Hacker News

Fine detail isn’t really the metric to use when thinking of SVG size. 20MB just sounds like a catastrophic degenerate export from shitty software

Have to wonder what those 20 MB SVGs were like and whether they could've been optimized as SVG still. Doesn't seem to add up that at "huge" resolution that PNG would be that small either.

I wonder how much you could have compressed that SVG if you stored the broad strokes and added the perturbations with javascript, after loading.

I’ve worked with various graphic formats for web… for over 20 years at this stage.

It’s incompetence to blame rather than file-size, maybe designers or someone in the briefing process that is uninformed that confuses the requirements for everyone else.

Also… I don’t trust Figmas quality with exported SVG. Just type some text, export it and see how it degrades…

I did a course on them at university. I can't remember what it was called.

https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs148/ would be a class that covers raster vs vector graphics, which should be covered in every computer science degree.

You can get your code to list PNG or JPG and then get your server to serve webp. Browsers don't care about file extensions, they read the image headers.

To implement this you can get nginx to generate the webp from the JPG or PNG. Then you get that cached by your CDN.

If you need to change your compression levels then you can delete the cache on the CDN.

You can use the varies header to see if webp is accepted. If not, serve the original. In this way people can save the hires JPG with a right click.

You can also amp up the compression just for when the data saving flag is set.

The best thing is that you can do all this with hardly any lines of code and the VIPS library to optimise it.

Bad at first until the pattern emerged. Solid colors, sharp lines, is PNG. Photo, 3d, landscape, is JPEG. I'm still trying to hammer it down for juniors who default to JPEG now.

I thought F1 was supposed to look a lot faster in person. The cars going at 300kmph don't look so fast on a screen because the camera stabilisation. Someone who makes drones on YouTube collaborated with RedBull to shoot Max Verstappen with a drone at those speeds. And Max was impressed by the perception of speed from the drone footage compared to regular TV broadcast

Link to YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pEqyr_uT-k

> My son's first comment was: they don't seem as fast in person.

That was the exact opposite of my experience with autoracing. Watching on TV with the long tracking/panning shots seem to reduce the effectiveness of the speed. Standing at the track watching the cars fly by and are only there for a split second really brings home how fast they are. "zoom zoom" is about as close as one can get to describing it. There's also just no way to replicate how loud the cars are either. I've seen Fox try where they have moments where the commentators shut the hell up for a minute, they push the mix from the mics around the track, display Vu like meters on screen with some sort of Dolby/surround type of something suggesting it sounds great in that mode. Don't care. Nothing like being there.

I'd expect a long lens shooting down a series of S-curves (think: Austin) would exaggerate how fast the cars look, but everything else would seem faster in person. My first F1 race was, indeed, in Austin, and the cars seemed mind-bendingly fast. Even just the sound sent a shiver up my spine as I walked up to the track from a half mile away. But that was in the V10 era; now they're very quiet.

On the other hand, my last F1 race was at Silverstone, and we were at Vale grandstand which is right at pit entry and the final chicane before the front straight. Sitting in a braking zone definitely makes the cars look slow.

Yes! There'll be different key traits for different customers. Like you say for F1, might be speed for some, prestige for others. So perhaps you might need to focus most of your things on both, or some things on prestige and some on speed. Generally there'll be a relatively small set of truly key traits.

> My son's first comment was: they don't seem as fast in person.

Depends when you're sitting, but you mostly appreciate it at good corners.

There, you can really feel why F1 is fast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1ckq7T1Tlg

The website does not fall under the budget cap, there is plenty of money to go around which cannot be used for racing anyway.

Sure, but you can only use it if you arrive at the website within a second from the visitor before you.

Faster doesn't necessarily mean better racing. And F1 has been heavily regulated forever.

Turbos were banned in the 80s because they made the cars too powerful and difficult to handle. The reason F1 tires had big grooves cut into them for a long time was to reduce grip, also in an effort to tame the cars a bit and slow them down while cornering.

The 2026 regulations are no different. Yes peak power is reduced but so is downforce / drag. Drivers will have to brake a bit more at the turns and accelerate out of them (which the extra electrical power will make easier). That means more overtaking possibilities, and the overtaking will likely be more based on driving skill than the current DRS push-to-pass. The current ground effect cars have so much downforce that they can go through corners flat out that no previous generation of cars would have been able to - and while that's cool to watch it's not that interesting from a racing perspective. You don't want to watch a high-speed parade.

For years everyone was catastrophizing about how the 2026 regs would make the cars 8 seconds slower, but the current consensus is around 1 second. That's not a big deal. And it only takes things back to say 2007 speeds, nobody ever accused 2007 of not being exciting.

https://lightest.app/c/SM4HFPEXpx