Nothing. These days? Not because I don’t know things, but because a lot of people refuse to accept new information, even when it comes from reputable peer-reviewed sources and there’s not much arguing with that.
Nah man, you’re wrong. Just saying. /s
No I’m not!
(I was considering just posting the Monty Python argument scratch instead)
That Barry Bonds deserves to be in the HOF. And how sports writers should not be the only bar for an exceptional athlete is being snubbed (Clemens included even though I think he’s a jerk).
That corporate greed is the root of almost every problem we have as a society. The game is fixed and it needs to change.
Indiana Jones could have just stayed home and Raiders Of The Lost Ark would have ended the exact same way but without him dragging that one lady through hell.
That is one hell of a point. Where would the Ark have ended up though?
They’d have Top Men working on it.
Who?
Top. Men.
No bottoms? Sounds sus.
That this dress is white and gold. I mean, just look at it. It’s self-evident.
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/88909fd1-7021-4c1e-84a7-d5272f4b6541.jpeg
:-)
I still don’t see it.
I spent so long trying to make myself see blue-and-black. Kind of resigned that I can’t do it.
I’ve managed to game other optical illusions by covering bits of them up, to break the effect, and then slowly shift the amount covered. Cover one eye. Focus on one part of the image.
I can make the Necker cube be in either orientation.
I’ve seen The Spinning Dancer run in both directions.
But The Dress remains determinedly white-and-gold.
On the other hand, I’ve never seen white and gold.
These guys apparently reproduced the effect.
One apparently either sees white socks and pink crocs, or green socks and gray crocs.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-life-of-the-mind/202502/the-dress-10-years-on
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/b41aa1cd-3d1b-4ef8-886f-2c6494141805.jpeg
If it is true that the differential interpretation of the light source causes the disagreement about the percept, we should be able to recreate the effect de-novo:
And we did: We put a pink croc under green light so it looks grey, then added white socks which — reflecting the green light appeared green. People who know that these socks are white used the green tint as a cue that something is off with the light and mentally color-corrected the image. To them, the croc looked pink, even though the pixels are objectively grey. People who took the color of the socks — green — at face value, saw the croc — consistent with its pixel values – as grey.
EDIT: For me, it’s green socks and gray crocs.
Holy shit, I stared at the green socks really close for awhile and now the white and gold dress is blue and black! No way!
I just did the same thing. I had never seen the blue/black, ever. Now I can’t see white/gold. I don’t known who I am anymore!
I came back to it after a bit and it was back to white/gold.
I see green socks and pink crocs lol
But I think it’s because I’m color correcting the Crocs from the green, but the socks, while I acknowledge are likely white in reality, do look very green from reflecting green light
But then, yeah, there’s the difference of “do we take it at face value, or try to figure out what the ‘real’ colour is in neutral light?”
So this is really strange. I followed the link in the post above to look at the dress again and, as always, it’s obviously blue and black, but I kind of stared at the white background of the wiki page, and just barely kept the top left corner of the dress in my vision. I shit you not, the dress slowly turned more white and I looked down at the rest of the dress and the stripes were gold! At first it was subtle but it gradually became blatantly white and gold.
Then I looked away, and it was black and blue again.
Weird.
So what colour is this?
yea I can see the cube both ways
spinning dancer is only clockwise
dress is always white/gold
I actually was able to avoid this hype and never see 1 picture until now!
Its gold.
I’ve only seen blue and black
Probably nothing.
Winning an argument would mean your opponent has enough sense to admit they were wrong, and I just don’t hold 99% of the people I come across to that standard anymore.
Honestly nothing. The more I read and listen about any topic that can be debated the more unsure I am of my stance. I’m pretty sure that billionaires simply shouldn’t be allowed to hoard so much money, but I’d probably fold under a multi-layered, informed rebuttal - it’s more a gut feeling that i’d likely fail to articulate.
It’s pronounced gif
This one is one of the most stupid arguments IMO, the answer is so obvious that it’s impossible to defend the other side of the argument in writing without misspelling the word.
So you agree that it’s pronounced gif.
I win
Masterclass.
That hitting your children is NOT a good discipline technique.
This parrot you sold me is dead.
If the argument is fair and both parties are open then I think I could win an argument that exercise is crucial for a long and healthy life.
This is Lemmy. I’ll give you one guess… and it ain’t beans.
Communism. Furries. Linux. Woke.
What am i confident i can explain in-depth using facts, or what am i confident i can explain in-depth using facts AND have the other person understand and change their view/opinion on? Two different scenarios
What do you win? No seriously.
Winning means you shut down the other person and makes him feel stupid for being wrong? Then you havent won anything. You just lost.
The entire school system is explicitly training people to be afraid of being wrong.
You only learn something when you are wrong. It should be celebrated to be wrong. But in our culture, we have made it into a ego thing. That being right means you are better, smarter, more educated. Such bullshit.
Nothing, conclusively, since I am already at a disadvantage because my brain processing speed can be low at times for debates and is riddled with over thinking about how to reply, but I sure as hell could try winning an argument on why cartoons are better than live action. Or why my absolute favorite webcomic Peter & Company is something people should give a try.
Why does the lizard speak in sarcasm format?
If I remember correctly, I am pretty sure it’s implied he might be a little mentally slow, if you catch my drift. Though I don’t think they play that off for laughs in a negative way, thankfully.
I’d have to go way back to when they first introduce him and read a few more issues with him in it afterwards to verify that, though, since it’s been forever since I’ve read some of the earlier issues.
Edit:
Looks like in the short storyline Peter and Iggy first meet, Iggy was written using with some letters flipped alongside having random lowercase letters dotted about uppercaps, so I definitely think they were going a little overboard on the mentally slow thing. It kinda looks like the sArCaSm thing is more of a way to show he’s still a little slow, but in a slightly less offensive manner.
Do mean, “what controversial topic would I be correct about”, or do you mean, “what can i make the other person shut up about”? Because those are different skills, and it’s the reason why politicians win over the public and scientists get derided.
I had intended the former, so I’m regretting my choice of verbiage now. Oops.
