Who remembers this?
-
I've always really liked this explanation image you can find on Wikipedia page for it. Essentially, people who see white and gold are mistaking the lighting to be cold and blue-tinted, rather than warm and yellow-tinted.
The portions inside the boxes are the exact same colors, you can easily check this with a color picker.
What the actual fuck? When this first came around, my eyes saw white and gold, in this post it looks like overexposed brown and blue, and looking at this graphic is fucking with my head! Brains are wee photo editors, aren't they?
-
That isn’t what’s happening it’s a low res overexposed photo that lacks visual cues not real life.
It doesn't lack visual cues. I could tell it's overexposed and adjust for the lighting. You just can't see the cues, and that's the difference.
-
Imagine falling for the most obvious bait possible.
-
It doesn't lack visual cues. I could tell it's overexposed and adjust for the lighting. You just can't see the cues, and that's the difference.
No, it does. That’s the point lol. Go read the Wikipedia thicko
-
No, it does. That’s the point lol. Go read the Wikipedia thicko
I can see them with my own eyes right now. And the dress is black and blue, so I'm right. You just can't see them, but don't mistake your eyesight problems for objective truth.
-
I can see them with my own eyes right now. And the dress is black and blue, so I'm right. You just can't see them, but don't mistake your eyesight problems for objective truth.
wrote last edited by [email protected]lol ok Neo.
Unfortunately you're unable to see the (objective) pixel representation
-
lol ok Neo.
Unfortunately you're unable to see the (objective) pixel representation
In the larger version of the picture, you can see three areas of glare on the right. One from the window, one from the top of the table, and one from the floor. The backs of the items closer to the door, and the edge of the table, are darker than these glare areas. There's also a bright spot on the left. If you have good spatial intelligence, you can clearly tell the glare is coming from the sun based on how the light falls in the room.
-
In the larger version of the picture, you can see three areas of glare on the right. One from the window, one from the top of the table, and one from the floor. The backs of the items closer to the door, and the edge of the table, are darker than these glare areas. There's also a bright spot on the left. If you have good spatial intelligence, you can clearly tell the glare is coming from the sun based on how the light falls in the room.
The College of Optometrists came out and said it was ambigious. It's the point of the image dumbass. It's not about good spatial awareness. All you're demonstrating is lack of basic perception.
-
The College of Optometrists came out and said it was ambigious. It's the point of the image dumbass. It's not about good spatial awareness. All you're demonstrating is lack of basic perception.
Ah yes, I lack perception because I can see more things than you do, and they lead me to correct conclusions about the state of the world. That makes complete sense.
And Usain Bolt runs so fast because he has weak legs, obviously.
-
"What science"
Proceeds to explain the science
-
Ah yes, I lack perception because I can see more things than you do, and they lead me to correct conclusions about the state of the world. That makes complete sense.
And Usain Bolt runs so fast because he has weak legs, obviously.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You lack perception because your level of understanding is childish. I’d put you at 7/8. It’s really quite illuminating how thick some people can be.
-
Don't forget Laurel and Yani!
And the trainer.
The dress was always blue and black to me (blue and copper tinged black really), but this one keeps switching from grey and mint to pink and white and then back again.
-
I don't get it. It's clearly white and gold. How can anyone see black and blue?
I know right? But the manufacturer says it's blue and black. They didn't make a white and gold one.
-
That is literally what the argument is caused by, adaptive perception to lighting conditions.
That's less than half of the related concepts.
-
You lack perception because your level of understanding is childish. I’d put you at 7/8. It’s really quite illuminating how thick some people can be.
Most insults aren't the same thing as an ad hominem fallacy. An insult is only an ad hominem when it's the entire substance of one's argument. Like you're doing right now, shit-for-brains.
-
Most insults aren't the same thing as an ad hominem fallacy. An insult is only an ad hominem when it's the entire substance of one's argument. Like you're doing right now, shit-for-brains.
It’s not though, read my comments again. Slowly if you’re struggling.
