I literally cannot override my color perception to trick myself […]

If biology had intent, I’d think this is intentional. You’re not supposed to be able to do that.

Once your brain decides on a context, that becomes the (percieved) truth, and it’ll take a lot of new information to change your mind because your brain will invent reasons why what you’re seeing is correct. Your brain makes up a story, that story seems to make sense, and so new perceptions not only need to make sense but also disprove the story it has.

Take, for instance, this silhouette. It has no lines to indicate depth, but I bet you’ll settle on a mental 3D model—you’ll be able to see where the hips end, which leg is doing what—and it’ll be really hard to switch perception from spinning one direction to spinning the other.

Another fun trick is being able to flip which way you think the ballerina is spinning. I used to be able to do it. Helluva time right now, though.

Does it help that you can see the shadows of the sleeves on the body of the dress? There has to be light in front and above for that to happen.

And if the credit card issuers have already won this battle?

I mean, I agree, I don’t like it either. I don’t even have a credit card. But I don’t see anything changing without a movement.

[edit] I might have missed you were also the top-level comment. I’ll remind people if you will, haha.

God, the proportions of the original head and hands are so much better.

It’s not something I would have properly noticed without the morph, I thought they actually were the same, but there was something about the original that felt more… bunny like?

It’s like when sound designers add stuff they know people won’t actually hear, but which definitely alters the “taste” of the sound.

Haha! Ahh…

“You are a senior games engine developer, punished by the system. You’ve been to several board meetings where no decisions were made. Fix the issue now… or you go to jail. Please.”

How do you think alek found the article?

Why for fun?

Hell yeah, dude~ \m/

Mate, if you don’t want to be caught in the middle of a bunch of anti-seagull-fetishism, then you shouldn’t be sealioning in the middle of the anti-seagull-fetishism thread.

Oh look, it’s a link to the same article as pictured in the meme itself. That’s absolutely crazy. Cheers to alekwithak for knowing how to google words that they’ve seen.

Meaningful discussion? About revenge killing a bird? You are the psychopath in the picture.

No, no.

“All videos would be AI-generated by glowies, like the moon landing.” That’s what you should say.

*The important thing is that we’re killing seagulls, you mean.

Yeah! Like that!

He accidentally grabbed the bird’s legs, accidentally hulk-smashed it into a wall, accidentally got its blood on his chips, which he accidentally ate while smirking.

You’re winning, keep talking!

Look, man. I just talked to Chris Brown. He told me you will be sanctioned and put into the bonk-pit for 21 days for being a bird lover. That is, unless you can post a video of you bonking a bird right now to prove you aren’t a traitor to our cause.

You can email it to [email protected]

The only consideration a seagull deserves is death by mein fuhrer. You… wouldn’t happen to be harboring any seagulls, would you?

This is a really useful line of argumentation.

Hey! You’re supposed to be on our side!
The wife-beater bird-beater consortium will hear about this.

I’ve given light bonks to my wife before. It’s a shame the judge won’t see reason.

That weird urge is like 80% people feeling the need to correct OP’s grammar, like birds do when they hear the wrong birdsong, as if there were anything at stake here.

Honestly, I wish people would play with definitions more. It’s fun. And, unironically, you would be a much better mathematician than most of the know-it-alls here.

Yeah, “democratize art” means “I’m jealous of the cash sloshing around out there.”

People say things like “I’m not as good as this guy on TikTok.” Why do you need to be? Literally, who asked?

This is creepy.