![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/2QNz7bkA1V.png)
Buy a $10 Xbox gift card and send us the code so that we can activate it. Then you get back to the shop and get $20 in cash - $10 for returning the card and $10 from us. We’ll pay the tax, too.
Buy a $10 Xbox gift card and send us the code so that we can activate it. Then you get back to the shop and get $20 in cash - $10 for returning the card and $10 from us. We’ll pay the tax, too.
Is there more info about this? I could only find Chinese forums like https://m-weibo-cn.translate.goog/status/OdaBMza1L?from=page_1005052963774131_profile&wvr=6&mod=weibotime&jumpfrom=weibocom
The chips (basic TTL logic, perhaps) are all DIP. This may predate the term “open source”.
Finally, I can calmly watch the performance of my stock portfolio
ZJh (base64) in binary is 011001 001001 100001
I analyzed it in another comment: the header says the image is 300x300px 8-bit RGBA but the data is invalid. Most viewers will notice that and show an error.
However, the syntax it used for embedding images is valid, as data:image/png;base64,
is the start of a valid image URL and you can use it like other image URLs in supported Markdown interpretors.
Example, using the 103-byte Google Maps’ sea tiles, and a 178-byte GIF:
![Google Maps sea map tile]()
![wink.gif]()
renders as
Works in the default web interface
I prefer hexadecimal. The encoded data in its entirety is
89 50 4E 47 0D 0A 1A 0A
00 00 00 0D 49 48 44 52
00 00 01 2C 00 00 01 2C
08 06 00 00 00 B9 B4 AC
33 00 00 01 A4 49 44 41
54 78 9C ED DD 41 8E 83
40 10 85 E1 7F 7F E4 B2
72 25 92 61 64 98 59 26
16 49 85 92 61 64 98 59
26 16 49 85 92 61 64 98
59 26 16 49 85 92 61 64
98 59 26 16 49 85 92 61
64 98 59 26 16 49 85 92
61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49
85 92 61 64 98 59 26 16
49 85 92 61 64 98 59 26
16 49 85 92 61 64 98 59
26 16 49 85 92 61 64 98
59 26 16 49 85 92 61 64
98 59 26 16 49 85 92 61
64 98 59 26 16 49 85 92
61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49
85 92 61 64 98 59 26 16
49 85 92 61 64 98 59 26
16 49 85 92 61 64 98 59
26 16 49 85 92 61 64 98
59 26 16 49 85 92 61 64
98 59 26 1(abrupt end at 4 bits of last byte)
We can analyze the PNG file header. Surprisingly, some of it makes sense.
89 50 4E 47 0D 0A 1A 0A //PNG signature (0x89 P N G 0xD 0xA 0x1A 0xA)
00 00 00 0D // Start of chunk with data length 13 bytes
49 48 44 52 // Type of chunk: IHDR (image header)
00 00 01 2C // Width: 300 px
00 00 01 2C // Height: 300 px
08 // Bits per color channel: 8
06 // Color format: 6 (RGBA)
00 // Compression method: 0 (DEFLATE)
00 // Filter method: 0 (Adaptive)
00 // Interlace method: 0 (None)
B9 B4 AC 33 // CRC-32 of chunk (invalid, should be 79 7D 8E 75)
00 00 01 A4 // Start of chunk with data length 420 bytes
49 44 41 54 // Type of chunk: IDAT (image data)
78 9C ED DD 41 8E 83 40
10 85 E1 7F 7F E4 B2 72 25
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 16 49 85
92 61 64 98 59 26 1
// 194.5 of the expected 420 data bytes, invalid when attempting to deflate
// the deflate algorithm needs a Huffman tree but an unfull one is presented
Credits to the PNG chunk inspector at nayuki.io
You may try to figure out if the header checksum was stolen from elsewhere and corresponds to another common image size but I cannot be bothered. The data could be subjected to forensic analysis but we only really have 21 unique bytes, the rest is likely nonsense because data encoded by the DEFLATE algorithm is unlikely to be so repetitive. Also, the image in total will likely have just 481 bytes (8+(8+13+4)+(8+420+4)+16), as a less-than-65535-byte IDAT chunk tends to be the last one before a 16-byte trailer. There are very few 300x300 PNGs of such small size we could call memes, most of it will have to be just solid color. Example of a 256x256 map tile you can store in around that size (467 B):
(And this one is pre-optimized, using an indexed palette of just 13 distinct RGB colors as opposed to the full RGBA gamut!)
No idea, it only has 1350 bytes now after the edit, and no crazy formatting
I think you can guess that part. I doubt a current LLM can create a valid PNG, even if it’s just a 1x1px one that has been created before. This is partially because PNGs have a checksum and the LLM has definitely not seen enough PNGs in base64 to figure out the algorithm, and is not optimized to calculate checksums. In fact, I analyzed the image and the image header checksum is wrong even though the header makes sense (was likely stolen). Also, it gets penalized for repetition, which occurs a lot in image headers.
AFAIK, the smallest valid image you see mentioned on the web is a 35-byte transparent pixel GIF, and the smallest PNG is a black pixel with 67 bytes:


Testing rendering: ,
, another 67-byte PNG but 8 px wide:
, or 1 gray pixel:
, or a green one:
Well, the bizarre collection workaround is present in Beta and Nightly releases as well, and is intentionally well hidden. It also allows installing/uninstalling extensions quickly when testing on multiple devices, or sharing extension collections with testers. It is indeed needlessly convoluted for users but I would not describe the workaround as dumbass if it works well for the intended audience. You are correct, plenty of Firefox’s advantages can only be achieved by modifying the settings from defaults, often through developers’ hacky about:config keys. Mozilla thinks that mass adoption and their financial security is only possible if they make a noob-friendly browser with a few big buttons and Google search so tech-savvy people need to jump through hoops (profile importing etc.) to quickly set up the browser to their liking.
If you don’t want to use the potentially unstable Nightly, Dev or Beta, you can use Fennec (stable builds with dev features).
It still does, experimentally, if you enable developer settings, rather unintuitively through a Firefox Add-Ons account. Developer settings are not available in the official release but the Nightly builds as well as some forks, like 🦊Fennec, include them. Of course the addon settings often look out of place on a small screen and things like uBlock’s Block Element picker do not work as intended.
Is still does, experimentally, if you enable developer settings, rather unintuitively through a Firefox Add-Ons account. Developer settings are not available in the official release but the Nightly builds as well as some forks, like 🦊Fennec, include them.
No. They will just use the $10 card and leave. They will prey on the fact that “get a gift card for your computer troubles” is something a legitimate company has done.