Is file compression a meme?

Is file compression a meme?

Um . . . no, sweetie.
The fact that your png could be a jpeg 1/10th the size proves my point.

What if you want to zoom into the picture?

Is OP being a stupid faggot a meme?

Depends what kind of data you're compressing. Video, photo, and audio files can be compressed significantly using lossy file formats with little to no perceived visual/auditory perception.

woa angrey ppls here ! dang dude simmer down!
anyway im sick of not knowing if rotational velocidensity is real or not
IS REAL OR NO ??????

How do I get a username?

Are you for real? Do you know what compression means?

Prove to me you aren't a shitskin or underage

pf this guy...

No, paid file compression is a meme.

I do know what compression is. Jpeg files have a lossy compression format. The file assumes you won't notice when it takes detail out of the image, and if you zoom in, it becomes painfully obvious.

I'm talking about old scene rules which demans that for example an ISO file needs to be split into 50MB parts.

I think they should use modern file transfer techniques which don't require you to re download parts when something breaks.

There are different levels of compression

If you do it right, it won't be lossy.

Your pic is bloated OP let me help you with that

Is compression is fast in web scale I will use it. Does it web scale?

What kind of fake bullshit is this?

Removing data doesn't really count as compression.

Small scale temporary storage?
No not really.

Medium to large scale permanent storage requires it to maintain costs down so the investment in hardware can be done for reliability over capacity

>IE compressing down 1tb down to 250 GB reliably and then investing the cost of getting multiple drives to store the 1 tb reliably into into getting more drives for archival solutions.

>fast
If your website is re-compressing data, it's to save on bandwidth. Depends how much traffic you get but usually bandwidth is much more expensive than processing.

I hope there's no one dumb enough here to not find half a dozen things wrong with this disinfo.

>vast majority of image is solid colors
>it should be a jpeg

>Images saved in different environments over different formats have different results, that have almost barelly anything to do with the point initially attempted to appeal to.

My Boomer parents bought full versions of WinZip back in early 00s.

Underrated

Please refrain from posting unoptimized PNGs.
Thank you.

>web scale
What does this even mean?

>compression is encryption
>encryption is illegal
>compression is illegal

THANKS OBAMA

is 2017 the year of the .jpg?

Depends how good your internet is

Why nobody use the .7z compression?
The size ratio is way better than zip

Because they like piratin WinRAR for no reason.

holy fuck you are stupid

be from reddit like

Yeap, is a meme faggot. They wasted millions in years just to do one of biggest pranks of tech industry.

thanks sir

Look at those beautiful artifacts

PNGfags btfo

Goddamnit. Stop ignoring this issue. It's a significant issue for long-term archival and it's only going to get worse. SSDs helped a lot (by getting rid of the "rotational" part), but yes, the media's velocidensity is obviously going to affect the integrity over time of lossy compressed data. Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that your JPEGs won't be affected by your shitty ancient Seagate disk won't make it go away.

Once you've run that fourier transform, all bets are off. That frequency data is at the hands of all kinds of jitter and instability, i.e the effects which we collectively (and slightly inaccurately, but I'll save that for another post) call velocidensity. You just need to account for it, use lossless compression whenever you can and do frequent media refreshes when you can't.

t. retard

If you have a 1T disk and decently compressible files you can get 2T out of the disk. Say with something like zfs which does compression at the fs level

>doesn't know when to use jpg or png

>time and rotation of discs magically change some bits from 0 to 1 and from 1 to 0
>files binary change magically over the time
>some kind of files aren't affected by the phenomenon

Is OP a total faggot?

Windows can't open it natively.

On Linux we already do. Although it's not .7z but .tar.xz which uses the same compression algorithm but different archiving format. Debian uses xz by default for their .deb packages.

actually, the man knows what he's talking about, albeit, petty or nonsense to most people. when i've gone back to some really old jpeg's from way back 'in-the-day' (90's, 56k modem) most of my jpeg library looks like crap, mostly due to the technologies available at the time. i notice an unusually large amount of artifacts in a lot of images and a 95% quality jpeg looks more dull than a new 95% quality photo (both look terrible regardless). anybody who knows how data is written to a disc would know that bits do get lost over time.

i'm an arrogant, elitist, analog snob with 2 vintage CRT monitors that can expose every imperfection in an jpeg file. it absolutely cracks me up when people think their crappy TN panels and crappy best buy HDMI cables are suitable benchmarks for judging image quality.

it's pathetic how nowadays people have allowed themselves to compromise quality over convenience and cost. i'm only 34 but just as bitter and scornful as someone twice my age. just wait until i get my PNG photo blog up and running!

FUCK PHIL KATZ

I'm going to take a jpeg photo, note the hashes, and see if the hash will be different it 5 years

Windows can't open rar natively either, but for some reason rar is used a lot.