First two sentences in. You're wrong. When the store owners came out and told everyone the correct colors, the debate ended. Sorry. That's what happened.
Don't need to read the rest of your narrative based on a faulty premise.
It's hard for me to agree it's ambiguous because to me, the lighting is pretty clearly coming from the direction of the camera, since that's how exposure works.
Yeah, so I'm better at looking at things. My brain chose the right solution. Skill issue for white and gold people, sorry.
Yeah, buddy, sorry. You're wrong. The debate was solved when the store selling the dress came out and said it was black and blue. You, and maybe some other people who have particularly literal interpretations of things, may have misunderstood the debate entirely from the beginning. It seems that's the case.
I already established that I wouldn't argue against pixel values on the picture matching white and gold. I believe you.
People that are arguing that they see black and blue DO SEE THE WHITE AND GOLD that is literally present in the picture DUE TO THE EXPOSURE. They just know it's obviously black and blue, because they can look at it and interpret it correctly.
Nonononono, you are wrong. The question has always been "is this DRESS this color or this color?" NEVER EVER has the question been "Is this PICTURE of the dress this color or this color?
I doubled down on... being correct? I mean. That's what happened. I interpreted the lighting correctly. So... go ahead and argue against that?
What do you mean you gave your reasoning? You're talking about how you explained how some people interpreted the lighting incorrectly because they are bad at looking at things?
Ig what you're failing to understand is that since I, ykno, interpret the lighting correctly? I know I'm right? And everyone that's wrong is... Bad at looking at things.
If the question were literally referring to the pixel color codes, I wouldn't argue. But the question refers literally to the physical dress.
Can you explain why people see the lighting differently?
Probably bcos the white and gold people are strictly wrong and it's incredibly obvious to black and blue people but for some reason there's a stupid debate because some people are bad at looking at things?
Right, so why does what you just said matter, exactly?
You do know that we know the scientific reason for why we see what colors, right? And that we can check things to determine what color they are because of that?
So... again... that doesn't matter. There is an objective reality. We might not perceive that reality the same or in an objectively correct way, but we do tend to perceive it in a CONSISTENT way.
The people that are wrong about this aren't wrong because they "see different colors" because of some "subjective perceived reality". That's not how it works. If that were the issue, it would be indiscernible and unknowable. Because we would have no idea that we are seeing different things. People know they're seeing different things, and we can explain why (like I already did. It's lighting). Context is an important part of perceiving, ykno.
Right, we may not perceive objectively, but there is an objective reality and it is perceivable.
The reality is that this dress is blue and black.
If you see it as white and gold, either there is a lighting issue manipulating your perception or your perception is malformed in the first place.
Your eyes should be automatically accounting for the exposure and you should be perceiving this objective reality correctly. If you aren't, you are objectively wrong, and so is your perception.
Well, except, there is an objective perceivable reality. And we all see it. If you saw the dress in the correct lighting, you wouldn't have trouble discerning the color unless you had a malformed perception in the first place.
You have to think within the context of the conversation being had lmao. The question was "are we really ready?" and our cited security team had an accidental killing.
Like yeah, I'm glad they stopped the shooter. That wasn't the point.
Weird guess tbh and probably just flat wrong. You think the professional dogwatcher who is probably watching multiple dogs a day has interacted with less than 100 pit bulls lifetime? Sounds like you need to reassess reality.
Aw, sorry, I didn't expect you to get so emotional.