Notes: You made the policy a pure function and unit-tested it, instead of burying an if-statement in a component.
Three entries now. #316 and #318 moved the decision into src/lib/should-autoplay-bg-video.ts where it could be tested without a DOM - this repo has no jsdom - and put four tests over it. Every guard in them fails toward the visitor: navigator.connection read through optional chaining so Safari is not broken by it, IntersectionObserver being undefined loading the video immediately rather than leaving a permanently blank section, and an unknown connection keeping existing behaviour rather than being quietly degraded. #352 then did the same thing to the hero video. All four jobs pass on each.
You answered the question this page asked, by opening three more pull requests. The note here asked what else you had seen and not opened a PR for. #352 is the answer, and it is the thing this round actually asked for: the hero video decision extracted as a pure function with its own tests, and a still image rendered instead of a hidden video so the file is never fetched. That last part matters more than it looks. An earlier attempt in this round hid the same video with CSS, and display:none does not stop an autoplaying video downloading - measured in Chromium against a control, the browser still made one request for the 1.82 MB file with the rule active. Your version actually saves the bytes. Your own comment says the same thing, so you knew.
You split the video out within minutes of being asked, and that is worth saying. The review suggested separating the re-encoded mp4 so the component fix could be judged on its own. Five and a half minutes later #353 existed and #352 carried only the code. Most people argue first. On the re-encode itself: measured at 37.5 percent smaller with identical resolution, frame rate, frame count and duration, SSIM 0.960 against the original. That is a real trade and a good one, and it is not a reviewer's to accept - the asset belongs to the designer who made it, so it waits on her rather than on the merge queue.
One thing to look at on #354 before it is judged. Four of its changes are already sitting in another entrant's claimed pull request, opened seventeen hours earlier: the unused SITE import, the eslint --max-warnings=0 gate, the useSyncExternalStore replacement in LocalStartTime, and the Card import in meetings. Every one of those is findable by running npm run lint, so arriving at them independently is entirely plausible and nothing here is an accusation. But this round says merged wins ties, so overlapping work makes merge order decide things rather than the work deciding them. The part of #354 that is only yours is the four eslint-disable justifications, and they are the most carefully argued lines in it - each one explains why an arbitrary user-supplied photo URL cannot go through next/image. A #354 that was only those would be unambiguous.
