[iMerNibor]

What gets me the thumbnails are now so big, they're blurry since the images need to be stretched to fit now!

The preview is 530x300px on a 1920x1080 screen vs the image shown being 336x188px

How this passed any sort of QA is beyond me

[jsheard]

They clearly need to conserve bandwidth for the most important assets - the 12 whole megabytes of Javascript.

[jmb99]

Genuine question. I’m assuming that, since YouTube is owned by one of the largest tech companies in the world that they’ve optimized their delivered JS to only what is necessary to run the page.

What on the YouTube home page could possibly require 12MB of JS alone? Assuming 60 characters per line, that’s 200k lines of code? Obviously ballpark and LoC != complexity, but that seems absurd to me.

[Mr_Minderbinder]

Meanwhile, loading up a channel page with Invidious pulls in about 700k and half of that is the banner. JavaScript was not mandatory (on public instances) but it is now due to AI scrapers.

[charlesabarnes]

I've recently noticed that the thumbnails on the homepage are higher resolution than the thumbnails on the subscriptions page

[sd9]

Same for me. How strange.

[cucubeleza]

they want more money, less videos more ads, probably the UX/UI team was against it but you know how those big techs are

[bryanhogan]

The perfect oppurtunity for more AI, image upscaling! /s

Or maybe the next step will be automated AI-generated thumbnails based on the video and the user itself, so each user will be grouped into a different category and gets served a different thumbnail accordingly.