HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | linolevan's commentslogin

I think people are really forgetting that JXL's encoders are bad right now. For instance, in TFA Jake presents

- The Firefox screenshot w/ lossless JXL at 66.9kB, when with a better encoder you get get it down to like 40.7kB (39% smaller) [1] (or 43kB if you need it to work with jxl-rs [2])

- The cat illustration w/ lossless JXL at 255.3kB, when with a better encoder you can get it down to 178kB (30% smaller) [3]

[1] https://www.linolevan.com/05-screenshot.jxl

[2] https://www.linolevan.com/05-screenshot-web.jxl

[3] https://www.linolevan.com/06-illustration.jxl


Oh, that explains! I tried AVIF and JXL a few years ago and one of the two took ages to encode (a minute versus <1s for jpeg) to get similar compression ratios, and the other was somewhat reasonable on cpu complexity but significantly worse quality at the same size / much bigger to achieve the same quality as good old jpeg. I ended up concluding that jpeg is still the best for the specific image I was trying to lossily compress, but that was probably just the encoder then


Happy to see your version of the cat illustration doesn't come with massive decoder overhead. Are you planning to open source this encoder?


It's just a side project I'm working on with some friends. May release it if it's interesting to folks.


I would love to try it out.


I'll post it to bsky/HN at some point in the future!


I imagine, too, that as better encoders become available, we'll be able to losslessly recompress existing JXLs, much as mozjpeg's jpegtran can losslessly recompress existing JPEGs.

Yeah, it's very cool that jixel was able to achieve such large efficiency improvements!


This is not jixel though. It was their own encoder

> with a better encoder you can get it down to 178kB

What encoder?


Encoder I’m working on as a side project, not publicly released (but feel free to pull the included files to prove it to yourself)

Thank You. I was about to post I suspect both of those images would have worked better with JXL lossless.

Curious what is the better encoder here referring to?


It's an unreleased one. There's a whole section in the article about lossless, which includes data on those images, but not this mystery unreleased encoder https://jakearchibald.com/2026/jpeg-xl-vs-avif/#lossless


39.2% (!!!) of people get diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives


Because cancer is "just" some error in what a cell does, and the detection didn't work. Giving enough time everything will have cancer. It's simply memory/hardware faults accumulating.


Also many treatments will hasten your death than the disease itself. There is another HN thread posted today: "Do dentists know what they're doing?", the comments are illuminating. Same goes for oncologists - money incentives play a major role.


What is hard about migrating between password managers? At least on MacOS you can just open passwords and export all to another app?


The problem is that they determine the other apps that are supported. There is no "generic" export.


While it is definitely true that original power drops were due to lower lumens, few things:

- reflective housing is super inefficient (~70% losses on the bounced light off typical material, at the top end expensive stuff still ~23%), still better than just losing the light upwards but not as many lumens on the road as a lab test would show

- Today LEDs are more efficient than sodium

Some math: 100W HPS cobra head lamp prdouces 9.5k lumens, including ballast it draws ~133W from the wall. Lab test shows about 70% of the lamp's light leaves the fixture (with the rest being lost in the housing) leading to ~7k lumens exiting. Roughly 53 lm/W.

LED cobra head lamps get like ~125 lm/W on the low end + fade much more slowly than sodium


Don't low-pressure sodium lamps get like >2x efficiency gains over HPS?


They do.

People don't like them mostly because they're orange.


Astronomers definitely do like them because they're orange, and they can filter it out of their photos.


Looks like 100% AI (https://www.alphaxiv.org/abs/2609.01877) except for citations?



I’m very skeptical of these results. I run a pretty large group paper website on top of arXiv and we run pangram on papers. The numbers are not nearly this high.

One thing I see a lot is papers flagged as AI because they include llm rollouts in the paper as examples.


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

Search: