Why Tiny JPEGs Look Different in Chrome
It looked thinner on theirs and more faithful to the original image. It was rendered at 15px; here is an upscaled version. It happened a while ago, so I made a new image to demonstrate the issue.
- ▪It looked thinner on theirs and more faithful to the original image.
- ▪It was rendered at 15px; here is an upscaled version.
- ▪It happened a while ago, so I made a new image to demonstrate the issue.
Hacker News (Front Page) files mainly under programming. We currently carry 1,470 of its stories. Top-voted stories on Hacker News.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Github |
| Canonical URL | https://guillaumetech.github.io/posts/jpg-scaling-chrome/ |
| Publication time | Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:00:54 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-08-12T14:31:36.756Z |
| Last seen | 2026-08-12T14:31:36.756Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | YHnbN7w-eMh6 · 1 stories |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Monday, August 3, 2026Why Tiny JPEGs Look Different in ChromeWhat looked like a rendering bug turned out to be a clever JPEG decoding optimization in Chrome. .demo-box { margin: 1rem 0; padding: 1rem; border: 1px solid #ccc; border-radius: 6px; background: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.02); } img { width: 100%; height: auto; } This icon looks better on my colleague’s computer A while back, when chatting with a colleague over their computer, I noticed that a logo did not look exactly the same as it did on mine. It looked thinner on theirs and more faithful to the original image. It was rendered at 15px; here is an upscaled version. Note: this was not the original image. It happened a while ago, so I made a new image to demonstrate the issue. On the left, Firefox; on the right, Chrome.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Github.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Github
![Everything is a UOp – reading the deep learning stack behind comma[dot]AI](/img-proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fssenthilnathan3.github.io%2Fimages%2Ftinygrad.jpeg&w=320)
