| ▲ | gary_0 a day ago |
| "Mips – processing cycles, computer power – had always been cheaper than bandwidth. The computers got cheaper by the week and the phone bills stayed high by the month." - The Star Fraction, 1995 |
|
| ▲ | gfody a day ago | parent [-] |
| each visitor brings their own cpu to do this work whereas the server bandwidth is finite |
| |
| ▲ | cj a day ago | parent [-] | | I'm confused though. If the goal is to optimize for server bandwidth, wouldn't you still want to send the already-blurred photo? Surely that will be a smaller image size than the pre-blurred full res photo (while also reducing client-side CPU/OS requirements). | | |
| ▲ | pitched a day ago | parent [-] | | We don’t know the aspect ratio of the client window before-hand and on web, there are a lot of possibilities! So if any pre-blurred image is meant to peek out around the edges, those edge widths are dynamic. Otherwise, a low-res blurred image plus high-res non-blurred edges might be less bandwidth if overhead is low enough. |
|
|
