this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
727 points (90.5% liked)

memes

15735 readers
3350 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Genius@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So you're saying if there were a blue and black snake that bites with deadly venom, and a white and gold snake that's harmless to people, you'd gain an evolutionary advantage from seeing the blue and black snake turn white and gold in the sun?

No, being able to see the same snake as the same colour by adjusting for ambient lighting conditions aids survival.

[–] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

That isn’t what’s happening it’s a low res overexposed photo that lacks visual cues not real life.

[–] Genius@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It doesn't lack visual cues. I could tell it's overexposed and adjust for the lighting. You just can't see the cues, and that's the difference.

[–] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, it does. That’s the point lol. Go read the Wikipedia thicko

[–] Genius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I can see them with my own eyes right now. And the dress is black and blue, so I'm right. You just can't see them, but don't mistake your eyesight problems for objective truth.

[–] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

lol ok Neo.

Unfortunately you're unable to see the (objective) pixel representation :(

[–] Genius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In the larger version of the picture, you can see three areas of glare on the right. One from the window, one from the top of the table, and one from the floor. The backs of the items closer to the door, and the edge of the table, are darker than these glare areas. There's also a bright spot on the left. If you have good spatial intelligence, you can clearly tell the glare is coming from the sun based on how the light falls in the room.

[–] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The College of Optometrists came out and said it was ambigious. It's the point of the image dumbass. It's not about good spatial awareness. All you're demonstrating is lack of basic perception.

[–] Genius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ah yes, I lack perception because I can see more things than you do, and they lead me to correct conclusions about the state of the world. That makes complete sense.

And Usain Bolt runs so fast because he has weak legs, obviously.

[–] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You lack perception because your level of understanding is childish. I’d put you at 7/8. It’s really quite illuminating how thick some people can be.

[–] Genius@lemmy.zip 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Most insults aren't the same thing as an ad hominem fallacy. An insult is only an ad hominem when it's the entire substance of one's argument. Like you're doing right now, shit-for-brains.

[–] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 18 hours ago

It’s not though, read my comments again. Slowly if you’re struggling.