auraithx @ auraithx @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

1

Comments

363

Joined

6 mo. ago

Delete your account.

The AI won’t return wrong results when using reference data. Plus, there will be references to the actual data to check.

Regardless, just delete all your socials and only keep psuedo anon ones.

It’s not though, read my comments again. Slowly if you’re struggling.

There’s an example right in the article.

Historical events portrayed realistically is one.

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.

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.

lol ok Neo.

Unfortunately you're unable to see the (objective) pixel representation :(

No, it does. That’s the point lol. Go read the Wikipedia thicko

Brown with a gold tint yes.

And blue so light it could be mistaken for white.

That isn’t what’s happening it’s a low res overexposed photo that lacks visual cues not real life.

Well you would select the brightest bit to get an idea of the bit that was least impacted by the shadow.

But yes still closer to white and gold than (dark) blue and black

No it’s a very light blue that looks like white+shadow.

The gold is a browny gold but the options were ‘white and gold’ or ‘blue and black’

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/1af486db-deb1-44da-8d48-6ad5b5833713.webp

I see these exact pixels for the whole dress. So no black, and no blue like the original physical dress.

explaining how their perception is correct and how blue-black people don't understand the image.

Well the ones that do understand the image by definition won't need it explained. There's no 'correct', if we're talking pixels/digital representation, it's white-gold (or light-blue and brown if we're being pedantic), if we're talking about what the physical dress is, it's blue and black.

If it were a white and gold dress and the light was reversed to shadow it'd likely be the other way about; some people would interpret it as the pixels displayed (blue and black), and others would subconsciously revert it to white and 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.

I know, hence - lacking in understanding.

You fell for my troll bait 40msgs ago

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.

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.

It was though, the origin got withheld for a day when it went viral but it's been going viral for years now and the discussion continues so it's a strange hill to die on. 99% of discussions about this image have occured when the physical dresses colours were known.