Warehouse

Which is why I tried asking other people who saw black and blue what black and blue they are seeing. The image on the right shows a deep black and navy blue, something I just do not see reflected in the left image.

The Salvation Army in South Africa did an advertisement (to raise awareness against violence against women) showing a yellow and gold dress and it’s closer to what is shown in the image than what is shown in the original. Presumably, they wouldn’t see that dress as black and blue.

So, in the video, when you looked at this:

You saw a dark black and a navy blue? Or is it only in the context of the full image that you’re seeing it as dark black and navy blue?

So, when you say that you never understood how anyone saw gold are you

a) Seeing an extremely washed out image and compensating
or
b) You are literally seeing a solid black and a navy blue i.e. there’s basically an insignificant amount of difference to your eye between the black part of the dress and #000000

If it’s the former that might explain some of the difference in opinion, if it’s the latter then I have no idea how I would manage to interpret it as black.

I guess it depends. Are people looking at the left image and going “Yep, that is definitely a dark black and navy blue”? Using a colour picker, the darker areas show up as somewhere around #7a6642, which definitely isn’t the black #231e16 we see on the right. Same with the lighter spots: we’re seeing something around #8596bb, which again isn’t the navy blue of #3a45c3

Quite simply, I cannot make the dress in the left image look like the dress in the right, even if the dress in those images are supposed to be identical.

It looks like this for me. Granted I’m on Piefed so that’s probably part of the reason.

When I read that paragraph, I was gobsmacked. They “spent months analyzing feedback”? Seriously? They needed charts and graphs to figure out that people just want Windows to work?

Should they have not analyzed feedback? Out of everything you could complain about Microsoft, complaining about them taking their time to get it right this time wouldn’t be one of them. I mean, they aren’t going to get it right this time, but that seems like a different complaint.

deleted by creator

I don’t think they actually have. They’ve even implied the opposite at times. https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/25/sam-altman-warns-theres-no-legal-confidentiality-when-using-chatgpt-as-a-therapist/

“Well, someone needs to run Vichy Canada!”
-Pierre, probably.

My bad, it seemed like you were implying that the 38.7% of people who signed the Forever Canadian petition and the 30% who are (or at least were) for Alberta separatism were the exact same group.

You think the people who signed the Forever Canadian petition are all people who want to leave Canada?

deleted by creator

Pretty much, yeah.

To your first question, not really. The entire point of the notwithstanding clause is such that it cannot be challenged by the court. To your second question, yes.

Sure, but the Canadian government isn’t the one who put out the ad. The Ontario government did. Why does Carney have to apologize for something that Ford did?