HarJIT

Appears to mean "ceiling light". Well, "celestial flower lamp" if you're going by the ideographic breakdown.

In case anyone hasn't cottoned on yet, this is a fine thread.

I have perhaps slightly different opinions on the matter… We've found ourselves in a state with the PNG group pushing MNG (Multi-image Network Graphics), Mozilla pushing APNG (Animated Portable Network Graphics), Google pushing Animated WebP (animated Web Picture) and everyone using either Animated GIF (animated Graphics Interchange Format) or WebM (Web Matroska video). Now, GIF has been superseded by PNG in all other respects (hence in the vernacular "GIF" now implies an animation). PNG is in general superior: it has better compression; it supports true-colour colour-depth without arcane hacks. The GIF format should be a quaint format supported for compatibility but which noöne uses for new images anymore. But it isn't, due to the animation use. Why GIF? It was simple. If wasn't that much work to add animation support to a GIF decoder. Hence everyone supported it. And noöne managed to come out in time with a replacement that everyone could agree on. Should PNG have come out with something akin to APNG from the start? They had their reasons not to (wanting whether an image is animated or not to be discernable from its extension). Should Firefox have dropped MNG support? They had their reasons to (was the size of the other image decoders combined, and if nothing else the initial purpose of Firefox was to create a slimmed down browser based on the Netscape sources). But the effect is that GIF is now the vernacular for a short, silent animated image, while it should have fallen out of use about a decade ago. Maybe MNG should have been designed to be simpler to start with, even if still nominally distinct from PNG. I don't know, but (edit: if so) that might mean (edit: that the reason why) it failed (edit: is) for the same reason as GNU Hurd failed: failure to abide by the KISS principle. But be whatever however, I'd say that the fact that GIFs are still in active use for anything (animated or otherwise) speaks volumes of the failure to supersede it. Should Google be pushing WebP? Certainly the usage case seems to have changed: no longer are animated GIFs pixel art or simple digital artwork, they are now generally photographic footage, something which the GIF format full stop was never supposed to be used for even pre-PNG (granted MNG has JNG (hence JPEG) frame support but that isn't much use if noöne supports it). It is, however, something that the codec used by WebM/WebP is doubtless better at. On the other hand, it relies on WebP actually taking off much. Something needs to take over from GIF and to do that, it needs to gain comparable momentum. If this ends up splitting vendors between APNG and WebP, neither would be likely to take off. Drawing a distinction between WebM and WebP is still valuable though. When something is a GIF, people can be confident that it will not make noise and will usually only take a few seconds. This is not so with video files, in spite of HTML5 and WebM having removed much of the technical barrier to using videos more, and in spite of them being technically capable of fulfilling that role. All that being said, WebM seems to be the de facto successor as far as Gfycat is concerned. And Imgur at least in the past, although they seem to be adopting WebP for some purpose and to some degree. And then there's Ugoira, for the sake of completeness… This is of course just my ramblings at present. This is not necessarily representative of my future or past opinion, or of the future, past or present opinion of any vertical or horizontal associate of mine.

Look at those tendrils though. In previous appearances, it seemed like Sirleck merely hooked onto the nose and ears, but those would snake into the head some considerable distance. Creepy stuff. RE loss of forum endorsement, it was several months after the crash, after the forum briefly stopped loading anything except the front page and then came back up with all the images missing and all the post backgrounds turned lavender (in an extended analogy (edit: albeit non-literal and of an analogy which was also literal to begin with), would this be considered an aftershock??? meanwhile **** you 2016). Incidentally, that was also the last straw inasmuch as I gave up on hoping that the CSS would be fixed (when it was getting progressively worse) and wrote a script to patch it myself.

I've made some adjustments to try and make the colour override for the post backgrounds kick in faster, does this help?

As I posted some time ago elsewhere:

I see what you did there…

Both the filename dates and the title dates ore occasionally inaccurate. The date above the comic is usually the most reliable. List (not up to date) of some HTML title dates which are incorrect, amongst other things (I don't presently have such a table for filenames): http://elgoonishshive.wikia.com/wiki/User:HarJIT/Mismatch map

https://danshive.tumblr.com/post/131564496057/i-really-like-the-new-diane-better-and-i-want-to

Okay, UUCP addresses were before my time, although I have encountered them in the occasional old Usenet post.

http://community.910cmx.com/index.php?/topic/657-forum-interface-fixes-greasemonkey-wrapped-custom-stylesheet/

Apparently the top voted post about EGS on all of Reddit (Screenshot of listing: http://i.imgur.com/c6MKE25.png , not exactly SFW). Why is this the highest?

https://xkcd.com/1519/

Or in general, that an editor should never do something to what you are typing or saving except in response to some deliberate action required to trigger it, unless explicitly configured otherwise by the user. I kinda wish Atom had a convenient "stop being smartarse" config option somewhere. Good thing is that, once I track down the things to disable, most of them do fully turn off when I tell them to. But I did say most (cough auto indent on paste cough).

I've went through my recent posts and rehosted several images. Took me long enough to realise that was probably the problem.

Viruses basically-certainly would not be able to, being so reliant on the intricacies of cell function and the genome, hence e.g. bacteriophages cannot directly harm eukaryotes. So we're thinking bacteria, fungi, amoebae… which would not (initially) be adapted to parasitising the extraterrestrial life, but the extraterrestrial life would not be adapted or immunised against them [the microorganisms] colonising them [the extraterrestrials] and potentially causing harm either.

Relevant comment on a relevant (old) thread.

For the Google Chrom(e|ium) users: e.g. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/betternet-unlimited-free/gjknjjomckknofjidppipffbpoekiipm?hl=en (for UK and US exit nodes).

Fewer, I suspect, than there are to skin a Winamp.

As hkmaly suggests, the trick is basically to preserve Dan's shading as far as possible whist still attaining the desired colouration and brightness. Mainly, this amounts to significantly limiting operations on the value channel to those which don't affect the shading (applying levels/curves/gamma/contrast/etc to specific regions (usually not the entire image) is generally fine, provided this is done in such a way that it doesn't noticeably mess up the region border). The hue and sat channels are a different matter, and can even be region-floodfilled, although I didn't have to resort to that here (I do when I'm e.g. colourising from greyscale though). My first version basically made the hair and attire lighter in colour. The second shifted the focus to contrast and saturation, thus increasing brightness rather than simply lightness. The final effect on the second version was to take something closer to the first version, use the levels tool to extract only the highlights, blur the result significantly and then use it as an additive layer, with a certain tuned alpha, above what I had so far for the second image. This gives the image an additional subtle glow. Use of waifu2x beforehand is also very helpful, mainly because it makes selecting regions a lot less fiddly.

Huh… Well, the current version contains no references to it that I can find, so either that's unrelated or it didn't update properly. I did neglect to bump the version number, so I have now done so. Still, I'd advise deleting the script to ensure that no older version lingers, checking that nothing of the sort still occurs, possibly clearing cache if it does (though I don't see why it would), and re-installing it from here (or, you know what, I'll just link the Gist preview in future so I don't have to keep posting updated permalinks…).

Bit more vivid:

As you wish