugins like Macromedia Flash...

also, don't forget - actual video format is better for animated stuff. Current default approach is .webm which is standardized .mkv container + vp9 (or av1) video + opus audio (usually no audio to as a feature parity to gif). IMO animated picture formats like .avifs are very backwards and don't add much

One advantage to animated AVIF is that it supports an alpha channel, which AV1 doesn't. But I guess that just points to how short-sighted it was for AV1 to omit alpha channel support.

Its fine if you are targeting rich people. It doesn't work if you are targeting (relatively) poor people. You can't have both scarsity and low prices, something has to give.

You can, I only poop once a day but I still have to pay the sewage company to get rid of it (negative price).

>then people can keep buying from Nike and will buy the next version.

But in this scenario people can't because if they are worth $1000 but selling for $200 then they will instantly sell out.

why does it hurt consumers more to not be able to purchase due to the price point instead of due to being instantly sold out?


Nike can make them not worth $1000 and get more revenue by selling more shoes. They are actively shooting themselves in the foot by putting resellers over real customers.

For a foot company you'd think they wouldn't want themselves to have one less foot. But here we are.

It didn't hurt me any. I just bought a cheaper brand.

We picked democracy because it is very difficult for a citizen to move to a different country/start their own if they are unhappy. Democracy is a fix for that power imbalance.

By contrast its relatively easy to quit and start a new company if you feel like it. That is the control for a company.


I feel like the only way this makes sense is if "ideas" is a euphamism for drugs.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: