> This essentially shifts some of the burden of computation from the server (PNG compression) to the browser (dithering interpretation). This may save some ener

> This essentially shifts some of the burden of computation from the server (PNG compression) to the browser (dithering interpretation). This may save some energy, or it may increase energy as most personal computer processors are much less efficient than server processors, and don't benefit from energy savings from caching. I believe doing image color setting is already eaten up inside the cost of doing png decompression: the client is already doing image manipulation, this is just doing an additional multiplication, so i believe it is minimal additional cost on the client (i may be wrong tho, never wrote a png decoder). > I think the implication is electricity consumption will also double roughly every 2 years, but Moore's law actually operates on approx. same timeline, so traffic can continue doubling at this rate without an increase in energy consumption. We're not doing more with the same amount of energy, we're doing much more with more energy. This is always the same energy efficiency fallacy: being more efficient (in percent "out/in") usually requires having bigger "in" (bigger scale). And you know, the thing that capitalistic companies always seek to get bigger no matter what. There's no incentive to maintain you current consumption. See https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/01/bedazzled-by-energy-efficiency.html https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/01/bedazzled-by-energ... for more details by same source.