I can only see it as blue, period. Not trolling - I really cannot see this as white in any circumstances, even the XKCD "color balanced" bit I still see it as blue (albeit a much lighter blue on the left).
When I looked at the image, I saw a bluish and brownish dress.
In the XKCD image, I can say that they are both blue in color, with the dark room one being lighter blue in appearance to my eye, yet I know my interpretation would be more that it was in fact a white dress in a darkly lit area.
I have sunglasses that are brown tinted, and technically everything I see with them on has a brown tint to it, yet I know my brain is ignoring this (unless I am really thinking about it) and perceiving the colors for what I know they are. Your brain does an incredible amount of processing and interpretation of the things you see.
On reviewing the image again, I can see the over exposed background which does suggest the exposure of the dress itself is darkened, and therefore is white, or at least much lighter than it appears in the image.
I am reminded of this as well:
Frontier is going to fold, and you know it.
What you need to do is pay attention to who is in charge of this, and find ways to boycott any products they have anything to do with in the future. Especially the bastards who were involved in the marketing.
Yeah! Let's make sure we punish people for the rest of their lives! Damn them for not providing me with my exact requirements!
The internet has turned into somewhere we can destroy people. It's ugly.
While I agree some things get out of hand, and vigilantism is often not a very good thing, are you suggesting that it is okay for them to screw people over, change to a new company and then do it again, and again? Telling people they will get what they want if they give them the money, taking the money, then turning around and not giving them what they want is not okay. And if the company folds because of it, and the people move on and start a new company, it should not be okay to do it all over again.
And since you basically agreed to be an investor in the venture (that's why you get a "reward", not a "purchase"), do you know what you can do about that in most cases? Jack and shit.
And Jack left town.
They should offer this to the user as an option, where the user has to pay less when tracking is enabled. Otherwise this is abuse of market power to make users agree to being tracked.
Except it will be the other way around. Pay more to not be tracked.
Based on what we know about simulators, they are inherently slower and smaller in scope than the system they run on. You're never going to have a virtual machine that is more powerful than the metal that it runs on. Similarly, you're probably not going to have a simulated universe be more powerful than the universe that is hosting the simulated universe.
I don't think that is necessarily true. You just can't simulate something more powerful in real time. Maybe the simulation takes an day in the simulator's universe to "render" one second in our universe (or any other ratio, it's just an example). To the people in the simulation, everything seems "real-time" from their point of view. We have no way to know how long the hardware in the "real" universe takes to run our simulation.
I'm sure new CPU designs that are more powerful can still be simulated on older CPU designs. Again, the simulation may run a lot slower.
They studied hard and ensured they fully understood every aspect of basic satellite lunch systems domestically before moving to the next stage.
I can imagine an Indian scientist thinking "Hmmm... what do satellites like to eat for lunch, and what type of system can we build to feed it to them?"
When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers. -- The Wall Street Journal