AFAIK Jyrki came after WebP was already announced to add lossless support; rather I’d consider Skal the creator inasmuch as it was originally just an image container for VP8 intra. He was working on WebP2 at the time Google rejected JPEG-XL and also was not involved in that decision.
I designed the lossless format and its initial encoder. Zoltán Szabadka wrote the initial lossless decoder.
On2 Technologies had designed the lossy format and its initial encoder/decoder. Skal improved on the encoder (rewriting it for better quality, inventing workarounds for the YUV420 sampling quality issues), but did not change the format's image-related aspects that On2 Technologies had come up with for VP8 video use.
In the end stage of lossless productization (around February 2012) Skal had minor impact on the lossless format:
1. He asked it to have the same size limitations (16383x16383 pixels) like lossy.
2. He wanted to remove some expressivity for easier time for hardware implementations, perhaps a 0.5 % hit on density.
Skal also took care of integrating the lossless format into the lossy as an alpha layer.
As someone who did predominately use stack overflow through Google search… I remember that half the time the top result was someone asking the question I had, only for it to be duped to a different question that didn’t answer the original. So they failed there.
Yes, sometimes you search and find someone else's attempt to ask something that looks very much like your question, but it's duped to a different question. There are a few common failure modes:
* The originally asked question was very low quality; for example, it might have basically been a code dump and a "what's wrong?" where many things were wrong, one of which is what you were both asking about. Someone else may have decided that something else was the more proximate issue.
* The OP was confused, and didn't really have your question. Or the question title was misleading or clickbaity. These should get deleted, but they tend to get forgotten about for a variety of reasons.
* Sometimes two very different problems are described with all the same keywords, and it takes special effort to disentangle them. Even when the questions are properly separated, and even if every dupe is sent to the correct one of the two options, search engines can get confused. On the flip side, sometimes there are very different valid ways to phrase fundamentally the same question.
My favourite example of the latter: "How can I sort a list, according to where its elements appear in another list?" (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18016827) is a very different question from "Given parallel lists, how can I sort one while permuting (rearranging) the other in the same way?" (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9764298). But the latter is fundamentally the same problem as in "Sorting list according to corresponding values from a parallel list" (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6618515). It's very easy to imagine how someone with one of these problems could find the wrong Q&A with a search engine. And there were a lot of other duplicate questions I found that were directed to the wrong one, and if the site were as active as it was in 2020, I'm sure it would still be happening.
And that's after the effort I (and others) put in to improve the prose and especially the titles, and add reference sections. The original titles for these questions were, respectively: "python sort list based on key sorted list"; "Is it possible to sort two lists(which reference each other) in the exact same way?"; "Sorting list based on values from another list?". No wonder people didn't get what they wanted.
I have not had that experience, most of the time the duplicate question was answered, but to address the argument, it seems like it would be correct to mark a question as duplicate even if the original isn't answered. Why should there be two instances of the same question with no answer as opposed to one instance with no answer?
> I remember that half the time the top result was someone asking the question I had, only for it to be duped to a different question that didn’t answer the original.
This is an entirely different problem than toxicity is it not? Like, if the moderators are bad at their job that seems uniquely different than the moderators were mean to me while doing their job.
Not OP but I think it’s the same problem. Mods got a pat on the back for “curating” (i.e. quickly closing) incoming questions, so they leaned far too far toward closing them ASAP for specious reasons because it rewarded themselves.
Sure, there was a whole appeals process you could go through if you had infinite time and patience to beg the same cohort for permission, pretty please, to ask the question on the ask-the-question website, but the graph of people willing to do so over time looks a lot like their traffic graph.
I disagree. Look at the moderator election threads[0] and a good chunk of the would-be mods’ stories are demonstrating how good they are at deleting and flagging and downvoting content.
And that stuff is important, but when it becomes a metric to optimize and brag about…
It's not an entirely different problem because the main method through which moderators are mean is in closing new questions as dupes. A more positive q&a community might "steel-man" the question and try to find what's different about it, but SO's culture leaned heavily towards essentially telling people "go away, you don't have anything new and worthwhile for us".
> It's not an entirely different problem because the main method through which moderators are mean is in closing new questions as dupes
This discussion needs a grounded definition of "toxic" then.
Elsewhere in this thread I see:
> I disagree with this. You can tell someone that a question is not appropriate for a community without being a jerk. Or you can tell them that there needs to be more information in a question without being a jerk. I do not think being mean is a prerequisite for successful curation of information.
So we're all speaking about different things it appears.
> This discussion needs a grounded definition of "toxic" then.
When I wrote about the issue on MSE (https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/394952/173477) a couple years ago I explicitly called out that the terminology is not productive. It generally seems to describe dissatisfaction with the user experience that results from a failure to meet the user's expectations; but the entire reason for the conflict is that the user's expectations are not aligned with what the existing community seeks to provide.
And yes, the ambiguity you note has been spammed all over the Internet (everywhere Stack Overflow is discussed) the entire time. Some people are upset about how things are done; others consider what is done to be inherently problematic. And you can't even clearly communicate about this. For example, someone who writes "You can tell someone that a question is not appropriate for a community without being a jerk." might have in mind "don't point people at the policy document as if they should have known better, and don't give specific interpretation as if their reading comprehension is lacking"; but might also have in mind "point people at the policy document, and give specific interpretation, because otherwise there's no way for them to know". Or it might be "say something nice, but don't close the question because that sends the wrong message inherently" (this interpretation is fundamentally misguided and fundamentally misunderstands both the purpose and consequences of question closure).
And yes, every now and then, the person making the complaint actually encountered someone who said something unambiguously nasty. For those cases, there is a flagging system and a Code of Conduct. (But most Code of Conduct violations come from new users complaining when they find out that they aren't entitled to an open, answered question. And that's bad enough that many people don't comment to explain closures specifically to avoid de-anonymizing themselves.)
1. They overwhelmingly are not moderators, and they are not doing moderation by closing questions. This is curation, and duplicate closures overwhelmingly are done by subject-matter experts: users with a gold badge in one or more of the tags originally applied to the question. The requirement for such a badge is based on answering questions:
> Earn at least 1000 total score for at least 200 non-community wiki answers in the $TAG tag. These users can single-handedly mark $TAG questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.
So these are definitely not people averse to the idea of answering questions.
2. I can guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of these cases are not people trying to be "mean". Users are actively incentivized against closing duplicates, which has historically led to nowhere near enough duplicate questions being recognized and closed (although there have been many proposals to fix this). Dupe-hammering questions "to be mean" is considered abusive, and suspicion of it is grounds to go to the meta site and discuss the matter.
No, people close these questions because they genuinely believe the question is a duplicate, and genuinely believe they improve the site with this closure. It's important to understand that: a) people who ask a question are not entitled to a personalized answer; b) leaving duplicate questions open actively harms the site by allowing answers to get spread around, making it harder for the next person to find all the good ones; c) the Stack Overflow conception of duplication is not based on just what the OP understands or finds useful, but on what everyone else afterward will find useful.
For example, there are over a thousand duplicate links to https://stackoverflow.com/questions/45621722 , most of which is from my own effort — spending many consecutive days closing dozens of questions a day (and/or redirecting duplicate closures so that everything could point at a "canonical"). Yes, that's a question about how to indent Python code properly. I identified candidates for this from a search query and carefully reviewed each one, verifying the issue and sending other duplicates to more specific canonicals in many cases (such as https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10239668). And put considerable effort into improvements to questions and existing answers, writing my own answer, and adding links and guidelines for other curators so that they can choose more appropriate duplicate targets in some cases. I also looked at a wider search that probably had a fairly high false positive rate, but implies that there could be thousands more that I missed.
3. When your question is closed as a duplicate, you immediately get a link to an answer. You don't even need to wait for someone to write it! It's someone saying "here, I was able to find it for you, thanks perhaps to my familiarity with other people asking it".
4. Stack Overflow users really do "try to find what's different about" the question. It just... doesn't actually matter in a large majority of cases. "I need to do X with a tuple, not a list" — well, you do it the same way. "I need to Y the Xs" — well, it seems like you understand how to Y an X and the real problem is with finding the Xs; here's the existing Q&A about finding Xs; you shouldn't need someone else to explain how to feed that into your Y-the-things loop, or if you do, we can probably find a separate duplicate for that. Things like that happen constantly.
Sometimes a question shows up with multiple duplicates. This almost always falls into two patterns: the user is really asking multiple separate things (due to failing to try to break up a problem into logical steps) and each one is a duplicate; or the question is constantly asked but nobody knows a good version of the question, and gives multiple links to previous attempts out of frustration with constantly seeing it. (The latter is bad; someone is supposed to write the good version and send everything else there. But that typically requires behind-the-scenes coordination. Better would be if the first bad attempt got fixed, but you know.)
5. Closing a question is emphatically not about telling people to go away. The intended message (unless the question is off topic or the OP just made a typo or had a brainfart) is "please stay and fix this". However, it's perfectly reasonable that an explicit attempt to catalog and organize useful information treats redundant indices by pointing them at the same target rather than copies of the target. And questions are indices in the Q&A model.
I question the "failed" here. You did land on their pages, after all. You most probably also clicked on an internal link and moved to another of their pages, and then bounced off.
Man, what a perverted definition of success... They failed in being useful to the end users, but they damned sure made their engagement KPI look good, and also got a few ad impressions on the way.
What you seem to overlook is that the people curating the site and setting up duplicate links don't see a penny of revenue. There is extreme misalignment between them and the actual stakeholders. Nowadays the site staff/owners are seen by the meta community basically as active saboteurs.
For people in general these data brokers are a primary source of information for spammers, both political and semi-targeted. So they share responsibility for making calls from unknown numbers useless.
gAMA dates back to the days when hardly anyone had a clue about color primaries and colorspaces, let alone commonly tried to synchronize them across displays. It's explicitly ignored by everyone if the file uses any more modern method of signaling colorspace information, so really OP needs actually to write a colorspace to the file (cICP, iCCP, even an sRGB chunk) instead of merely claiming on their blog they wrote a colorspace.
Proper rate control for such realtime streaming would also lower framerate and/or resolution to maintain the best quality and latency they can over dynamic network conditions and however little bandwidth they have. The fundamental issue is that they don't have this control loop at all, and are badly simulating it by polling JPEGs.
MD-11s aren't in commercial passenger service, so it's unlikely they retire it due to a poor reputation.
The huge question is what changes the FAA requires to unground it; if they decide design changes are needed to reduce the risk that an uncontained failure of engine 1 or 3 directly takes out engine 2, that could likely be economically infeasible.
reply