Wow..
That's weird, and worrying.
Certainly there's some special quality about those dimensions, has anyone tried with 1160x1638 or something?
They seem like randomly plucked from a hat, but there must be a reason why those values specifically cause an issue.
I am pretty sure Mark did NOT add this "feature", why should he do something like:
if w=580 and h=819 then MAV
It really doesn't make sense. I would rather suspect microsoft as the fishy part, since they already implemented browser backdoors be checking if a jpg contains executable code and then execute it blindly ... I mean, how stupid can a hundred programmers be?
Totally agree... and as for 100 programmers, I'd go with too many cooks syndrome ;)
That's weird, and worrying.
Certainly there's some special quality about those dimensions, has anyone tried with 1160x1638 or something?
They seem like randomly plucked from a hat, but there must be a reason why those values specifically cause an issue.
I am pretty sure Mark did NOT add this "feature", why should he do something like:
if w=580 and h=819 then MAV
It really doesn't make sense. I would rather suspect microsoft as the fishy part, since they already implemented browser backdoors be checking if a jpg contains executable code and then execute it blindly ... I mean, how stupid can a hundred programmers be?
Totally agree... and as for 100 programmers, I'd go with too many cooks syndrome ;)