[ReactiveJelly]

I tried to do a comparison once.

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.

[klez]

Am I reading it wrong that they're not doing this for file size but for processing power reasons?

I'd be curious (really, not being snarky) if you tested for that as well.

EDIT: nope, I'm wrong, they say they're doing it for bandwidth.

[worldofmatthew]

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.