You disputed that right here:
It’s not accurate to say we were all looking at the same image with the dress.
Why would you bring this up if not because of my comment?
You disputed that right here:
It’s not accurate to say we were all looking at the same image with the dress.
Why would you bring this up if not because of my comment?
I wasn’t saying everyone was looking at the same image. I’m saying the optical illusion still works when using a single image.
Well maybe I am out of touch. I don’t frequent bars like I used to.
How many of those Instagram posts are of strangers? If people record themselves at bars and post it, why should I care?
I don’t know what bars you frequent, but I’m pretty sure if someone was in there filming strangers they could be kicked out. It depends what kind of place you’re in. Filming in a strip club for example would obviously be against the rules. Bars are not publicly owned spaces, and you do have some expectation of privacy in them.
You can’t use a color picker see color fringing due to subpixel rendering. (There’s tons of info about this for font rendering). Your display doesn’t map pixels 1-to-1 in most cases. But like I said in my edit, I’m fairly sure that part is irrelevant here.
The blue/gold dress was not related to screenshotting and compression. People were arguing about the color even when looking at the exact same image. It all depends on which color temperature the dress was lit with. Noone can know for sure, and your brain just picks one (maybe depending on the room you’re in).
It’s the same sort of deal as those rotating optical illusions. It’s possible to see it both ways, but your brain usually picks one and it’s hard to switch.
Yeah, you can buy humidifiers that work by aerosolizing water, and they’re very energy efficient, but the problem is any bacteria that grows in it will just get spread all over your house if you don’t clean it frequently.
The ones that operate by boiling water are definitely a lot better for health reasons, but it’s a trade-off.
Do you want your drunk antics livestreamed and recorded for the entire world to see forever, instead of just the few people in the bar paying attention?
I think what we actually need is someone to take a picture of their screen with a microscope while the image is zoomed out.
Based on some comments I’ve seen, it seems likely this is just an artifact of how the red/green/blue pixel layouts work when drawing the edges of white things.
Edit: I don’t have something to check the actual display pixels, but I realized I could just rotate the image and see if the colors change, which they don’t. So this definitely seems like more of a white balance effect, similar to that old Gold/Blue Dress meme.
Based on a world population of 8 billion, that would be roughly 0.000000000000008% of a person. It’s also not even representable as a 64 bit float so I had to do this math in my head (Calculator just says 0)
A phone call? Like… the original use of a phone?
I’ve been using an ad blocker for at least 15 years. I’m not about to stop now. I can’t imagine paying only to see less relevant ads…
Interesting that strtol
in C does that. I’ve always explicitly passed in base 10 or 16, but I didn’t know it would auto-detect if you passed 0. TIL.
Well, you’re right. I wasn’t getting it, but I’ve also never seen any piece of software that would treat a single leading zero as octal. That’s just a recipe for disaster, and it should use 0o116
to be unambiguous
(I am a software engineer, but was assuming you meant it was hardcoded to parse as octal, not some weird auto-detect)
Well shit, my zip code starts with a 9.
You have a very twisted view of the world. No one was “allowed” to shoot Abe Lincoln or JFK. It was very much not allowed, but murderers don’t usually care about what’s allowed and do it anyway.
Damn, I didn’t even see that until you pointed it out. I would have died.
Hahaha, that hardware is built to be as cheap as possible so they can make money on this scam of a product. I doubt the people making it even know what a TPM is from everything else we’ve seen.
No, there’s definitely a science to this. It’s the same reason sandwiches taste better if you cut them in a triangle. The sharp points make for the perfect bite size.
A quadratic function is just one possible polynomial. They’re also not really related to big-O complexity, where you mostly just care about what the highest exponent is: O(n^2) vs O(n^3)
.
For most short programs it’s fairly easy to determine the complexity. Just count how many nested loops you have. If there’s no loops, it’s probably O(1)
unless you’re calling other functions that hide the complexity.
If there’s one loop that runs N times, it’s O(n)
, and if you have a nested loop, it’s likely O(n^2)
.
You throw out any constant-time portion, so your function’s actual runtime might be the polynomial: 5n^3 + 2n^2 + 6n + 20
. But the big-O notation would simply be O(n^3)
in that case.
I’m simplifying a little, but that’s the overview. I think a lot of people just memorize that certain algorithms have a certain complexity, like binary search being O(log n)
for example.
I don’t get it… In what world is Jeff Bezos the one getting drops?
Is there some new crazy drama over on Twitch? Or is this meme just completely backwards?