Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Static images are easier to share.


sort by: page size:

Static images being easy to share does not mean links are difficult to share. It means static images are easier to share.

Right, but I don't want to always send static images either.

Probably a better experience for everyone. You just have to distribute the image (rather than running vms) and the user gets instantaneous responses.

Ah, fair enough, I was really thinking about shared, deployable images. I suppose this use case makes sense.

How is that any different from being able to save the photo as a file and upload it to a free image hosting site? From a security point of view?

Since it can be easily circumvented anyway, disallowing sharing static photo URLs would be the real "pseudo security", in my opinion.


We're probably headed for a world in which everything is rendered to an image server-side. The HTML/CSS/Javascript mess has become so bloated and attack-ridden that sending images needs less bandwidth and is simpler.

What http server do you use ? Are they static images ?

It’s common enough to create an image on the fly and send it to a single user to be viewed once.

The new image solution is strictly more powerful than anything currently offered. Since they also control the initial rendering of the HTML, they can seamlessly opt to embed an image via a data url.

Jeez, just render a static image instead of making everyone download thousands of individual images!

I embed images in my web pages using base64 blacks so there's no need to worry about having to move images around.

I built an image sharing utility connected to a friend's service, because I wanted to be able to directly share an image from anywhere on my phone without going on his website.

https://pix.artemix.org/


They're useful for images when you can't use cookies and want the client to easily be able to embed them.

But once they're pasted in there, they can only be used there. It's barely harder to upload a file to any myriad of file sharing/hosting services and paste a link which most graphical IRC clients can be configured to auto-expand (and users who don't care/don't want a bunch of images can choose to handle links differently)

What's the downside of sharing the url of the image instead?

Offloading the image part to a cheaper service is a good idea - the rest is fairly lightweight, and once they're generated, the images are themselves are fixed/cacheable. Thanks!

Agreed, though that would require a lossless format (e.g. png) and would limit exchanges to sources that don't change the image (e.g.as email attachment) but not social networks that resize or otherwise reprocess the image

Not just images but specifically photographs for web distribution. if that's not as far away from intended PNG use cases as can be, it’s getting there.

There’s also a privacy aspect here. Upload to discord and the image URL can easily be copied around and shared outside of the server and the intended audience.

This is at least a crude way to stop that and I think it’s a good thing.

next

Legal | privacy