1. 4

    “Works on any kind of image” is really misleading, as it mentions JPEG along JPEG 2000 as a lossy format but then says “FLIF beats anything else in all categories.” It really needs a giant caveat saying “lossless”. I mean, that’s still great and impressive, but it clearly doesn’t erase the need for a user to switch formats as a lossless format is still not suitable for end-users a lot of the time.

    (It does have a lossy mode, detailed on another page, but they clearly show it doesn’t have the same advantage over other formats there.)

    1. 3

      Am I wrong when stating that onion traffic is watched over more heavily than non-onion traffic? Honestly, it’s never the message itself that is watched but the metadata (or so they say). In my opinion, as long as they get your metadata, and it still seems reasonably possible, nothing has really changed.

      1. 2

        Very curiously this is worded almost exactly the same as a comment in a hacker news post about TFC a year ago:

        Am I wrong in stating that onion traffic is watched more heavily than non onion traffic? And honestly it’s never the message itself that is watched but the metadata, or so they say. So as long as they get your metadata, and it still seems reasonably possible, nothing has really changed.

        The point of TFC is to hide metadata about who you talk to, when, and how much. It doesn’t hide the fact you use Tor, but using Tor isn’t inherently bad. Everyone from government employees to activists, from dissidents to journalists use Tor. Everyone who cares about privacy online should use Tor and a millions of people do.

        1. 2

          The whole point of tor is to hide metadata.

          That said, yes, it’s watched very carefully. I’d be quite surprised if (in practice) the NSA couldn’t tell what was going on. I’d also be quite surprised if any of the minor intelligence agencies could tell, though, and the NSA are reticent to use any intel they get via secret means.