Correct. Also, at 1x (which is what matters the most on desktop & mobile for me, I think) the bottom-most extent of the "leg" is not far enough down. There is too much orange under the leg. There should be more white at the bottom. The Y is getting crunched or fuzzed out at 1x. The Y is not prominent enough. The whole point is the Y. It used to not look floating like this. It should be crisp and clear and that trademark shape.
"A" for effort and constant improvement and all that, but iteration required, I think.
A weird observation: At first, I didn't know how the "the Y is too fuzzy" problem (that I never had) could have been solved with a visibly much fuzzier replacement (shouldn't even say fuzzier, since the original was unfuzzy for me). Then I realized, I think it might have to do with solving the "fuzzy when zoomed" problem, without sufficiently regression testing the "do not degrade the non-zoomed look" checkbox. And, maybe SVG is good for large images, but not great for tiny ones (like this "Y" at 1x). Or something like that. I never zoom HN, so the fix does nothing for me, but I do notice the regression. I hope the feedback can be integrated somehow.
"A" for effort and constant improvement and all that, but iteration required, I think.
A weird observation: At first, I didn't know how the "the Y is too fuzzy" problem (that I never had) could have been solved with a visibly much fuzzier replacement (shouldn't even say fuzzier, since the original was unfuzzy for me). Then I realized, I think it might have to do with solving the "fuzzy when zoomed" problem, without sufficiently regression testing the "do not degrade the non-zoomed look" checkbox. And, maybe SVG is good for large images, but not great for tiny ones (like this "Y" at 1x). Or something like that. I never zoom HN, so the fix does nothing for me, but I do notice the regression. I hope the feedback can be integrated somehow.