I’ll add to this that s01e01 (especially) is an absolute masterclass in character animation and motion. The whole series is incredibly well animated, but that first episode is clearly the place where they were experimenting with things, and it’s beautiful!

For that to work, the light would have to be exactly behind the dress (it is coming from the top based on what we can see), and the surrounding room dark. Otherwise you get “light bleed” along the sides of any curved object due to reflection and ambient refraction.

But then you would have light bleed around the edges. Unless you are in an extremely dark room, reflection and diffusion would make the curved edges of the dress receive some of that outside light. Yet the floor at the foot of the dress is well lit.

Back to my original conception of things: understanding of lighting and photography makes the white-gold seem impossible.

I do not deny that people can instinctually miss these details… But I am surprised that further analysis doesn’t inevitably resolve in these conclusions.

Like I replied to another comment, how can you explain that the surrounding environment is yellow then? Based on this diagram, white+gold could only work if the rest of the image was lit with blue light… which it clearly is not.

deleted by creator

But that only works if you completely disregard the surrounding environment, right?

Otherwise how do you explain the bright yellow lighting and overexposure? It would have to be blue… like in the example.

That’s the part I never got. In fact, that illustration seems like the perfect way of pointing out how it should not appear white and gold, based on the surrounding colors.

The right side is white near the top (nearly pure white, likely sunlight overblown by the photo), there is some generally dark clutter with a spot of red, and then a white or pale beige lit with yellow-ish lighting.

The “beam” is either some light wood, or just the shadow on a ledge; it is made brown-ish because of the yellow lighting’s illumination but lack of exposure to the exterior backlighting.

The dress on the left is white and black. Made yellow and dark-ish brown-ish by overexposure and strong yellow indoor lighting.

Fundamentally, and the science points to this, you are likely seeing the environmental yellow as actual colors, and not the result of lighting; which I understand on paper… but I cannot see a scenario where blue lighting would produce a bright yellow when overexposed; even if there is yellow in the actual object colors (because blue-ish light would tarnish the warm colors to light grays or possibly light greens I guess)

Genuine question then: for you, what colors are:

• the general environment on the right?
• the horizontal piece sticking out on the right? (a piece of wood, or the shade on a ledge I guess)
• the dress(?) on the left?

I am used to manipulating digital images (photoshop, 3D, etc.). Even in the gifs that supposedly show how people can see both by changing the exposure and warmth, I still see black and blue… just even more overexposed. I do not personally know a single person who manipulates digital images frequently that sees white and gold. (anecdotal)

I know some people have “shifted” their view at some point… and I still cannot fathom getting this wrong, or changing how it can be seen. Even when scientists break down how it works, my brain just points out the overexposed background and bright yellow lighting, and is convinced roughly 50% of humanity is just trolling.

The part that kills me is how the dress(?) behind it on the left has the same black and… actual white… and people don’t seem to notice that. How‽

Edit: to be clear, I am genuinely curious here.

You can look up URL parameter structure online, but the short version is that you use ? if it is the first parameter (no other ? in the URL), or & otherwise.

So you can use:

• https://google.com/?udm=14 and then search for something.
• https://google.com/?q=question&udm=14 by adding it with an & after an existing search

I recommend adding a custom search engine to your browser with this baked in. It’s incredibly easy in Firefox and it’s derivatives, with a ton of tutorials online.

Yep. There’s TONS of nerd tricks for this sort of stuff that would make people’s lives way easier, but are somehow reserved for geeks and nerds (like how you can actually make Windows decent by saying you’re in the EU and using O&O ShutUp10++, Power toys and that kind of stuff).

It’s a URL parameter that forces Google to only show search results, like it used to do. No AI crap, no “widgets”, no bullsh*t.

You can configure most browsers to include this in searches by default, effectively making Google decent again.

?udm=14 Spread the word.

This.

When studying architecture, one of the things I discovered is how well modern buildings can fit together with pretty much any older style… but it has to be done with a little bit of finesse. The lack of a gate and ugly lawn here are pretty bad.

The house on the left though… That’s a crime against good taste.

Just stop calling them RPGs. The term has been rendered meaningless by the inclusion of character customization and inconsequential choices in pretty much every type of game.

The Witcher 3 is a story-driven action-aventure game.

Cyberpunk 2077 is an immersive sim with significant focus on the story and many RPG mechanics.

Neither is really about playing a role of your own making, making significant choices, or having the world react to your actions. Sure they have a lot of aspects borrowed from RPGs… But that’s not the core of either of them. Arguably, the Witcher games actually incarnate a lot more of the storytelling language of RPGs, but you are still playing a set role that has been written and performed ahead of time.

I went with a stack pattern and priorities.

Within a priority the last “layer” to activate is the only one to receive inputs. The priority system just means that if a layer from a lower priority gets activated, it doesn’t take over until the upper layer is empty.

It’s a bit stricter (only one layer active at all times), but you can always subscribe to inputs from multiple layers to achieve what you were describing.

The main advantage here was that you can safely rely on enabling/disabling layers without ever getting a conflict… If some popup comes in over your menu, the popup is in charge until it’s closed. No need for them to communicate, and you reliably know that inputs will eventually return to the menu properly, even if something else gets interposed.

And since it’s tacked onto the existing system, you can always have parts of the code that ignore the layer system entirely if necessary (like a mute button that has to work across all systems/menus for example).

Not sure if I’ll ever get around to adapting the concept to Godot, but I’d be happy if anyone comes around and takes the core logic that’s there and adapts it ;)

Thanks!!

TBH, I’m probably going to switch over to Godot at some point myself as well.

As a French person… Nobody gets turkey. Capon, yes, though it’s become too expensive so most people go for chicken.

Yeah, no worries. Someone else pointed it out to me recently.

I feel there’s a place for both of these. This is lightweight and focused on updates, whereas UniGet is a full-fratured app. Both have their benefits IMHO.