Yes, I think part of it was the "dark fiber" at the time, made bandwidth relatively cheap. But most personal photos don't use that much bandwidth - being able to use them anywhere online (which iCloud and Instagram don't allow) was a big idea. We went from "my content hosted in the cloud" to "Instagram's content" in a lot of ways. That is only partly a pricing issue.
It's hard to remember with all the ownership changes, but the Photobucket era was really a different time, of "it's your data, you're in charge, and we give you maximal control of it" - people would upload there to post elsewhere, and I recall they ran ads to monetize. But this era had the ethic that uploading was expensive, and you'd maybe want to do it once and have control of your stuff after that.
Now we have photo hosting services that barely work on the web (iCloud), or work only within a walled garden (Instagram), and I do miss the "it's your stuff, we're just a website" kind of attitude from the mid-2000s.
I'll argue for the +0.5 solution. First, I don't like half-sized intervals at the edges, and second, a 255-based representation is typically a SDR (not HDR) image.
RGB values represent luminances against some adapted state, and a "zero" in a daylit scene is not "zero luminance" - it's just about 0.001x as bright as the brightest point - it's millions of photons, way more than zero. In a sense our eyes experience contrast on a sliding scale, and there is no absolute zero in the system. For example, broadcast systems historically used 16-235 as their luminance range for SDR. I think any argument that says "we must have zero" is going to have a bias, but I don't think zero is needed for most things.
Except this math is 10x too high (unless accelerated depreciation is all of it) - a million tokens at 28 tokens/sec and 75W and 20c/kwh should cost $0.15 not $1.50. (And less with MTP.)
2. The "description.md" example has things like "faces -> cluster_id". Is this from Davinci Resolve's face index? Things like faces+names and locations are really important with photo collections, but general LLMs don't handle them so well.
Hang on, this is a $2.99 one-time payment - below the level you can even buy ads and make a profit. There is no way he's trying to make billions of dollars this way, and it's honest and smart. Consider the perspective - what happens with the "free alternatives"? You know they're not free: either they already track you, or someone buys them and turns them into spyware. We need more things like this, not less.
The aspect ratios were much "taller" back then, which was kind of better for editing code. All these late 90s designs were near NTSC at the time - aspect ratios like 1.25:1 (1280x1024) or 1024x768 (1.33:1). Monitors have always followed TVs, since displays now are the "HD" ratio of 16:9 (1.77:1), or 16:10 if we're lucky. But we do get way more pixels now anyway.
If you back up to "intention" it's fully insane to make a GDPR argument against on-device AI. Yes it downloads bits, but those bits are not there to identify you - they are basically a local copy of the internet. This enables private data to be kept on-device. Having no personal data leave the device is fantastic for GDPR compliance.
The good point in this article is about how the "AI" features in Chrome all use Google's cloud API and not a local model. That's true and some of it should be local. ("AI mode" uses the Web index, so it fundamentally cannot be local, but there are features that could be.)
Chrome seems to use a custom inference runtime also (in addition to Gemini Nano). It would be better if this were all interoperable. The WebGPU alternatives like WebLLM do not have the same access.
I've been trying these models out for the last year, and it seems to me that we want them to work in a 5-10W "laptop" power envelope, but they really work best with a 50-500W GPU instead - i.e. they eat batteries. This means things work better in a "plugged in" gaming laptop/desktop rather than a typical web client. At least for now.
Any benchmarks? Scrolling is using 16% of my GPU (vs 5% in Sublime).
Also things like mouse-down to activate a tab (vs mouse-up in Zed) make Sublime feel faster.
Doing this without the parents on board does not work. Kids can lie about their birthdate by a few years. Facial age estimation has error bars of like 5 years and many teens don't have any ID. Younger kids use a parent's phone. Many are not supervised by parents or have parents who are complicit/encouraging in getting them more access. Oh you could be famous!
But it is clear that more persistent identifiers online will make anonymity much more difficult for everyone else.
I think HiDPI is another reason - these were from the "96 DPI" era where pixels looked the same on every screen. You can draw all your pixel art at 2x (or 3x) and scale it down at load time, but it's not super easy.
Also, some of the RAM usage of modern apps is the need for a full backing store for each window - in the "true" win32 days like Windows 95, XP, or Win7 in classic mode, you'd be drawing directly to the front buffer, with no extra RAM/VRAM usage per pixel. Of course it flickered and looked bad, but it was fast and cheap.