My issue with this illustration vs “the dress” is that in the dress, the background is bright, not a darker blue.

In theory, this illustration just serves to show that nobody should be seeing “the dress” as white and gold. Thy do, and that breaks my brain, but I still feel that there is no logical way for that to be justified (and yes, I read all the research).

Approves in waterfox.

For that to work, the light would have to be exactly behind the dress (it is coming from the top based on what we can see), and the surrounding room dark. Otherwise you get “light bleed” along the sides of any curved object due to reflection and ambient refraction.

But then you would have light bleed around the edges. Unless you are in an extremely dark room, reflection and diffusion would make the curved edges of the dress receive some of that outside light. Yet the floor at the foot of the dress is well lit.

Back to my original conception of things: understanding of lighting and photography makes the white-gold seem impossible.

I do not deny that people can instinctually miss these details… But I am surprised that further analysis doesn’t inevitably resolve in these conclusions.

Like I replied to another comment, how can you explain that the surrounding environment is yellow then? Based on this diagram, white+gold could only work if the rest of the image was lit with blue light… which it clearly is not.

deleted by creator

But that only works if you completely disregard the surrounding environment, right?

Otherwise how do you explain the bright yellow lighting and overexposure? It would have to be blue… like in the example.

That’s the part I never got. In fact, that illustration seems like the perfect way of pointing out how it should not appear white and gold, based on the surrounding colors.

The right side is white near the top (nearly pure white, likely sunlight overblown by the photo), there is some generally dark clutter with a spot of red, and then a white or pale beige lit with yellow-ish lighting.

The “beam” is either some light wood, or just the shadow on a ledge; it is made brown-ish because of the yellow lighting’s illumination but lack of exposure to the exterior backlighting.

The dress on the left is white and black. Made yellow and dark-ish brown-ish by overexposure and strong yellow indoor lighting.

Fundamentally, and the science points to this, you are likely seeing the environmental yellow as actual colors, and not the result of lighting; which I understand on paper… but I cannot see a scenario where blue lighting would produce a bright yellow when overexposed; even if there is yellow in the actual object colors (because blue-ish light would tarnish the warm colors to light grays or possibly light greens I guess)

Genuine question then: for you, what colors are:

• the general environment on the right?
• the horizontal piece sticking out on the right? (a piece of wood, or the shade on a ledge I guess)
• the dress(?) on the left?

I am used to manipulating digital images (photoshop, 3D, etc.). Even in the gifs that supposedly show how people can see both by changing the exposure and warmth, I still see black and blue… just even more overexposed. I do not personally know a single person who manipulates digital images frequently that sees white and gold. (anecdotal)

I know some people have “shifted” their view at some point… and I still cannot fathom getting this wrong, or changing how it can be seen. Even when scientists break down how it works, my brain just points out the overexposed background and bright yellow lighting, and is convinced roughly 50% of humanity is just trolling.

The part that kills me is how the dress(?) behind it on the left has the same black and… actual white… and people don’t seem to notice that. How‽

Edit: to be clear, I am genuinely curious here.

As a French person… Nobody gets turkey. Capon, yes, though it’s become too expensive so most people go for chicken.

Yeah, no worries. Someone else pointed it out to me recently.

I feel there’s a place for both of these. This is lightweight and focused on updates, whereas UniGet is a full-fratured app. Both have their benefits IMHO.

Ah, interesting. I’ll look into that at some point.

How though?

Everything I see online indicates that to have chocolatey handle an app it needs to be installed BY chocolatey; and that the “fix” is to uninstall and reinstall.

Winget can handle apps installed via other sources, including things like all the Visual C++ Redistributable packages and stuff I had previously installed using an installer.

It may not seem like much, but it’s a massive advantage for managing multiple computers in my family.

At this point, things like O&O ShutUp10++ and how Microsoft have left a ton of overrides for their horrible advertising/tracking/ai crap in for businesses to use in large scale deployments means you can actually get a really decent experience in Windows 11… It’s just not accessible to most people.

I recently installed Everything Search and, Command Palette plugin someone made for it, and this little gem to fix my last remaining gripe with it: the lack of a good search feature.

Yeah. It’s kind of surprising how many actually good things people at Microsoft have put out there that are just not advertised at all (cough… Power Toys… cough).

Have you hard of our lord and savior, the metric system?