It isn't about the camera's white balance. It is about the light on the dress, and the lack of sufficient context to determine exactly which light the dress is in. Is the dress in the shade, with a blown out background from a different light source? Or is the dress in the same blown out golden light as the background? The brain can choose one way or the other - if it prefers to think the dress is in the shade, you see white and gold. If your brain thinks it is washed out by the yellow-ish light, you see black and blue.

If you REALLY understand photography, you are well acquainted with the fact that outdoor light (shade especially) is dramatically more blue than incandescent light. If you've got both in the same scene, you get problems like this, and there's no good choice for the camera to make. This is why there are things like gels for flashes, because it isn't a problem with the way the photons are processed by the camera, it's the fact that physics delivers very different photon wavelengths from on object depending on the incident light source.

The GIMP doesn't really mean anything, because what's at play here is our mental perception of color. White snow in the shade has a distinct blue tone if you look at it in a photo editor, but that doesn't mean that it is blue. Really, we've got that exact phenomena going on here - the colors could be adequately described two different ways, white and gold dress in the shade (blue-ish light) or blue and black dress in incandescent light (gold-ish). It's really a matter of interpretation.

For another great example of just how confounding this effect can be: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...

Of course you could, but what's more likely - some elaborate scheme to create a viral controversy that's tied to no obvious material benefit, or a picture that just happened to be taken with a shitty cellphone that gets interpreted differently by different viewers? What's more, lots of people looking at exactly the same image, at the same time, on the same device (for instance, my wife and I) came to opposite conclusions.

The summary and linked xkcd comic do a completely accurate job explaining the phenomena, no conspiracy theories required.

That's the point - apparently some amount of people DO listen to the advice in the astrology column. Dispensing useful, data-driven advice would certainly be better than dispensing random advice, yes?

I'm getting a hint of sarcasm. What objections do you see?

How do you do such a thing? I'm not aware of any reliable way to develop such a skill - it sounds to me like saying "learn to have unlimited willpower".

There was a study a while back that suggested that placebo effect worked even if people were fully aware it was a placebo. So you tell people it is bullshit, but tell them to keep doing it anyway because it will still make them feel better.

See, I was thinking (hoping) this was a brilliant move by the national health system. Embed actual, good advice based on medical statistics but do it through the astrology column in the paper. For instance, encourage people to stay in at night when there's a new flu strain sweeping around, or on a night prone to partying and drunk driving. Discourage people from eating unhealthy foods, or encourage extra exercise. Suggest saving money, or suggest avoiding a traditional but injury-prone activity.

There are a lot of social phenomena that are undesirable yet predictable as clockwork, statistically speaking. If you have a significant portion, even a few percent, of the population that listens to and enacts astrological advice, you could sneak in a real and tangible public benefit that way.

One piece of advice I heard with respect to productivity is this: Decrease the number of steps between you and good habits, increase the number of steps between you and bad habits. Take Facebook, for instance. It offers enough value to me to maintain it, but despite the subconscious urgency I feel to check it, it offers very little benefit if looked at more than once per day. Reading a book on a tablet means I am at most two button presses away. Reading a book the old-fashioned way means that I have to get up, navigate towards the nearest tablet/computer/phone, unlock it, and open the Facebook app. The inconvenience means I'm less likely to give in when a momentary impulse strikes.

There's also plenty of research to support this, and on some level it is unquestionably true. What takes more willpower: avoiding the warm chocolate chip cookies sitting on a plate in front of you, or avoiding the warm chocolate chip cookies at the store 5 miles away?

The point being, I enjoy pursuing activities with distraction minimized. Reclining with a paper book and a glass of bourbon is infinitely more relaxing than squinting at a screen and pushing buttons. My focus is maintained because the device I am holding performs a single primary function which I am singularly devoted to.

As to this question:

No, because I find these things to be very useful and often enjoyable, but they can sometimes present distractions that prevent me from doing more useful, more enjoyable things. Technology is a wonderful servant but a terrible master. A variety of strategies are out there for making sure that you aren't mastered by it, and I don't think that one kind should be more highly regarded than another.

You know what defines transition periods between eras in geology? Extinction events, typically. This particular one was the second-worst in known history. Dramatic changes in the environment are typically thought to cause these extinction events, as is the case here. So, the fact that an extreme event can counter gradual changes does not in any way lend support to your belief that global warming is not a problem. We would see sudden and dramatic cooling if we suffered an asteroid impact that clouded the atmosphere with dust - this doesn't negate that global warming is occurring, it means a dominant effect happened to counteract a more subtle and slow-acting one.

It's like saying you should quit your job and buy a lotto ticket because you know somebody who won the lottery. Just because we've seen someone become stupendously rich without effort doesn't mean that working for a paycheck is pointless. Similarly, just because we've seen a time period where the greenhouse effect was overwhelmed by dominant cooling effects doesn't mean we can count on the same thing happening and disregard CO2 levels.

There is good discussion to be had about global warming and what our response to it ought to be, but this particular example is not a valid objection.

This sounds like a pretty cool system to play around with. Do you need a HAM license? I assume you can use it sans smartphone?

Here's the thing: avoiding distraction while using a medium full of distraction requires constant vigilance. On the other hand, you can make a good decision once, when you decide to pursue an activity, to cut out distraction and then you require no more willpower. This is useful for people who have more willpower at certain times than others, which is all of them as far as I can tell. Set things up well when you are motivated, so that you won't falter when you are tired/stressed or otherwise have your discipline compromised.

I think it would be great to just maintain 100% willpower all the time and just succeed at things because I want it bad enough, but I've tried that many, many times and it doesn't work for me. Instead, creating an environment that subtly promotes the activities I truly value and makes the impulsive but unsatisfying time-wasters inconvenient seems to reliably help me do more of the things I care about long-term.

They do call it "robbing the hive", so at least they are honest about it.

I agree - I fit in the generation that most people would consider "digital natives", but many or most of my peers are pretty clueless about technology (just like most people in all generations). Proficiency with technology doesn't come from using foolproof user interfaces, particularly with entertainment devices. It comes from using technology to do productive work efficiently, and understanding the tools available to you to that end. Very few people are very advanced in this, when you consider how ubiquitous digital tech really is.

Perhaps. Or you could say that perhaps these people are more aware of distraction and take specific measures when they don't want it to intrude. Or do you think that procrastination and distraction are unique to the 30 and under crowd?