It was approximate, because I didn't have the original images (Or I only had one), but IMO JPEG looks better per pound of bits than dithering. At the same bitrate as their dithered images, it looks a bit crummy, but you can still pick up details that the dithering loses.
They won't admit it's for the aesthetic. If dithering looked as good bit-for-bit as JPEG, independent of aesthetic, nobody would have invented or adopted JPEG.
They would have to admit to transmitting more data (thus using more carbon) for aesthetics. That would undermine their blog and make some of their posts look very hypocritical.
In previous discussions about the site/posts on the site on HN I remember the site owner getting very butthurt in threads over criticism. I don't have specific links however. Just anecdata.
You surprised? They serve (in the "about" page) one big page for everything, with everything (80% of it user comments, I noted nearby), and their motto is
«radically reduce the energy use associated with accessing our content»!
It was approximate, because I didn't have the original images (Or I only had one), but IMO JPEG looks better per pound of bits than dithering. At the same bitrate as their dithered images, it looks a bit crummy, but you can still pick up details that the dithering loses.
They won't admit it's for the aesthetic. If dithering looked as good bit-for-bit as JPEG, independent of aesthetic, nobody would have invented or adopted JPEG.