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