6 ms·
Compare a book (a few megs) with a picture of the same size. What do you think can communicate more info? Do you have a single counter-example?
by d0mine 6y ago
Compare a book (a few megs) with a picture of the same size. What do you think can communicate more info? Do you have a single counter-example?
- andagainagain 6y agoThe beauty of both mediums is in the compression. Text is that it's highly compressible while also being highly compressed (and lossy) info already. To make text we have to filter our own ideas, and then to interpret text we have to add a bunch of info back from context. Pictures have the same tricks up their sleeve. Bitmaps are great but inefficient. If we put it through a lossy compression, it's a lot better. If we make it semi procedurally with a vector file, it's even better. How far can we take a compressed procedural file though? Well.. .kkreiger was about 97 KB, and stores a full 3d shooter. For a meg, you could store 100 such full games. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kkrieger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kkrieger Text isn't best in every way. With clever design we can use all the same principles that make text efficient, and make other types of data more efficient. It is a very good default though.
- axaxs 6y agoThere are single pictures you couldn't describe with terabytes of text(to a human, that is). Imagine for example trying to describe the milky way and northern lights. Yeah you could convey their looks in words but nobody is going to end up with the correct visual no matter how hard you try. Now add in other things, like emotion on people's faces. Some things just aren't possible to describe in full.
- d0mine 6y agoyou somehow managed to describe the pictures without showing them