You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.
💭
👁💡👀
Myndex
Myndex
💭
👁💡👀
Research Lead & Creator of APCA, SAPC, & SACAM at Myndex. W3 Invited Expert, WCAG3 co-author. Hollywood-based Filmmaker, Typographer, Title Designer, & Animator
sRGB is the standard colorspace for computer monitors and the web. It is closely related to Rec709, the colorspace for HDTV. Rec709 and sRGB have identical reg, green, blue primaries and identical white point, but they have a different TRC (transfer curve, sometimes referred to as gamma). Neither sRGB nor Rec.709 are linear as both are encoded with a piecewise TRC, for Rec709 the TRC is roughly equivalent to a power function with a 1/2.0 exponent, and sRGB is roughly 1/2.2
The monitor/TVset has an inverse TRC when displaying the signal, essentially unwinding the signial into linear light.
sRGB is normally sent to the monitor in the form of 3 channels, Red, Green, and Blue. These are independent but you can form a cube with them and use cartesian coordinates, though in practice that is not necessarrly useful with sRGB.
In the Beginning, there was the "hard to read" paradigm
So... We've been taught now for years to make our passwords more secure by D0!n97h!n95L!k37h!5 ("doing things like this", i.e. substituting characters with numbers and so forth).
The theory was that by increasing the character set size, password entropy would improve — at the expense of being much harder to read, harder to remember, and harder to type into the hidden void that is the password field. This has long been accepted as "the way".
But does this actually improve password safety? The short answer is "not really".