Lol, so true. I honestly don't mind waiting for an electric car since I hope to get more mileage out of my current one. If it lasts 10 more years, all the better.

The cars available then should be far better (other than new things I might not want- e.g. more automation).

Thanks for the response and I agree there are benefits to newer formats. I actually do prefer newer codecs when I am using a newer system, such as AV1 (I actually wrote a blog post on that yesterday https://inavoyage.blogspot.com/2026/06/720p-on-384kbps-how-h...), and recall avif, but forgot about it.

I think .avif sounds preferrable since it is single frames able to play animations using the same library as av01. I am curious how much CPU usage it needs for a just a few frames. A Pentium 1 might not be able to play it easily, but I imagine a dual core Intel E6400 wouldn't have much of an issue, even if it is 20 years old.

Yeah, basically the only reason I suggested older support was because it was just a couple frames (maybe 5 tops), as opposed to something that uses hundreds or thousands of frames.

https://share.google/aimode/X1Q5rp3z2tEbtDSPf

"Yes, but not natively just by using a standard tag in web browsers. Because native APNGs play continuously like a traditional GIF, you need to use one of the following methods to pause them: [1, 2, 3, 4]

1. The Canvas Method (Best for Web Controls) To add play/pause functionality, you cannot use an tag. Instead, you need to render the APNG onto an HTML element and control it using a JavaScript library like apng-js. This provides precise, video-like control over the frames. [1, 2, 3, 4]

2. The Cover Method (Simplest Fallback) If you just want to freeze an APNG on its first frame, you can layer a static .png of the first frame directly over the APNG. When you uncover or hide the static image, the underlying APNG will be revealed and play as normal. [1]

3. Use CSS Animation Alternatives [1] If you are designing the animation yourself, an alternative is to build it as a single static image (a filmstrip of all frames side-by-side) and animate it using CSS background-position. This allows you to pause the image natively using the CSS animation-play-state property. [1, 2, 3]"

"In Web Browsers (Chrome, Edge, Firefox): Install browser extensions like GIF Scrubber on Chrome or GIF Blocker on Firefox, which add playback controls to any web page.

On iPhone/iPad: Go to Settings > Accessibility > Motion, and turn off Animated Images to pause all GIFs in Safari.

On Mac: Go to System Settings > Accessibility > Display, and toggle off Animated Images.

In PowerPoint: Press the 1 key on your keyboard during a presentation to pause the GIF."

It would be just as unusual to have a story about hackers doing acts of good will, like helping old ladies cross the street. But a news report isn't going to cover that. "Hacker altruist volunteers at soup kitchen" might make a headline, I suppose.

The funny thing about these comments is that most of the replies to my comment have been more defensive than my own. I wasn't suggesting a monopoly on the term, and I wasn't suggesting "hacker" shouldn't be ever be used. I just said it's not very accurate, and the average non-technical reader may not know the difference.

It's kind of like Australia or the UK saying kids are "hacking" their PCs to use VPNS. There can be a very legitimate use of tools, but the portrayal of users bypassing blocks could just as easily be painted in a negative light.

One time someone made a joke or observation, 20 years or so ago, that their Myspace page was "hacked" because someone "posted on their wall". It's obviously not that misused, but just labeled that way when misinformed.

As this happens whenever there is an intrusion reported in the press, the word "hacker" is often misused:

"There is another group of people who loudly call themselves hackers, but aren't. These are people (mainly adolescent males) who get a kick out of breaking into computers and phreaking the phone system. Real hackers call these people ‘crackers’ and want nothing to do with them. Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer. Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word ‘hacker’ to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end.

The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them."

http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html

Einstein's 1905 papers were published without peer review.

I still get spam emails asking me to pay for papers I've already uploaded to public servers years ago.

Here's one from this morning- already deleted by Google's spam filter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h8YVu5-DEx-1mOibiLpfJHrErvX...

The actual article was intended as a joke: https://vixra.org/abs/2405.0051 yet fraudulent publishers continue to treat it as a serious article.

It would be nice if publishing a fake paper every now and then could serve like a sinkhole for scammers, but I would be too optimistic or naive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_sinkhole

For some reason it displays in IE better but I don't recall seeing this option in chrome of Firefox recently..

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48527863

Points: 3

# Comments: 0