My guess here is that the image isn't fake per se, but it's missing the context.
I'm guessing the "original" is much higher resolution than 16MP. Google Photos' "high quality" being always limited to 16MP, my guess is that the comparison shot is between what I'm guessing at least 60MP or even 100MP image vs (downsampled) 16MP.
For more sane comparison of what "high quality" does, I find:
i.e. unless you have a camera with substantially higher resolution than 16MP or you're a professional photograph (or equivalent amateur who cares about subtle pixel level details), high quality is good enough for all casual photographers , which is basically 99% of us including myself.
The "Avoiding animation pollution" section has a few minor typos,
`transition: * 0.6s ease` won't work anyway, `*` is a selector, they're looking for a value of `all`. Omitting the transition property all together (i.e. `transition: 1s`) is what people often do but this is bad practice for the reasons they stated.
Also, for the CSS examples I believe they mean to set `.animated:hover` to `opacity: 1;` not 0.
I like the idea of using an SVG mask to make a transparent background on the jpg.
I'd add the NWS to that. I don't know of a better place to get weather information and forecasts than weather.gov. Perhaps it's just a lack of ads on the website compared to every other weather site.
Self driving cars. They'll turn right all by themselves to take you on a tour of advertisers. Mandatory expenditure before they'll take you to your destination. Pay more to turn it off...
Waze already does this -- it started with ads for food places nearby/on route and a "drive" button, now it's all categories. Sounds likely that some manufacturer will do this in some capacity. Maybe they'll market it as "recommended for you".
Waze is a mobile phone app that I get access to and maintenance of for free. If manufacturers think they'll get the same reaction from me on a car that I paid $40,000 for, they're in for a nasty surprise.
You're right, I didn't mean to justify this, just that it's been done before in a fitting way. I assume they'll borrow that implementation at some point.
This doesn't actually work, the value attribute of the input doesn't change as a user types something.
With that said, I still think there is a a big discovery yet to be made with browsers leaking users' history via the :visited selector. Only a few CSS properties can be set with it (all related to color). But if there was a way to detect the color difference or timing of the painting that would be a big deal.
Possibilities might be with mix-blend-mode, @property, or applying "slow" css properties like a blurry text-shadow dozens of times. I've played around with this a little but haven't found a crack yet.
It would work however on a password change form though which might write out on page load to a password input for comparison:
[old]
[new]
[retype new]
Sometimes old is prefilled with [****] for trivial JS overlap checks.
I’m confused. Are you saying a website might actually spit out your current password or what you had just entered when attempting to change it? The former should never, ever be the case; the latter shouldn’t be the case, although it does happen from time to time.
Attack scenario would be a website loading CSS that is controllable by someone malicious. This could be due to ad code or custom themes for part of the site.
That CSS would include selectors that would trigger different remote image requests for different partial matches on the value of the input. Based upon what remote URLs were triggered, one could reconstruct all or part of a password.
But I get your point. The website should not know the plaintext of your password for an overlap check unless their security practices are really bad. And if they are that bad, hopefully it is a throwaway password anyway. A duplicate check could still be done with hashes, but partial hash leaks are NBD.
Personally, I've had this happen though on password change prompts, which makes me think that the website is storing the value I just entered temporarily in the session. That's still bad even if it isn't being persisted beyond that page post though.
They could store the hashes of all the prefixes of the password and send them to the client. It's almost as bad as sending the password, because it's easy to brute force the cleartext.
They used to have a wax coating, in just the past decade that has disappeared almost entirely and any recently manufactured cups have a polyethylene (not styrene) lining. Many cups made for hot drinks have polystyrene on the outside, some are multi-layer paper and some have a cardboard sleeve.
> Not really, it's not worse compared to many other things people consume.
Yes really. Other things being worse is whataboutism to derail from the issue.
Coke, specifically, from can bottle. If you drink the brown sugar suspension that is fountain soda, you are just marching toward diabetes. The chemistry is unique between these products.
> Could this mean it's a bad idea to drink Coke from a styrofoam cup?
> It's generally a bad idea to drink coke
All coke colas (and most other products) are insanely high in fructose. The distinction to "drinking coke" is that it's a coke carbonated cola product. The conversation isn't nuanced that a distinction is being made.
If you look at my posts, I seem to be on the "downvoted every post list" from a few unhappy members as I frequently find my posts instantly downvoted for no reasons...
It was just a kid trying to hack into a video game company. He accidentally started a war simulation. The US had recently turned over control of its entire nuclear arsenal to an AI because humans resisted launching weapons that would kill millions.
Anyway, the kid accidentally started a war simulation and now the AI wants to nuke everyone. Don’t worry though, as soon as the AI plays itself in tic-tac-toe, it will realize that peace is the only way.
If you aren’t old enough to understand this, you need to catch up on your 80s nerd movies. :)
https://bennettfeely.com/csspiechart/