A lot of young people don’t realize just how difficult post-school dating was before online dating. Once we exhausted the pool of 5-10 single people who were friends of friends, that was basically it. We’d have to go find strangers at the bar.

That conditioned everyone to be slightly more willing to settle for less perfect matches, knowing that there wasn’t necessarily a replacement available. That could be a good thing (people more likely to have the patience to let a spark develop) or a bad thing (a higher percentage of couples who just resented each other).

I can see an argument that things were better before online dating for some subset of people. But having lived that period, I can say from experience that it wasn’t easy then, either. And for someone like me, who is a better writer than I am a speaker, especially over the phone, the rise of text-based communication was helpful for navigating the early stages of relationships when that became the norm.

This is a Wendy’s.

Obvious Plant puts fake products on shelves.

True Wagner puts absurd flyers on telephone poles and bulletin boards.

This is more of a True Wagner situation.

Oh my God we’re having a fire…sale

I didn’t even know he was sick!

I still use reddit.

Lemmy is still missing a few things:

• Sports discussion. There’s nothing quite like the absurdity of some of the sports communities that really brightens my day, from really deep analytical insights to the dumbest meme jokes in existence.
• City-specific local discussion. I still spend time on my city’s subreddit, which helps keep me tuned in on local happenings.
• Non-tech related career discussion. My field (law) has several subreddits useful for talking shop, growing careers, making fun of shitty lawyers, etc. That doesn’t really exist here.
• Hobby discussion. I’m trying my best to participate in fitness and weight lifting related subreddits but there just isn’t a critical mass of commenters to get a discussion really going. Plenty of my other hobbies and interests are missing here, too.

I’ve deleted the reddit alts I used to use for technology related topics, parenting/relationship topics, political discussion, and stupid general purpose humor or memes, as Lemmy has enough of that I don’t need Reddit for those topics. But for the ones I’ve listed above, I’m still using desktop “old” Reddit.

I’m also still on Instagram, but only follow people I know personally. It’s the easiest way to keep up with my acquaintances’ lives: who’s marrying who, who’s having kids, where people have moved, etc.

It’s because we’re also very used to seeing photographs of a subject in shade while the background is in full sunlight. If you take a picture of a white and gold dress in the shadow of a patio, with the background all fully lit by bright sunlight, the actual pixels representing white objects in the shade would be that bluish gray tint.

The problem here is that the dress isn’t in the shade but those of us who see white and gold simply assume that it is in shade, while black/blue viewers (correctly) assume that it is under the same lighting conditions of the overexposed background.

That’s…why it went viral. So many people couldn’t see it the other way, and both sides found it hard to believe that the other side was actually being sincere.

Since we have no context, the dress is white and gold objectively.

The actual physical object photographed is black and blue.

White and gold appear when the brain makes the assumption that the dress falls within a shadow (effectively applying a filter that shifts the white balance towards bluer colors and brightness down significantly compared to direct sunlight). Only in real life, the photographed dress did not fall within a shadow, and instead was affected by a yellowish lens flare, so the subconscious color correction that leads a viewer to assume white and gold was erroneously applied.

I see white and gold. But to claim that it’s “objectively” white and gold ignores how the human brain perceives color and ignores that the actual photograph was a blue and black dress.

It sounds like you’re agreeing with me that color perception relies on context, not just the color code of the pixel on the screen.

I found this image to be a really good way to distill the issue down into the two different modes or perception:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress#/media/File:Wikipe-tan_wearing_The_Dress_reduced.svg

I think everyone knew about how human perception subconsciously color corrects a particular image, but this was shocking in that there was genuine disagreement between people who simply couldn’t see it the other way.

When you look at the checker shadow illusion, do you see the pixels as identical in color? If not, then obviously there’s more to human perception than just the color of the pixel code.

The point has never been about the actual pixel color codes. It’s about how human perception doesn’t follow those objective metrics.

Distilled down, we perceive color and brightness in comparison to the surrounding scene. The checker shadow illusion is a clear example of the same color looking different.

So the color perception on the dress depends on how the brain decides to color correct the white balance of the scene.

What in the name of DadGPT is this

This was a particularly bad case of some bagel being cut in half.

Phosphates were banned in dishwasher detergents in 2011, so most of the name brand companies switched to enzyme-based cleaners that use amylase and protease, which dissolve starches and proteins, respectively. And then some traditional detergent, which allows oil and water to mix, washes it all away.

The nature of the enzymes are that as soon as they’ve broken up the starch or protein, they survive the reaction and can happily move onto the next starch or protein molecule. So if they’re overactive, without enough targets, then any portion of the dishes that are sensitive to that particular cleaner is going to get a higher “dose” of that cleaner working specifically at it.

If you have 2 apples, and then I give you 2 more, you don’t suddenly have 5 apples because we all decided 2+2=5.

No, but some types of addition follow their own rules.

Sometimes 1+1 is 2. One Apple plus one Apple is two apples.

Sometimes 1+1 is 1. Two true statements joined together in conjunction are true.

Sometimes 1+1 is 0. Two 180° rotations is the same as if you didn’t rotate the thing at all.

If you don’t define what kind of addition you’re talking about, then it’s not precise enough to talk through what is or isn’t true.

I have a model of everything. Everything I am, my understanding of the world, it all fits together like a web. New ideas fit by their relationship to what I already know - maybe I’m missing nodes to fit it in and I can’t accept it

Same, and I would add the clarification that I have a model for when and why people lie, tell the truth, or sincerely make false statements (mistake, having been lied to themselves, changed circumstances, etc.).

So that information comes in through a filter of both the subject matter, the speaker, and my model of the speaker’s own expertise and motivations, and all of those factors mixed together.

So as an example, let’s say my friend tells me that there’s a new Chinese restaurant in town that’s really good. I have to ask myself whether the friend’s taste in Chinese restaurants is reliable (and maybe I build that model based on proxies, like friend’s taste in restaurants in general, and how similar those tastes are with my own). But if it turns out that my friend is actually taking money to promote that restaurant, then the credibility of that recommendation plummets.

For those who are wondering, this is an art installation called “Armoured Pram for Derry” by Eamonn O’Doherty, and appears to be from a 2016 “Making History” exhibition at Ulster Museum.

From what I can gather, it was created in 1991 but restored in 2012 after O’Doherty’s death.