asmoranomar

Oh that one is a good one, it's very busy. Using the first method the trees are on the 'bottom' and everything progressively pops out with the fish/turtle on 'top'.

The other way is reverse, the trees are on the 'top' and the fish are on the 'bottom' (like I'm looking in that 'box'). It's also really hard to see the whole picture this way, but that's just me.

Also, 'In a Box' might not be the best analogy, you can make one that intentionally feels like you're looking inside something -- it's just that most of these are made to pop out at you.

The way this works is that the image is designed to appear 'beyond' the surface it is printed on. It's much easier to relax your eyes and pretend you're looking at what's 'behind' the paper. Kind of like 3d chalk art on the road in a way.

The other way of crossing your eyes works because you're swapping the left and right eye, which gives a different, inverted appearance. Instead of a foreground image popping out of the background, it looks like the other way. Like looking in a box, kinda.

I can do both, but the latter is more difficult, sometimes requires a specific distance, and can be painful if you force it. If the image is too big, you may only be able to see a part of it. I think the first method is easier to do and to learn/train. Either way, you aren't looking at what's 'on the surface'.

...

The best way I can explain is: pretend you're sitting on the toilet, really tired and you have nothing to look at so you just lose focus and gaze at random stuff. When the tiles or cracks start to make pictures that aren't there, that's kind of the effect you want.

Bernie: uses bullshit numbers that only applies to the incredibly wealthy

You: uses bullshit numbers that apply to nobody Bernie mentioned

Nobody is buying 500k houses and cashing in on 20m of gains in 10 years. Even if it was, you'd need to do that a few hundred times to be on Bernie's radar.

Effectively, your message is we can't tax only the wealthy because if they did it, everyone else would be destute.

Weird how not taxing the wealthy hasn't made everyone rich.

Are we all just going to gloss over the fact that you're not supposed to stick your duck in that?

It's all good man, those chemicals are also present in living organisms too, I guess... /s

Vampires drink blood, not water...

Listen up MARINES. This was targeted. They know how disciplined and trained you are. That's why it requires 7 immigration officers to detain one MARINE.

Well, it's not that I was replying to you specifically. You just happened to be the random winner of "why isn't there a reply all?". I am aware we (and not just you and I) share similar a opinion.

Touche, lol. You are exactly right.

But my point stands. It doesn't have to be sci-fi intelligent, it just has to convince you it is. There have always been people who are not experts trying to explain things they know little about. AI just does that very well, and as you point out, AI (for now) understands nothing.

I'm not actually saying "LLM's are not AI", that's the sarcastic trap. What I am implying is that some people aren't as intelligent enough to know the difference. It bounces on the original comment that unless you ask it something you're very knowledgeable in, AI feels very 'right'. But people only read the first sentence and have a meltdown.

It's just Ironic that ChatGPT does a much better job at explaining what I said. Does that mean it's more intelligent than me? What about the intelligence of the people who missed the sarcasm? I find it amusing.

You guys are taking this way too seriously for a sarcastic remark. Perhaps you should put what I said into ChatGPT to have it explained. It seems to understand what I said well. Thanks for the bias check guys

I'm sorry, I thought my definition of sarcasm was accurate.

Thank you for confirming what I said.