this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
326 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] palordrolap@kbin.social 45 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Irony: The pictured computer is not a 1980s, 1MHz Commodore 64 but instead a 2010s, 2GHz C64x PC, a keyboard-housed x86 system that looks like a breadbin C64.

[–] TheFlopster@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

I agree. I knew the image in the thumbnail wasn't a Commodore 64, because it had an @ symbol above the 2. Nope! Shoulda been quotation marks there (then).

But when I click on the article, I think that first picture is right. At least, it looks like what I remember.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Good catch, the picture in the article is an original Commodore 64, the thumbnail shown on Lemmy however is not.
Where is the thumbnail from? Is it some sort of HTML extension when referencing something, that you can include a thumbnail, which is not visible when you read the article?
I see these annoying "fake" thumbnails everywhere, and sometimes they don't even relate to the content of the link!!!
If you go to https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry You can see the picture used in the article overview is also the real C64.

[–] palordrolap@kbin.social 10 points 7 months ago

Someone in the article's own comments section makes the same assertion as me, so my guess is that they've corrected the image on the article and the Fediverse's various caches still have the original.

[–] ares35@kbin.social 5 points 7 months ago

so, tom's swings-and-misses... again?