I think they perceive the picture to be under intense orange light, like incandescend bulbs. This will wash the blue out to grey and make the black (which always appears as dark grey) a dar orange (i.e. gold) instead. Once your perception of one colour is fixed, the others will follow, or rather, they go as a group basically based on what you perceive the light colour as.
That said no matter how hard I try, it still looks white and gold.
The photo may not be unique but it is interesting in that it seems very close to some threshold in the brain such that the population is more or less split into two very, very different interpretations. That is interesting.
Then please hand in your nerd card on the way out along with the idiots who marked this "insightful".
How the brain perceives colour well is fascinating, and our subconscious is amazingly good at it. The "gold" colour is objectively gold (check in the GIMP), and yet some people's brains manage to correctly interpret it as black.
If you're not interested in that and the underlying algorithms behind how our brain works, then frankly I wonder what the hell you're doing here.
Or possibly you just think you're too cool to be interested in popular stuff, in which case, grow up.
Well, the best explanation is that our brain does very, very hefty colour correction on its own. The reason is probably so we can ignore the irrelevant information, i.e. the light colour and any sensitivity lag between the different cones and identify objects.
If you've ever tried to do colour computer vision you will be *astonished* at how good we are at it.
Anyway, my guess is that the reason for this one appearing as two different things is it's very close to some threshold. It's possible to interpret it as more or less normal colours under a blueish light (i.e, sunlight), which makes you perceive the blueish grey as white. Or, you perceive it as blue under washed out much more orange light (e.g. incandescent bulbs) in which case you perceive the blueish grey as blue. The "white/blue" colour is objectively blueish grey if you check the actual hex values: it's mostly grey but the blue channel is a bit higher, but not by that much.
Our brains seem to model the complete co varying of the colours so once you decide what the light colour is, this effects the perception of all the colours. Black is nevertruly black and always reflects some light, so once the brain has decided the blue is super washed out by excessive light and that light is orange, that makes bright orangish things perceived as black since that's how black would appear under those circumstances. Given the rather good corrections of the picture, it appears those people are correct (though I'm on the white/gold side).
These two perceptions are very, very different and so it's kind of a binary thing, either you perceive one or the other. Now, I suspect that this photo is very close to the tipping point which is why some people perceive it very differently from others.
Either way, it's a fascinating example of colour interpretation.
This one is also excellent:
and maybe the 1/3 G
Well, frankly 3G is bad enough and 2G is more than painful. 1/3G? what's that, like 300bps of mobile internet? I could never cope.
Interestingly we know that 0G is bad for humans. 1G seems fine. No one has the faintest clue what 1/3G would do long term I suppose because there is literally no practial way of subjecting people to reduced gravity for more than a few seconds.
The solution might be to have some sort of store-and-forward protocol for messages and other data. For obvious reasons it might make sense to divide up messages into two distinct types: private ones accessible only to the intended recipient and public messages.
Since the public messages are just that: messages some sort of viewer "app" would be required to arrange them. Currently this is done by a webapp, but latency to the server would almost certainly makethings better with a native app.
Since latency is so high, it is probably worth splitting public messages (and provate ones, but there's less need) into a sort of heirachal response/reply system as that gives the kind of fine grained control you need when latency is high. Even if they're text, binaries could be attached using some sort of archiveing and conversion protocol, giving multipart messages or something.
IOW we've already developed very good tech to solve this problem in the 70s, when latency was really high: it took I think over 24 hours for an email to traverse the world with UUCP. These things went out of fashion because latency isn't high on Earth any more and there's more felxible things one can do without high latency. No amount of engineering will solve the latency to mars problem, and the old systems are well suited.
This is not a case of "old is better", it's a case of the old things being designed to cope well with a situation which is no longer present on Earth but is and will remain present between the Earth and Mars.
If build a network, it is up to me to operate it the way I want to.
Sure the government gives you the structure of corporations to protect you and sure the government provides you a legal structure for you to even have contracts with your customers, but oh boy you get whiny if the government doesn't give you everything else too.
Basically no. It's long been established that companies can't do what they want simply because they got some sucker to sign a piece of paper.
You have a serious case of Stockholm syndrome: that is sympathising with your captives.
Sweden has a lower population density than the US, yet has much higher speeds and cheaper prices. The US is larger over all, but that should make it cheaper, since the problem is easier (higher overall density) and it would get to benefit from economies of scale.
Even if you ignore that, Japan, Korea, Sweden and a whole bunch of others have both much larger size and much lower density than the dense US metro areas, yet still have much higher speed than the said dense US metro areas.
Sure the US metro areas are better than rural ones, but US metro areas are still much worse than some countries.
Yes, it is pretty silly for them to expect the government to educate people. It is not like an educated population is some kind of public good.
Well, it is a benefit to the public as a whole to a large degree, but there is a dark side, too. The main reason that companies want to increase enrollment in CS is to get a larger pool of people to draw from so that they won't have to pay employees as much.
Dear Microsoft,
Sorry, but according to your tax filings you are headquartered in Nevada so investing in a Washington University for a Nevada corporation makes no sense.
- Washington
It's not a Windows RT port it's a WinRT port. Windows RT is an operating system. WinRT is the runtime which replaces Win32. WinRT runs on Windows 8.x, 10 and Windows Phone 8.x and 10.
Goodbye Spock
Goodbye McCoy
Goodbye Scotty
but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Including the fear of being perceived as being childish?
Probably not the right thread for it, but you're answering questions, so what the hell!
Will the non-javascript classic (the REAL classic version) be staying? I prefer that version, but I sometimes have to browse with scripts disabled in order to get it to work (actually, I usually read from Dillo or Links2 neither of which do JS, because I like the responsiveness). Unfortunately, though this means that I can't metamoderate any more since that requires JavaScript.
Yes because waiting so long that vendors develop incompatible libraries and then shipping incredibly buggy system libraries then not fixing them for a whole major version has no effect on whether the apps reliably support the feature, because apps are *magic* and don't need system libraries.
BLE on android is a total clusterfuck and as a result app compatibility across versions is bad.
Gee, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.
