Randomness thread, part two.

[Poopadoop]

Here Ong, look at these amazing illusions. They're really "identical" images.

[Poopadoop]

ITT poop learns about lighting and perspective.

More like ITT poop learns a new definition of "identical."

[Poopadoop]

Oh look I found another illusion!

here's one view of it:



and here is another one taken from a different angle:



Amazing!

[CoccoBill]

[OngBonga]

Ok poop, ready to man up and admit it?

Yeah... no.

He's instead going to focus on "identical" instead of what we were actually talking about.

[Poopadoop]

You were saying the images were identical and I described several ways in which they clearly weren't. Then you tried to keep arguing they were. It ended when coco pointed out why they were different, at which point I mocked you for your use of the word "identical."

[OngBonga]

I did not say they were identical. I said it was the same work of art shown from different angles, because we were talking about perspective art. You said that it should look the same from different angles, I argued that wasn't the case and proved it.

You're shifting the goalposts here and it's weak as fuck. Just admit you were wrong and we'll move on.

[OngBonga]

Much of the illusion is due to how the visual system constructs depth, so walking around shouldn't change it much.

Tells me I don't understand how they work, proceeds to demonstrate you don't know how they work.

The illusion only properly works from the correct angle. From the incorrect angle, the image appears elongated or flat.

This is what we're talking about, not spot the difference.

[Poopadoop]

You said that it should look the same from different angles, I argued that wasn't the case and proved it.

What thread are you reading?

[OngBonga]

The same one as cocco.

[Poopadoop]

Ok I'll compromise. You were right about the foreshortening of the cup due to the angle. I was right that the two images weren't of identical things taken one right after the other. Happy now?

[OngBonga]

Sure, I'll let you off the hook with that. I never disputed the latter, I even made the point that they "clearly weren't taken at the same time". But I also know how easy it is to get carried away when we're arguing, and how easy it is to forget that we're actually discussing.

Moving on...

[CoccoBill]

I'm proud of you guys.

[boost]

Sure, I'll let you off the hook with that. I never disputed the latter, I even made the point that they "clearly weren't taken at the same time". But I also know how easy it is to get carried away when we're arguing, and how easy it is to forget that we're actually discussing.

Moving on...

I'm proud of you guys.

fuck that.

Look at the texture and colour of the pavement lol.

The only things identical are that both have a crack in them, which is hardly a unique feature in pavement.

Poop was clearly making the case that they were two completely different works of art.

Erect the fucking gallows.

[OngBonga]

Poop was clearly making the case that they were two completely different works of art.

I know he was but I was willing to let it go. The smug satisfaction of knowing I'm right is enough for me.

[Poopadoop]

Poop was clearly making the case that they were two completely different works of art.

Erect the fucking gallows.

Come and get me.

I was saying it wasn't two photos of the exact same thing. Which it wasn't. In fact I still haven't seen two photos of the final product from different angles.

[OngBonga]

Come on poop, it's pretty obvious you thought they were different works of art in different places. It doesn't matter that they aren't quite identical, not in the context of what we were discussing, which is that it looks completely different from a different angle. The differences between the images are not relevant to this discussion, it's complete enough to see how the illusion works.

[Poopadoop]

I already admitted I misjudged the perspective thing. The rest of my argument was just saying they weren't identical. You obviously have a different definition of that word, so let me help you out with that:

identical

1.
similar in every detail; exactly alike.

[OngBonga]

Could you please quote where I said the word "identical"?

[Poopadoop]

It's the same image

It's the same image from a different angle.

This work for you? Or does "the same" not mean identical any more?

[OngBonga]

You're misrepresenting what I meant by "image". Perhaps I should have said "work of art". With that in mind, the context changes remarkably.

[boost]

Come and get me.

I was saying it wasn't two photos of the exact same thing. Which it wasn't. In fact I still haven't seen two photos of the final product from different angles.

Look at what I quoted in #29714.

You were clearly making the case that the pavement was not the same.

If you came to realize that you were wrong, that it was the same work of art in different states of completion, I think we all missed where you clearly conceded.

Even if you did clearly concede, it's a particularly cunty flavor of pedantism to then go on to argue that they aren't identical. Put your dictionary away and follow the thread.

Ong can be a cunt too, so can I. I'm not trying to be an ass, but you displayed some, somehow, otherworldly and yet singularly petty goal post shifting itt.

[Poopadoop]

Dude, lighten up. It's not a serious topic, we're just having fun here. Or at least three of us are.

[CoccoBill]

The images are surely not a serious topic, but for someone the fact that you can't admit you're wrong even when you clearly and demonstrably are, might have an effect on their willingness to debate other issues with you going forward. Just a friendly psa. I'm sure we're all guilty of the same to some extent every now and then, but that was a hand in the cookie jar moment.

[Poopadoop]

I did admit I was wrong. Twice.

[Poopadoop]

Let me try to explain what is actually wrong with this example of an illusion then maybe you'll appreciate my perspective better:

If I'm a vision scientist and draw this illusion on my computer and print it off, and I want to prove it's an illusion, I take one photo of it from one angle and another from another angle. I ask people to judge how long the cup is in each. If they systematically judge the cup to be longer in one image than in the other, it's an illusion. I send it to a journal and get it published.

If instead I start to draw this illusion, take a photo, then spend a few hours adding a bunch of stuff to it, photo it from a different angle, and ask the same questions, they might still give the same answers, but it's never going to get published. The reviewers are going to point out that they're different and say "wtf are you doing here, changing the image so much before you photo it again? Take two photos of the same image you moron." or words to that effect. They might (wrongly, as I did - third admission) think the background has changed. They would certainly point out how many different ways the images were different. They would not be satisfied if I told them it was the same image but just in a different stage of work. They might not even believe me.

I could not respond to this that they're being pedantic. That's science, details matter. It's my fault for not doing the study right.

Now, I don't actually believe that whoever drew this sidewalk art is trying to defraud the public into thinking it's an illusion when it's not. But what do I know, maybe they're mental and this is how they get their orgasms. My point is you can't judge whether two things are different in one way (perspective) when they're already different in other ways (colouring, shading, etc.).

[OngBonga]

That post would be fair enough if the changes made to the work were significant to the illusion. The changes that were made between the two images are superficial, and in no way contribute to the illusion. Well, perhaps some of the shading helps to give a 3D effect, but in terms of making the image look like a cup, rather than a weird elongated thing, the shading isn't relevant.

We were talking about what it would look like from a different angle, in the context of how the illusion works. The images I posted clearly demonstrate what's happening, regardless of the fact they are taken at different stages of the work in progress.

But I also know full well that I am perfectly willing to argue relentlessly about something not worth arguing about, so I totally get why you doubled down on it. It's all pretty funny to me, it's not something to lose our shit over.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not losing my shit either lol, I'm just pointing out why it's scientifically flawed as a demonstration. The only way we could know it hadn't been fundamentally altered is if the images were of the exact same thing.

Either way, I concede it's probably more likely the artist doesn't know what counts as scientific proof than that he's deliberately trying to troll people.

[MadMojoMonkey]

These perspective illusions only work from 1 specific viewing point because of the way our eye-brain meatsack bits function.
Our eyes see out in a cone - things far away look smaller than they would if they're up close because of the angle they are in that cone. Move something further away, and it doesn't get smaller, but it occupies a relatively smaller amount of the 2D projected image we construct from that conic slice of the world.

The artists exploits this to artificially enlarge things which are physically further away from the "correct" viewing location. The amount the artist needs to distort those things to make them look just right changes with how distant they are from the viewer.

So street art like this looks crazy from all but one specific viewing position. Because as you move around it, the distance from your eye to the various bits changes - and the required image distortions to make it look "right" would be different from that angle.


The crazy paint job on the house gets around 2 of these issues at least slightly. Firstly, the wall is vertical, meaning that the top part of the wall is a somewhat more reliable distance from the eye. Illusions up there wouldn't require as dramatic of change in distortions to accommodate different viewing angles. Secondly, there are no recognizably common shapes, like a can or an apple in the paint job. So things which would look distorted to us are more acceptable because we don't have an expectation of what those lines "should" look like.

I'm certain it still is a bit mind-bending to walk past it, though.
The perspective implied by the shading tricks us into seeing a 3D image with certain things in front of other things. As we walk past it, we'd expect to see those curves from different angles, and that things once obscured by something in front would be revealed, while other bits not obscured become obscured by the 3D part now blocking them from our new perspective.

Even though we didn't have a preconceived idea of what those curves should look like at first glance... now that we've seen them, we have expectations.

[OngBonga]

I just had a moment of actual panic.

I can smell fire. Fuck. Checks the entire house, double checks, sits back down, still smells fire, looks out of window, neighbour is having a bonfire. Phew.

Could do without that stress.

[OngBonga]

We did nearly have a fire a year or so back. Really lucky this one. Middle of the night, me and housemates tucked up in bed fast asleep, I wake up, can hear something downstairs. Sounds like my housemate is cooking. What the actual fuck? I calmly put my dressing gown on, head downstairs, see smoke, walk into kitchen, there's flames coming out of the water boiler plug. I stand there for maybe five seconds, still half asleep, thinking to myself "what's wrong with this picture?". Then I snap into "oh fuck" mode, go upstairs, bang on housemates bedroom door, shout "FIRE", they wake up in panic, I go back downstairs armed with a torch, turn off electricity, blow the on-fire plug, fire goes out, housemates come downstairs in pitch black trying not to fall downstairs, and then we realise how close we came to losing the kitchen and maybe worse. Thank fuck I heard something and investigated. Imagine that waking me up. We do have smoke detectors but I was faster than they were.

[boost]

These perspective illusions only work from 1 specific viewing point because of the way our eye-brain meatsack bits function.
Our eyes see out in a cone - things far away look smaller than they would if they're up close because of the angle they are in that cone. Move something further away, and it doesn't get smaller, but it occupies a relatively smaller amount of the 2D projected image we construct from that conic slice of the world.

The artists exploits this to artificially enlarge things which are physically further away from the "correct" viewing location. The amount the artist needs to distort those things to make them look just right changes with how distant they are from the viewer.

So street art like this looks crazy from all but one specific viewing position. Because as you move around it, the distance from your eye to the various bits changes - and the required image distortions to make it look "right" would be different from that angle.


The crazy paint job on the house gets around 2 of these issues at least slightly. Firstly, the wall is vertical, meaning that the top part of the wall is a somewhat more reliable distance from the eye. Illusions up there wouldn't require as dramatic of change in distortions to accommodate different viewing angles. Secondly, there are no recognizably common shapes, like a can or an apple in the paint job. So things which would look distorted to us are more acceptable because we don't have an expectation of what those lines "should" look like.

I'm certain it still is a bit mind-bending to walk past it, though.
The perspective implied by the shading tricks us into seeing a 3D image with certain things in front of other things. As we walk past it, we'd expect to see those curves from different angles, and that things once obscured by something in front would be revealed, while other bits not obscured become obscured by the 3D part now blocking them from our new perspective.

Even though we didn't have a preconceived idea of what those curves should look like at first glance... now that we've seen them, we have expectations.

Great post.

I was once working on an animation project and a scene in which the view dollies with the camera perpendicular to the travel of the dolly was considered. In the scene there would be trees at different distances. The way you animate this to show movement is to have the trees moving opposite the direction of travel you want to imply, with trees further in the distance moving slower. The extreme example would be the moon in the background, which would not move, and an object in the extreme foreground which would move very fast.

I wanted to figure out an expression in after effects which would move the objects at a rate which correlated with their scale. That is, all trees would be drawn on the same scale, then scaled down to imply their distance, and then they'd move accordingly. My friend was like "lol, just give them different speeds until it looks good!" Which isn't wrong, but also completely missed what excited me about the scene. It was an opportunity to understand movement in perspective better and on top of that I wanted to build a tool that could be reused.

Anyways, your post reminded me of that-- no value judgement here, but some people just want to make it work and some people want to dig into the gears and figure out why it works. Obviously you're the latter, and that's cool. Makes me feel less alone.

[boost]

Dude, lighten up. It's not a serious topic, we're just having fun here. Or at least three of us are.

meh, you were being a troll, and I needed a punching bag. Thanks, I suppose.

you're still a cunt.

[Poopadoop]

meh, you were taking the piss with Ong like you always do to each other,

fyp

and I needed a punching bag.

Well at least you can admit you came looking for a fight.

you're still a cunt.

Keep looking. Or, tell us why you're in such a bad mood. It's not going to help just calling people names.

[OngBonga]

I've gotta chip in here. Calling someone a cunt definitely improves a bad mood.

[OngBonga]

It's not going to help just calling people names.

haha probably best to not say this directly after deleting this...

And you're the meanest girl in junior high.

[OngBonga]

I'll be fair. If you want to hide comments from mods, edit your post within two minutes, then delete it. We can only see edits if they're made after two minutes.

[OngBonga]

I've never understood why people don't like spiders, certainly in the UK anyway. I can't stand flying insects in my room, and the spiders eat them. I just smacked a daddy-long-legs into the cobwebs, dinner time for the spiders.

This is why I don't like to get rid of the cobwebs in summer. Once I close my window for the winter, I'll hoover up the cobwebs, but it's still too warm.

[Poopadoop]

haha probably best to not say this directly after deleting this...

It was out of order, that's why I deleted it. Took my own advice.

[Poopadoop]

If you want to hide comments from mods, edit your post within two minutes, then delete it. We can only see edits if they're made after two minutes.

I wasn't worried about you seeing it because I didn't realise you were the kind of person who would dig it up and post it.

Lesson learned.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Boost, you know I think you're awesome and the kind of person I'd like to meet IRL.

you're still a cunt.

Please don't do this.

You know. As a favor.

[OngBonga]

I wasn't worried about you seeing it because I didn't realise you were the kind of person who would dig it up and post it.

Lesson learned.

It seemed funny.

[OngBonga]

Boost, you know I think you're awesome and the kind of person I'd like to meet IRL.


Please don't do this.

You know. As a favor.

Honestly mojo, you're the only one who cares. It's banter, nobody is trying to hurt anyone's feelings.

[Poopadoop]

Honestly mojo, you're the only one who cares. It's banter, nobody is trying to hurt anyone's feelings.

There still has to be a line you don't cross. He crossed it there, I crossed it in my reply which I then deleted, and you crossed it by posting a deleted reply someone obviously didn't want others to see.

This is not fun. This is a bunch of people acting like jerks.

[OngBonga]

You're right, I'm sorry. I won't do that again.

[Keith]

I guess a word of warning here ....

If anyone deletes a post ....it pretty much ensures that a (multiple) mod(s) is(are) gonna read it to see what was deleted.

its not as if theres lots of active threads , the commune (and any other posts in the rest of the forum are generally preparation to post spam links)

[OngBonga]

Just like the first thing I did when I read keith's post was click his edit to see what he changed.

Nothing interesting.

[Poopadoop]

You're right, I'm sorry. I won't do that again.

Thanks.

[CoccoBill]

I'm proud of you guys.

[Poopadoop]

Hahaha.

[OngBonga]

It took this guy 8 years to make this treechair.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Weird pic. The image is flipped in one photo? The left arm of the chair in one pic is the right arm of the chair in the other pic.

[OngBonga]

I don't think so but now you mention it something doesn't look quite right. Maybe it's another illusion.

It's a real tree, the dude painstakingly encouraged each branch to grow how he wanted it to so it made a chair, hence the 8 years.

[boost]

Honestly mojo, you're the only one who cares. It's banter, nobody is trying to hurt anyone's feelings.

Nah, he's right. I think the way poop carried on was p lame-- but I used his transgressions as an opportunity to vent unrelated frustrations.

Also, I'm p much not allowed to say cunt in real life anymore. Here, like half the people are brits and the rest are internet people, so it seemed like the venue

[OngBonga]

I've never been one to try and nip locker room talk in the bud. We're all adults here and we can all take an insult, just like we can all dish them out. I really don't care if anyone calls me a cunt, I won't lie awake at night thinking about it. Well, maybe if it's IRL friends it's different, but certainly not on the internet. I do recognise the need to keep things civil, and understand as mod that I have somewhat of a responsibility to help maintain a civil environment, which is why the banana situation resulted in him getting the boot, but those of us who are left, the vast majority of the time we are civil, even in disagreement. The occasional outburst is just human nature, we all have our bad days. If every post you made was calling someone a cunt, I'd agree we have a problem. But that isn't what happens, and the fact you can wind your neck in and accept when you're in the wrong is evidence that we don't have a problem.

I totally understand where mojo comes from. He's a nice guy who doesn't like to see people being shitty, and he's a mod, so he too has a responsibility to make sure things are civil. I let things slide because, well, I won't lie it's because I find these kind of dramas amusing, at least when it's occasional. I'm in favour of letting people be who they are rather than trying to force people to be nice all the time. I'm not nice all the time, so it would be hypocritical of me. Mojo is nice all the time, even when he's passionately arguing he doesn't resort to insults. That's a quality the rest of us lack. So my position is certainly not a criticism of mojo's mod style, rather it's an acknowledgment that we're all human with flaws.

[OngBonga]

btw, after quoting poop's deleted post, I did lie awake for a while thinking about that. I knew I was in the wrong, because I knew that would annoy the fuck out of me if the roles were reversed. That was bad form from me, which is why I apologised. Believe me I do not apologise if I do not think I'm in the wrong, I'm a stubborn fucker like that. An insincere apology is more insulting than no apology.

I will learn from that. It genuinely felt funny at the time, but I should have thought it through a bit more. As a mod I also have a responsibility to respect deletes and edits. Obviously I'm going to look at what the deleted post said because I can, but I should also acknowledge the post was deleted for a reason and respect that. I will in future.

[Poopadoop]

If it's just a bunch of random people on the internet like on Twitter I agree, who cares if someone insults you. But, we've all been here a long time and it's a bit like a community to me. That's why I don't want people going around being openly shitty to one another, any more than I want people I work with acting like that. It's just uncomfortable.

And yeah, I can get carried away with the mockery sometimes and be stubborn about trying to be right, so that's something to tone down a bit on my end.

[Poopadoop]

btw, after quoting poop's deleted post, I did lie awake for a while thinking about that. I knew I was in the wrong, because I knew that would annoy the fuck out of me if the roles were reversed.

Yeah that was not your best moment. At least you figured it out quickly and apologised though, so it's forgivable.

[boost]

If every post you made was calling someone a cunt, I'd agree we have a problem.

Right, noted: not every post.

[CoccoBill]

See how wholesome it is here with banana gone?

[OngBonga]

Right, noted: not every post.

Every third post is fine, That's a minority.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You guys are great. Thanks for being great.

***
Geez, I wish I was always nice. And also sometimes I wish I was better at knowing when and how to be not nice.
I have friends IRL that can embrace righteous fury and not come across as a total dipshit like I do. I can't do it because the moment I make an emotionally driven argument, my logic goes to sleep. I'm sure you can all verify that based on historical conversations, here. Like it doesn't matter if there's a good argument to be made... if I'm emotional, I wont think of it. Then I just feel really dumb. Like I shot myself in the foot by not keeping control.


Also. I'm a moderator on a couple discord channels, too. My behavior in those discords is more restrained than my behavior in other discords where I'm not a mod. I feel more free to make crass jokes or poke fun at another poster when I'm not a mod. I'm not seen as responsible for setting the tone, so I goof off more.

[OngBonga]

We don't talk about poker often, but I just had one of those glorious moments we all dream of.

HU in a spin n go, blinds are big so it's crazy time, I try to steal with 74o, shove 5bb stack... villain slowrolls AA.

I don't need to say what happened next.

[Poopadoop]

I did not know this - cool.

https://twitter.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/...83403704057863

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yeah. Rainbows are cool. There's lots of interesting optical phenomena that are in the same general category as rainbows, but I think most humans will encounter rainbows many times in their lives, whereas the other phenomena require more special conditions.

Like Sun Dogs are cool. The Brocken Specter is cool. Solar and Lunar halos are cool. Crepuscular Rays (Sunbeams) are cool.

[OngBonga]

It seems pretty obvious to me that a rainbow would be a full circle if not for the land.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It seems pretty obvious to me that a rainbow would be a full circle if not for the land.

Yeah. Once you know how rainbows are made, and that all that matters is the angle between you, the raindrop and the sun, it's obvious they would be circles, provided there's enough moisture in the atmosphere of drops at the right size all the way around the circle.


They can never be ellipses, because they are an optical illusion, and each person sees a different illusion. Indeed, the illusion you see isn't even constant. It's the result of uncountably many tiny droplets that are moving about in the atmosphere. Your eye doesn't have the resolution in space or in time to differentiate each individual flash of light from each individual drop of moisture. So you combine all those tiny flashes into a constant image, though the image is not remotely constant.

The red band is a certain angle measure between sun-drop-eye, and the other colors correspond to their own angles. Since all that matters is angle, not distance, the rainbow always appears as a circle. The individual droplets do not exist in a plane, though, and are spread out at various distances away from you. Even though the rainbow looks ribbon-like, it is just another part of the illusion.


There are always 2 rainbows, 1 bright one inside a dim one. The colors are reversed on the dim one. These 2 rainbows always share the same center point, because again, all that matters is the angle from sun to droplet of water to your eye. The colors are reversed because some of the light reflected inside the raindrop that did not pass out to form the primary rainbow escapes on the next bounce. This internal reflection mirrors the orientation of the colors.

The band in-between the 2 rainbows is somewhat darker than the sky within and beyond them. This is because of light being directed away from that internal band by the changing angle of light reflecting inside the water droplets.

[OngBonga]

Also every person sees their own personal rainbow.

I once saw a rainbow that was high in the sky, which stopped abruptly at high altitude. What made this rainbow all the stranger was the fact there were no clouds in sight. The sun had not long set, so presumably there was rain over the horizon, so where the rainbow abruptly stopped was where the horizon was blocking the sun's rays.

One more thing... I'm pretty sure there are always many more than two rainbows. I've seen three with increasing dimness for each on many an occasion. I conclude there are probably lots of them, just the vast majority of them are too dim for us to see.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you mean supernumerary rainbows, then yes.



The last one with the split rainbow is due to droplets of different sizes, tending to have in general 2 specific sizes of droplet. Typically these come from 2 different sources, like the mist from a waterfall and the droplets from recent rain both being present.

[OngBonga]

That last one is really cool and not something I've seen before.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Do you have dried banana chips in the UK?
If so, do you call them banana crisps?


'Cause someone jokingly said a crisp banana isn't a thing, and I thought... I wonder if it is in the UK 'cause if someone said "banana chips" I'd know what they meant.

[OngBonga]

I don't think they're popular. We sold them at Oxfam, but they were "ethically sourced", they came from Brazil or Panama or somewhere like that, and they cost a fair amount for what they are. We didn't sell many.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I love 'em. I mean, the unsweetened ones are kinda like vaguely banana flavored cardboard. Those are hard to love.
The sweetened ones, though probably not remotely healthy anymore, are great.

[OngBonga]

I like banana but hate anything banana flavoured. The worst is maccies milkshake, I called that "monkey sick" when I was a kid.

[CoccoBill]

Most substances like banana are made up of hundreds of chemicals. Most artificial flavorings are made by analyzing the structure, picking one or two most prevalent ones and synthesizing them. That's why most of them suck.