Who remembers this?
-
Debate vs discussion semantics.
Debate regards the color.
Discussion regards the overall cultural effect, studies in neuroscience, etc
If you're going to move the goal posts you usally need a segue to be coherent- what?
But yes your arguments lack understanding in those areas too.
-
Because shade works in 3D and it's not clear how far away the background is from this picture. But yes, 'dress shaped and size amounts of shade' exist; trees, could be on a shaded balcony, etc.
Maybe I'm just an elevated being but I can clearly tell that the righthand side is a mirror on a wall and that the tan below it is where the floor meets the wall. Because of that, I can roughly make out the angle and know that we should be seeing some shade on the side if any existed in the first place.
Does that make sense?
-
This post did not contain any content.
I stuck my foot in my mouth about this dress. It was about a year later, and I didn't realize it had been proven to be black and blue, and I said something snarky when someone I liked said it was black and blue. I was so sure it was gold and white, I made an ass of myself.
-
On my phone the background of Lemmy (not the photo) is black. And what is clearly gold in the photos doesn't look anything like black.
I know the dress is blue and black and that's what pisses me off. I can't even see blue and black if I try.
I recall seeing pictures of the dress in other light that make it obvious, and when you compare them next to each other i can see what's going on, but yeah by default my eyes 100% see white/gold here.
-
If you're going to move the goal posts you usally need a segue to be coherent- what?
But yes your arguments lack understanding in those areas too.
Which goalpost did I move?
-
Speak for yourself. I'm a solvem probler.
clearly some problems need to be taken from behind
-
If you're going to move the goal posts you usally need a segue to be coherent- what?
But yes your arguments lack understanding in those areas too.
My arguments haven't even touched on those areas
can you stop being annoying? I'm not gonna fall for your troll bait, so if you keep being annoying, I'll just block you lmao. -
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Here's a pretty good Slate article on this dress, and how important this image became:
https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/heres-why-people-saw-the-dress-differently.html
When I look at the image attached to this post, I can't see anything but white and gold, as I always have. This, in spite of now knowing it's black and blue.
-
Maybe I'm just an elevated being but I can clearly tell that the righthand side is a mirror on a wall and that the tan below it is where the floor meets the wall. Because of that, I can roughly make out the angle and know that we should be seeing some shade on the side if any existed in the first place.
Does that make sense?
No because it's your subconscious, otherwise you'd have no problem understanding why it's was ambigious. (Same applies for elevated beings - they can grasp differences in human colour perception).
And either way, even if your assumptions were true you still don't know the angle of the sun, potential coverings, etc. You can't predict the shade without that info so the logical choice would be to use the colours the pixels display.
-
Blue and gold to me
I’ve never seen even a hint of gold in this image. It’s always been blue and black to me
-
My arguments haven't even touched on those areas
can you stop being annoying? I'm not gonna fall for your troll bait, so if you keep being annoying, I'll just block you lmao.I know, hence - lacking in understanding.
You fell for my troll bait 40msgs ago
-
I know, hence - lacking in understanding.
You fell for my troll bait 40msgs ago
for sure bro, you're really trolling me
-
No because it's your subconscious, otherwise you'd have no problem understanding why it's was ambigious. (Same applies for elevated beings - they can grasp differences in human colour perception).
And either way, even if your assumptions were true you still don't know the angle of the sun, potential coverings, etc. You can't predict the shade without that info so the logical choice would be to use the colours the pixels display.
The potential coverings would have to be exactly the shape of the dress because of the sleeves, no? We would see the shade passing underneath? Like onto the obvious clothing rack underneath the left sleeve?
-
On my phone the background of Lemmy (not the photo) is black. And what is clearly gold in the photos doesn't look anything like black.
I know the dress is blue and black and that's what pisses me off. I can't even see blue and black if I try.
I don't get it. It's clearly white and gold. How can anyone see black and blue?
-
The potential coverings would have to be exactly the shape of the dress because of the sleeves, no? We would see the shade passing underneath? Like onto the obvious clothing rack underneath the left sleeve?
No because you can't see the floor underneath.
Looks like a fence with holes in it to the left, can see the sun through the holes in the distance.
-
It sounds like you're agreeing with me that color perception relies on context, not just the color code of the pixel on the screen.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Right. Since we have no context, the dress is white and gold objectively. Assuming context of the color of the light is incorrect, we don't have it. The dress is actually black and purple but the image is doctored to be white and gold. So it's white and gold. The image is not the object. We're talking about the image, not the object.
Zooming up on the checker, it's objectively gray. Zooming out, it's objectively white. The only correct interpretation is the shadow darkens the image. But in the dress picture, we don't know what the color of the light is, so it's not comparable.
-
It's funny how people will keep barking about it even when you slap them in the face with color picker which is mathematical display of the color. There is no "how brain is seeing things". It's literally WHAT THE COLOR IS. To call white with faint blue tint "blue" and what is clearly a "gold" shade can't possibly be black. If photo was heavily manipulated through photo editing or lighting, that doesn't prove anything at all. Or the question was stupid. No one was really asking "what color is the dress", they were asking what colors are on the photo. And photo has no relation to the real dress because of light conditions manipulation or even photo editing.
wrote last edited by [email protected]This is the color picker in the image you replied to. Do you really think the colors on the left are white and the colors on the right are gold?
-
No because you can't see the floor underneath.
Looks like a fence with holes in it to the left, can see the sun through the holes in the distance.
Interesting.
Anyway, skill diff! See ya!
-
This post did not contain any content.
Thants so cool i finally got to see both color version and how my brain blends between them.
For anyone wondering how, I am in a dark room with the phone (darkmode lemmy) and it was looking white gold to me.
But when I squish my eyes to darken the incoming screen light and blocking of the right light background with my thumb I could make it fade into blue with black stripes.
