Okay, thanks. I guess it’s not possible at the moment then.

I know that lossy normally lessens the image quality in the compression process, but Curtail has two options:

Lossless mode: Compresses the file by removing unnecesary data that does not affect image quality; thus reducing file size. Lossy mode: Compresses the file much further by lowering the visual quality of the image; thus reducing the file size but looking a bit worse.

After using the lossless mode, I’ve personally done very thorough image comparisons to see if there was any discernible difference between the original file and the compressed file. I could not find any visual difference.

In Curtails own words on their site “It supports both lossless and lossy compression modes with an option to whether keep or not metadata of images.”

It just looks like “Loo wan tee” to me.

Edit: Actually, just read the article, and considering the name Luanti is a mix between the Finnish word “creation” and the LUA programming language; and I’m preeetty sure LUA is pronounced “loo-wah” or “lew-ah”, I think the Luanti pronunciation is more likely to be “loo-wun-tee”.

In that case, what I mean to say is that I want a program that compresses the video in a way that is not perceptible to the eye, while also preserving metadata and reducing the overall file size.

I’m not sure why “lossless” is not the right term, because that’s the term that curtail itself uses within the app. Is the term misleading? The app is designed for photos, not videos. It compresses each photo without losing any quality, and slightly decreases the overall file size without losing metadata. I want a program that can do the same thing with videos.

Done! I contributed $10 a few days ago. Hope to give some more after my next payment.

https://ladybird.org/

Reason for deletion: Decided it wasn’t worth arguing like my last comment said. The readers are smart enough to see what’s stupid about your comment without me having to defend myself.

Update: Oh, you deleted all your comments, good job.

deleted by creator

I’m not going to argue with you, because I can see it won’t accomplish anything good, so I’ll just leave it at this:

No, I did not promote the Chromium monopoly, I simply asked a question, about a security issue with Firefox; this is not the same as promotion. If I wanted to promote the monopoly, this post would have been telling people why they shouldn’t use Firefox and I would have posted it on a more broad community about Web Browsers and done so on Reddit for the most impact. I’m against this monopoly, and I intentionally go out of my way to not recommend Chromium-based browsers to people. Discussion about issues with something you love is only healthy, not a promotion of another side.

I’m not taking sides because I don’t currently have time or energy to look into the issues GrapheneOS and/or Micay may or may not have, but I will say that I don’t know how you could think (at least based on the information I referenced from Graphene in my post) that they are saying or implying to people that Firefox is less secure. They did say it was inherently less secure on Android, but not in general. They did say that the Site Isolation feature specifically is less secure even on Desktop, but they didn’t say that Firefox as a whole is inherently less secure, just that it currently is on Android. I can see how an average reader may interpret that as Firefox being less secure than Chromium as a whole, but that would simply be their own misinterpretation of what’s being said.

and “The moment anyone starts calling Firefox insecure, immediately become alert”. Why? Anything is capable of being insecure and Firefox equally so. At any given time, Firefox could have security vulnerabilities (as it does), so it’s quite ridiculous to automatically assume that anyone calling Firefox out for being insecure in some way is just Daniel Micay or his “minions”

“Micay and GrapheneOS, and fans/members associated like OP are well known for…”. Are you accusing me of being associated with Micay and GrapheneOS, or am I misunderstanding you?

I’m no professional, but from my research I’ve been doing, it appears that the risk (at least one of them) is that a hacker could in theory create a website that exploits this vulnerability. If you access their website, their site could be capable of stealing sensitive information from the other Firefox tabs that you may have loaded on the side, at any given time.

I don’t see where they said any of that. Nothing was implied here, you’re just making assumptions about their point of view.

I know how helpful GPS is. Also, I am not paranoid, and you shouldn’t be making those kinds of assumptions about anyone you don’t know. I simply want to minimize private data being open for abuse and am exploring what can and can’t be done, and their benefits and disadvantages. This after all, is the privacy community you’re talking in; where you share advice and knowledge about enhancing ones privacy, not telling them they are paranoid for pursuing it.

So you’re saying that other electronics used within the car (ones that aren’t damaged by the lack of antenna) may be able to detect the lack of antenna as a “fault” and thus hinder their own functionality? Also, by “antenna”, are you referring to the one used for the radio? Like an Aerial? So my understanding is that giving the antenna connection a “dummy load” is a way of removing the antenna, and stopping the sending of data, without damaging or hindering any other electronics/components of the car.

If it doesn’t have a full-time connection, it’s still possible to have an eSim, right?

This is the first I’ve heard of a dummy load. What exactly would be the purpose of replacing the antenna with a dummy load?

Thanks, I didn’t know the eSims weren’t physical cards.

Btw, 3G network is shutting down extremely soon for both Optus and Telstra (and providers using their networks), so I won’t be able to do that with any future car. Telstra is going on August 31, Optus is going in September. Your phone probably isn’t locked to 3G, but even if your phone supports 4G and/or 5G but does not support a technology called “VoLTE”, you may not be able to call emergency services after the 3G closure date. Both Telstra and Optus have provided an option to easily check if your phone is compatible after the closure. Using either Optus, Telstra, or other providers using their network, you can text 3 to the number 3498 and they will send you an automated message telling you whether your phone will be affected after the closure or not.

https://www.optus.com.au/support/mobiles-tablets-wearables/important-changes-3g

https://www.telstra.com.au/support/mobiles-devices/3g-closure

I’m too poor for that 😂