That, and her own childhood. We tend to relativize bad things in terms of what we've experienced ourselves. If I had seen my father beat the teeth out of my mothers mouth with a hammer I'm not so sure I'd be up in arms about somebody losing their job...
That depends. If you think that somebody who feels limited empathy with someone who lost their job (and quickly got another one) is "irreparably damaged for life", then perhaps yes.
But you could think of it in the opposite way as well: Perhaps our empathy should be directed more towards those that have it toughest in life, and less towards those with whom we can easily identify? In that case I'd say it's the 4chan guys that are "irreparably damaged", and the HN crowd obsessed with Hank's restitution... well, "damaged" but perhaps not "irreparably". ;)
Well... I do agree it's not the most empathic response, but if you read the article again is that the weirdest lack of appropriate emotion you see?
I must say I'm more concerned about the combination of her father beating her mother to pieces with a hammer, and her writing an upbeat and loving letter to him some 20 years later... To me that's the heartbreaking story here.
UPDATE: Edited to clarify that I think there's room to empathize with Adria.
To me the whole idea of negotiating ciphers seems broken: a man-in-the-middle will always choose the weakest one.
I guess the argument is that cipher negotiation lets you implement stronger crypto without defining a new protocol version, but what is the point of that? An attacker will just negotiate for the weaker cipher anyway (unless this negotiation is cryptographically protected too of course, but this seems so complex in comparison with the rather meaningless "goal" of cipher negotiation).
Exactly my first thought. I'd love to sign off on the first part of that, but "...to request my records to be deleted." Not so sure I want that (which goes to show I guess that I'm more concerned with the rule of law than the actual "privacy" of my communications).
I completely agree that's what's going on. But what's fascinating here (to me at least) is how individual our interpretations are.
Can you see what assumptions the gold/white crowd is making in their interpretation? Even with the slider in the OP I can't see it. :) And even worse: I can't understand what assumption I need to make (about the color of objects in the background or shadows or something) to be able to see a gold/white dress.
Phrased differently: I can't imagine how I would construct a scene with a gold/white dress and then take a picture that looks like the one in the OP (regardless of the position of the slider). Scary! :)
Exactly. For most optical illusions you can switch between interpretations, but in this case I only see black and blue (yes the black is gold-ish). But the frustrating thing is that I saw it as white and gold for a moment yesterday, but I can't anymore. I'm starting to question my sanity.
I'm in the same boat as you. I saw it white and gold for about 5 minutes yesterday, and then it gradually transitioned to black and blue, in a "well, I guess that's blue" sort of way, until it was "no way that's white and gold".
I'm the opposite way. Even if I push the slider all the way to the left, I still see it as a white & gold dress, but in a nearly monochromatic blue light.
I put an orange light in my bathroom so that night-time visits won't affect my sleep more than necessary, and notice that the cap on my antifungal powder bottle, which I know to be orange, reflects that light as a similar color to the bathtub, which I know to be white. If I put the bottle on the tub, I can flip-flop between deciding that the bottle-cap is white, and that the tub is orange. When doing so, my perception of the colors change. The orangeness appears to fade in and out.
Not so with this picture. I can't push my brain to accept any other conclusion than the slider is changing the color of the illumination from blue to yellow, and the dress color is constant.
As a photographer I'm seeing the middle version as if it's lit with daylight blue, the yellow version as if it's overexposed with indoor tungsten, and the blue version as a cold underexposed flash shot.
What people see depends on monitor quality. Most monitors are nowhere close to neutral, and cheaper monitors still aren't neutral even after calibration.
But on top of that, colour perception is notoriously individual. Men and women have different colour perception, and many men are somewhat red/green colour blind.
FWIW, personally I have trouble seeing this as a white/gold dress.
I don't think that your monitor determines whether you see a white/gold dress or not. At first the picture looked blue to me, no matter where I placed the fader.
I left the fader on the right, continued browsing and somehow I forgot to close the tab. When I eventually came back to this tab I asked myself: "Why did I open a picture of a white/gold dress? Oooh..." However, when I then moved the fader to the left it quickly became blue again.
I could imagine that there are two effects at work.
1. My brain has some kind of caching-error when I slowly slide the fader to the right as it refuses to update all information necessary to see the real colors.
(not white and gold but the actual blue tone)
2. The bright white spot on the right hand side is sort of a focal point. When you look at it first it alters how you perceive the rest of the picture. (causing an afterimage-like effect)
if 1 doesn't happen (i.e you see the photo of the right hand side first) and 2 does happen, then the picture looks white/gold (to me)
> I can't imagine how I would construct a scene with a gold/white dress and then take a picture that looks like the one in the OP
I can. To me, this initially looked like a situation where the background is lit with incandescent bulbs with the dress being in sunlight. In a photo where you have parts of the scene that are lit with incandescent bulbs and other parts are lit with sunlight, correcting white balance for the incandescent part of the scene (yellow -> white) will make anything that's white in the sunlit part of the scene very blue. That's what I was seeing here.
It's easier to understand the gold part than the white part to me. But I think I assume that the goldish hue comes more from the light, since the further down on the dress I look the more black it seems.
Phrased slightly differently: The yellow-brown (gold) color is most visible on the upper torso where the fabric (to me) is likely to reflect a light source specularly. On the lower part of the dress (where I assume) light is more ambiantly reflected I see black.
Looking at your color squares to the right it's quite clear to me what my visual cortex is doing: It's assuming that specular reflection expains the difference in color in the left column. So each color there is a superposition of two: the ambient color of the dress and the specular reflection of the light source. Separating those two gives me black dress and yellowish lighting.
UPDATE After writing the above I think I understand why it seems so weird to me to see white: I parse the light source as yellowish, so a white dress would never look blue in that light. To me seeing a white/gold dress requires contradictory hypothesis: the light source needs to be blue to explain bluish tint on white stripes; but it also needs to be yellowish to explain the "gradient" in gold/black stripes from top to bottom of the dress.
When i turned the picture upside down with the light source in the back now at the bottom, which couldn't be the sun anymore, my perceived color changed from very very light blue to blue instantly. And now I can't unsee it:)
People are not correcting blue to white. The image is measurably white and not blue. Some people may be correcting back to blue but regardless of whether or not the original dress is blue there is no deep blue of the original dress in the image being displayed. We can measure the RGB or HSV or whatever of every pixel and see that objectively
I'm the same as your update. I tend to enjoy these sorts of illusions and normally can see them "both ways" for some specific illusion. Not so on this one. The rest of the image (i.e. beyond the dress) leads me to also perceive the light being yellow-ish, in which case a white dress would certainly not appear blue.
Ha! I just had a moment where I could perceive it as white/gold: It was a cropped version showing only the belly portion of the dress with no background, displayed in isolation as a thumbnail on a news site. When cropped like that it made perfect sense. :)
I'm one of the light blue/gold people and couldn't image seeing black anywhere. But when I look at the picture upside down I see it as blue/gold and when I mask the lower half, as blue/black with a gold touch.
Why the condescension? Did you even read the top comment in this thread? The whole point is yes, some people do in fact perceive black in that picture. Because color perception is relative.
I find it funny that the HN crowd is arguing over this, given how in our line of work, I'm sure many of us have looked at an image on several different devices and have seen different shades and colors. Someone's monitor might have a higher contrast setting than your smartphone. And you're condescending to someone for perceiving a color that isn't objectively there.
The words 'really' and 'objectively' in your post give the reader the sense that you think what you see is the correct way of seeing things and anyone who perceives it differently is wrong and somehow lesser.
I first saw it on a friends laptop which has a shitty screen with the brightness cranked too high and it looked gold/white to me. When I looked at it on my desktop (which I have set so that blacks are as black as the monitor gets) it doesn't look anywhere near white/gold.
But that just means they don't need to officially own it anymore: Alex Mandl, Gemalto's current chairman, is among others a former board member of intQtel, which presents its mission on its web page as:
We identify, adapt, and deliver innovative technology solutions to support the missions of the Central Intelligence Agency and broader U.S. Intelligence Community.
So the news that nobody wants spread is: nobody cares about how much the NSA stole from Gemalto: whatever Gemalto has and NSA wants, the NSA is most likely to get by simply asking NSA affiliates installed at every interesting node in Gemalto's hierarchy.
Incidentally, it's rather easy to find sources about this in French (Gemplus used to be a French company, before the fusion with Axalto which was forced by intQtel and TPG), but surprisingly hard to find in English.
Not at all. GCHQ are not usually ones to try just one approach. They often try every approach at once: partly because they can; but mostly for compartmentation; to overwhelm layered defences; and to decrease sensitive source exposure by combining the results of everything they care to try.
The doctrine has been called "penetrating targets' defences" or PTD: that's also the name of their budget/office/department/contracting scheme which is broadly equivalent to NSA's Special Source Operations/Targeted Access Operations, only more aggressive and multi-pronged. It incorporates HUMINT as well as both R&D and operational deployment of advanced technical attacks.
You may see references in the Snowden documents of this (check the bottom), or in their tenders to BAE Detica for their modular botnet software, or elsewhere. Although much of the really juicy or operational stuff is STRAP3 and thus kept off the TS//STRAP2 wiki.gchq (which the NSA have shared access to via their ic.gov portal, and which Snowden dumped - and which, yes, runs a tweaked MediaWiki on PHP).