this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
466 points (78.3% liked)

memes

10220 readers
1512 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

CloudConvert.com might as well be my fucking home page.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IronKrill@lemmy.ca 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

The problem is rather the opposite of the meme. The file format is fine, but there is so little effort into making it happen.

If we were trying then I should be able to upload webp images everywhere. The most egregious is websites that will convert jpg and png uploads to webp but don't allow webp upload.

[–] Wilzax@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (6 children)

webp isn't fine, it has a ton of vulnerabilities because it's not a safe file format. It gets to do too much and it's insecure for that reason. That's why you can't upload your own webp but conversion to it is fine

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

it has a ton of vulnerabilities because it’s not a safe file format

Its a high compression image file, ffs. If someone sends you a 10 mb .webp file, that should be setting off alarm bells right off the bat. Even then, I have to ask what the hell your Windows Viewer app thinks it should be allowed to do with the file shy of rendering it into pixels on the screen.

[–] propaganja@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, it sounds like you're saying, "I don't know how it can be dangerous, therefore it's not dangerous."

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All I'm hearing is that "its not safe" without further details. And given the utility relative to .jpeg, I'd like more on the table than just "Don't do it! Unsafe!"

[–] propaganja@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree the claim requires more evidence and it would be foolish to just take it at face value, but even if my intuition told me it was intrinsically safe I wouldn't place any degree of trust in my own logical conclusions, or discount someone else's warnings, however spurious.

The burden of proof should never be on the accuser when it comes to safety, in my opinion, or anything else of public concern. And the standard of proof should be higher to show that everything's ok than to show that it's not. At least in an ideal world.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I wouldn’t place any degree of trust in my own logical conclusions

Okay, but then why use .jpeg?

The burden of proof should never be on the accuser when it comes to safety

How does the .webp protocol demonstrate itself at least as safe as any other standard format? There's no established safety standard for image protocols that I'm aware of.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)