I've acquired a new superpower
https://danielwirtz.com/blog/spot-the-difference-superpowerOne of the games was a "spot the differences" between two pictures with an ever decreasing timer for each round. Using this trick I was able to easily surpass the high score, and garner a crowd watching me perform this mind numbing feat.
Probably my peak fame right there.
My son and I always make jokes about everyone's 5 minutes of fame. Some random person on the jumbotron at a sporting event "Yup, there's his moment, it's over now."
At least yours got you something ;)
Sadly no one saw this 'feet'.
Anyway, over the last couple of decades as an adult, besides realizing the obvious - how terribly shallow that is, and missing so much of what's really good in life - I've realized how fleeting fame seems to be even for the truly famous. Even looking over the list of US Presidents (never mind lesser political figures like VPs, cabinet members, congressmen, etc.) as someone who has always been interested in history, I look at some names and think, "who?" or "I've heard the name, but know nothing about him." I mean, of course you can still read about them, but that even a US President can be largely forgotten as a household name within 250 years is really a stunning thing to think about; they are ultimately no more immortal than someone who only has their name in a genealogy database or on a grave marker.
> He was the man most gracious and fair-minded, > Kindest to his people and keenest to win fame.
Those are the last lines of Beowulf. A man who won great fame among his people by slaying monsters and dragons. It's telling that the final line of the poem ends with his most dominant trait, "and keenest to win fame." Wanting fame is not wrong, and is far from shallow. The question is, "fame for what?" Regardless of whether you think Beowulf existed or not, it's telling that for a whole culture that the most important characteristic of a great man in one of their great poemsis "keenness to win fame," almost as a wink, with the bard saying "and if you want to be sung like this hero, you must desire fame just as keenly, and so do great deeds."
This may be something I'm making up, but I have the feeling that the fame = immortality concept came out of legacy: people wanting to create a family that continues on after themselves (and is rich, powerful, etc). Which makes sense, because then we're talking about a logical extension of the reproductive instinct. But in the modern world even that seems unreachable to me: we're so utterly different from our grandparents that we might as well be aliens, and the same will probably hold true for our own grandchildren.
I guess all that puts me in the Mike Tyson school of thought on legacy: "We're just dead. We're dust. We're absolutely nothing."
Another is that which is kind of intangible and describes the person(again not personal details but what they think about the self and ideas), like an autobiography, but still is very hard to get at: it's like they say Being in someones shoes.
It's impossible to understand both of the above kinds of thoughts, in general, because conscious thought is utterly temporary and highly subjective. And more so for the second kind of thought above for most people it is true that, their complex self is meaningless to others.
It's likely why you mentioned you feel disassociated from what your parents/grandparents thought.
> we remember factoids... I might remember 7 things about Teddy Roosevelt... but those things do nothing to represent the complex individual he actually was.
I've thought this before when looking at Wikipedia pages. Especially for less famous people with thin pages, they'll cite just a handful of news articles or press releases in which the person appeared. If there were a page like that for me, or the people that I know best, the collection of factoids would be a laughably inaccurate reflection of who we really are. Someone told me that it's important to write an autobiography for this reason.
Even if you are remembered briefly, what’s remembered isn’t you it’s just some vague representation of you that will fade over time.
Some famous Roman emperor might have said something similar 2000 years ago for all I know but I forget his name. :P
https://nation.africa/kenya/blogs-opinion/blogs/dot9/ndemo/t...
Humanity will not forget Newton, Einstein, Shannon and Crick. And up to a point, trying to do what they did, discover new things about the universe is not an unhealthy goal.
So when another colonizer comes up, we will have newer people associated with these. Hope it does not happen. But history does say so.
Newton, Leibniz; Einstein, Lorenz and Riemann; Shannon, Kolmogorov; Crick, Franklin.
When the context is, to quote the parent comment:
> I look at some names and think, "who?" or "I've heard the name, but know nothing about him." I mean, of course you can still read about them, but that even a US President can be largely forgotten as a household name within 250 years is really a stunning thing to think about
I suspect only Newton and Einstein are even household names. I'd be very surprised if the average person has heard of even one of Lorenz, Riemann, Shannon, Kolmogorov, or Crick, even today, and my guess is that Franklin would probably be assumed to be an associate of either Roosevelt or Benjamin, given the widely claimed but inconsistently cited survey that 12% of Americans think Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.
And Crick's other famous research associate was Watson; I wonder how many times people got him mixed up with the fictional character, or briefly for the IBM computer.
However, I remember someone who went to MIT observing the same thing about the names of the great scientists and philosophers etched onto the buildings. He noted that he only knew what a few of them did.
And yet you might be able to list some Roman Emperors, for good or bad (Cesar, Augustus) or even politicians (Cicero, may e Seneca) after 2000 years.
As an aside, I'm really hoping that Trump doesn't do anything notable enough to somehow be like that. I fear that he might be more driven to do so than any past US President.
My usual method is just to brute-force linear scan from left to right, top-to-bottom. May not be elegant, but it works.
The game is usually called 'Photo Hunt'
Was the high score holder on there for a few years.
However, I feel eye strain from doing it, so I prefer other methods. 99% of the time, I do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_comparator instead, just switching between two images with zero flicker and zero displacement offset. Also with both eyes, it's easier to spot certain kinds of subtle differences like color shifts, JPEG-like compression artifacts, tiny differences in antialiased renderings, etc.
One benefit of the cross-eyed method, though, is that you can difference videos. But the use case for that is rarer than differencing images.
This is with focusing beyond the screen. Focusing in front of the screen is something I am unable to do, and not for want of effort.
Also, your eyes might accidentally do this if looking at tiled patterns, e.g. wallpaper.
Relative image size (e.g. view distance) is important.
Basically, it determines whether the 3D view you're seeing from the stereoscopic pair is convex (pops out of the page) or concave (goes into the page). It is of course possible to learn both views but most people naturally see one or the other. You can go to r/crossview or r/parallelview depending on which one you see.
I wonder what skills other people picked up that I didn't.
Some recent example of things I shared:
+ When your belt buckle hangs a little loosely on the front of your pants. You can hook the buckle's prong onto the front button of your pants and it'll stay put. So many people are excited to learn this.
+ Putting a jacket or any open-front garment on quickly. I saw someone struggling to maneuver their second arm in a tight jacket behind their back. I explained that if they hold their jacket out in front of them, put their hands in the arm holds, and slide their arm in further as they swing it around their body they'll get it on in a moment. It's also more stylish. They were so surprised.
Visual diff. The operation of finding differences between two files by eyeball search. The term optical diff has also been reported, and is sometimes more specifically used for the act of superimposing two nearly identical printouts on one another and holding them up to a light to spot differences. Though this method is poor for detecting omissions in the ‘rear’ file, it can also be used with printouts of graphics, a claim few if any diff programs can make. See diff.
An interesting variant of the vdiff technique usable by anyone who has sufficient control over the parallax of their eyeballs (e.g. those who can easily view random-dot stereograms), is to hold up two paper printouts and go cross-eyed to superimpose them. This invokes deep, fast, built-in image comparison wetware (the same machinery responsible for depth perception) and differences stand out almost immediately. This technique is good for finding edits in graphical images, or for comparing an image with a compressed version to spot artifacts.
Put the images in front of your eyes.
Bring your finger between your face and the image at almost middle of the distance.
Now look at your finger.
Move your finger back and forth and notice the background (where your picture is)
While doing this, notice that at a particular distance, the images in background will perfectly overlap each other.
That's your moment.
Pull out your finger and look at that image.
--
It worked on everyone I have tried to teach. You may always need help of your finger or a tip of a pencil or whatever. But it's lot easier to get those images to merge this way.
This is easy with practice, however IMHO it helps to be significantly nearsighted. Then you simply take off your glasses, and can look at something nearby with infinity focus, which is naturally associated with uncrossed eyes.
I don't know whether it's possible to train yourself to diverge your gaze, i.e. stereoscopically see images that are separated more than your pupil distance. Certainly I can't do that.
I tried using it, like the author, to visualize and investigate 4D data. But my stone-age brain, regrettably, seems limited to intuiting only 3 dimensions.
You see, I noticed that I have a mouse problem in my garage. I figure if I've seen one mouse, there are probably more. So, I stood on some stairs in my garage and crossed my eyes to sort of blur the scene. It allowed me to catch movement more quickly and I was quickly watching multiple mice run around the edges of the area.
my vision is so bad with nearsightedness that when I take corrective lenses off, I can focus on an ipad mini screen within 10" of my face and perceptually it is the same as focusing on a distant movie theater screen. No straining, eyes totally relaxed.
With the lights off, it's better than being in a theater. I tried an ipad pro in the Apple store and it felt like I had my own personal unfairly huge IMAX screen.
I even managed "impossible mode" in 2 or 3 seconds.
Also, I was using the trick as a "cheat" when I played Tiny Lands on Nintendo Switch, it's a "spot the difference" game, but with 3d landscapes (you can rotate and zoom): https://www.dekudeals.com/items/tiny-lands
Also worth noting there are 2 versions of this kind of cross-eyed focus depending on whether your eyes are focusing on a point in front of or behind the actual image. This determines which side the left and right eye images should go on in the composite. I find it easier to focus on a point in front of the images but IME most examples online are for focusing on a point behind the image.
There were two competing theories:
1. The brain first does a recognition pass (that's a house, that's a person, etc.) and compares the two eyes to see which objects have moved.
2. The brain compares the two eye inputs first, at the "pixel" level and figures out which pattern of pixels has moved, then afterwards, applies recognition to the resulting 3D image.
Magic Eye would only work if #2 is the correct theory (because in Magic Eye, there is nothing to recognize until AFTER you convert to 3D).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopic_rangefinder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbXyAzGtIX8
The effect itself is basically similar to the Magic Eye stereograms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Eye) which by themselves are pretty neat; your brain can rapidly detect subtle offsets in random patterns to reconstruct depth cues. In the case of “spot the differences”, the shimmering is due to the irreconcilable disparity between left and right images, which manifests visually as a glaringly obvious “unphysical” apparition - e.g. flickering between the left/right images, or appearing to be out-of-plane with the rest of the picture.
From your POV the images are merged so your hands will look like they're tapping a single image, but from the audience's point of view you look like a savant with multi-attention!
I don't know if it's just my brain working differently or if a there is some confusion in the discussion between crossing your eyes and focusing through an item.
Last year when there was a bunch of fuss about Kate Middleton not having made any public appearances there was a minor flap where people claimed that a photo she'd released was just an edit of an earlier photo.
There was a tweet presenting two photos, one old and one purporting to be new, where she was holding strikingly similar poses. The claim was that the new one was just an edit of the older one. I used this technique and immediately the minor differences stuck out like a sore thumb- her hand was rotated more in one, her hair was laid differently, etc.
Is that what other folks are experiencing also? I see most comments are trying it with their eyes crossed, but what about without?
EDIT: ok I just watched the video. No eyes crossed. For the balloons one I beat out the girl in the video by 2-3 seconds. For the birds about the same. The skittles one tripped me up, couldn't find it. The other few I found around the same time, the lights at the end I didn't find in time either. It seems I'm quicker when there's not too many colors involved. Still that's spooky.
It's good to hear reports of successful viewing. I've got a 3d / stereogram photo gallery app on the back burner; sounds like a reasonable number of people would be able to view it. There are plenty of guides on how to learn this; some are linked here https://www.reddit.com/r/CrossView/wiki/index/. You-tube used to have support for this; there are still videos tagged yt3d - just regular videos now, not interlaced.
My co-worker printed two paper listings, one with the error, one without, and asked me to count parentheses as he was doing, over a dozen pages. But because I knew this "superpower" trick, I laid out pairs of pages and crossed my eyes. A few seconds later I found and circled the error.
"Ta-daa!" I said. He never forgave me.
I don't recall what these exercises were for, but there were two:
1. Stare at this image of two incomplete cats, and merge them together into a single complete cat: https://www.google.com/search?q=eye+muscle+cat+card
2. This strip of cardboard has a number line on it. Put one end half way down your nose, perpendicular to your face. You will see two lines. Merge them at their furthest point, then merge the next nearest point, repeat. (I think this is called the 'Brock String Exercise', but can't find an image similar to the one I recall.)
There is also one other similar funny ability I have: Vibrating my eyes. I can willingly vibrate my eyes. I don't think it's any useful ability as I just see shaky when I do it but it's fun to do in front of people. It scares some of them. There is actually a community about it in Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eyeshakers/
”Are these two things the same size?”
”Are these things that are supposed to be evenly spaced actually evenly spaced?”
”Are all these things straight/at the same angle?”
”Is the wallpaper pattern aligned everywhere?”
”Is that surface using a repeating texture?”
I suspect it's because my left eye is slighty lazy.
But I was able to superimpose the right cat picture onto the left one (it's a lot harder for the more complex sky resort picture). It's pretty eerie, the right picture just slides right up the left one (I did need to figure out the right distance for it).
It doesn't help me pick out the differences though, I mostly only see the right picture, and if try to focus my left eye, the right picture slides out. Still, intersting.
My visual system is pretty weird in general so I don’t know how common an experience this is with others. It’s not bothersome at all because I know what it is but it was a little startling the first few times.
https://developer.nvidia.com/gpugems/gpugems/part-vi-beyond-...
Wait, why isn't there a service for this? Or is there?
You cross your eyes to get the two images to line up, hold it there and then try to adjust the focus of your eyes. It's a neat skill to have.
If it's perfect, the overlapping regions just merge in color, i.e. the cat's paw becomes off-white. If it's not perfect, I still have to attend to which parts are popping in and out. In both cases I still have to compare the merged view to the left and right hand sides.
Although it is very nice for illustrating each eye's contributions to the merged view. Just not an attention-saver.
It's not a great way of showing the image, but it'll do in a pinch.
But in the following few moments, seeing two nearly identical photos side by side soon made me think of stereograms, since I'm into them, and have shot a few in my lifetime.
I then used my eyes to overlap the images.
In binocular overlapped view, the difference loudly draws attention to itself, because it flickers between the two eyes.
It's almost as if there were a blinking LED saying "here it is!"
I can't uncross, now!
I would usually get accused of memorizing all the pictures.
You will get bored or a headache before you stop getting free games using this technique.
You can get stifled by the older machines with faded CRT screens. The newer LCD (that's how old these games are...) are usually better to play on.
then again, i did outperform my entire national cohort at school in almost every subject by a wide margin... an outlier.
the trick however is very clever, but it wont work in more complicated scenarios where attention to detail matters.
EDIT: after doing the first one near the top i tried the rest. with a bit of warm up its very fast. no tricks needed. maybe a relic of playing these games when younger and having a "once in a generation" level of learning power coupled with training it when very young when learning speed is multiplied by a huge scale factor. i had to zoom the last one, but the other two were incredibly fast, close to immediate. sub second.
EDIT2: the warm up was doing the first image once after reading the first few sentences.
EDIT3: this is not a superpower.
Bonus tip: while focused on the overlapping image in the middle, jiggle your screen, and the diff will move around while the rest remains static. This helped me solve the impossible challenge instantly.
I'd love to learn more about the underlying mechanism here. Anyone can point me in the right direction?
Even the impossible one was harder when trying to use the cross-eyed trick than just visually comparing the two by quickly moving my eyes back and forth.
Of course, the internet being what it is, someone made a version of Bad Apple with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLuGJGyCS90
Well I'll be the one to say this blew my mind. somehow creating the third middle image, being able to relax my eyes and even scan around this composite image actually made me giggle out loud on my laptop, a very rare occurrence. Thank you to the author.
This is also how the legendary ”Magic Eye” books were supposed to be viewed. Not by crossing the eyes.
I was able to get a 3rd image to be clearly visible in the middle doing this, on the 2nd image I could definitely seem some spots appear that lead me straight to 3 of them but didn't work for me on the other 2 images.
Sent it to my whole family
The way your mind locks in and focuses on the middle one seems a testament to the brain processing behind vision we take for granted
But I never knew this technique could be used to spot the difference between images. Very cool discovery!
Was also able to spot the difference on the coffee beans image: https://i.imgur.com/0TcWvWJ.png
I was able to grab focus for the first image. Found it hard for the second and third image. I focused on the first one and then scrolled down to the second and third - that made it easier for me.
"It's a schooner"
Somehow expect most people to know this, but I guess that's not the case.
Examples include:
1. Delaying the left or right channel by a few ms (Haas effect).
2. De-tuning one of the channels by a few cents
3. Boosting an EQ band on one channel, with a complimentary cut on the opposite channel.
...and many more.
These are usually very subtle changes that our stereoscopic ears have no problem detecting.
In any case, when we need to do some forensic searching for possible differences between two near-identical channels we'll invert the polarity on one channel and then sum them. The resulting delta sticks out like a sore thumb and highlights even then tiniest differences between the files.
So it's fascinating to discover that we can easily do something similar with our eyes to find the differences.
i have ~1 diopter shortsightness. Was less before, slowly going up. So screens are getting blurrier. Have glasses but still try avoid using them.
If i put the (flat edged) TV remote control at about 10cm from my face so it horizontally shadows lower half of both eyes, i see perfectly (without any glasses).
go figure..
it's just that your eyes are gonna be tired after a movie session.
Or at least, makes it a LITTLE bit harder.
2. Now, cross your eyes and aim to overlap both images.
3. Draw the rest of the fucking owl.
Seriously. Ever since my physics teacher in high school tried to get the class interested in stereograms, everyone and every article I see talking about it treat "crossing your eyes" as an atomic, trivial step. It isn't. I for one have no first clue how to do it, it's not a distinct operation I know how to perform. Perhaps this is because I am nearsighted and wear glasses.
Still, I wish articles like these focused on explaining how to do the whole cross-eye thing, because once you master that, everything else becomes instantly self-apparent and doesn't need further explanation (I know because I did manage to accidentally cross my eyes once or twice while looking at a stereogram, so I know how the effect looks like).
EDIT: FWIW, I compensate by using another trick for diffing documents with Mark I Eyeball - get them printed on separate pieces of paper, put one on top of the other, and hold in front of you with some bright light behind you (Sun, or your phone's flashlight, will do). Not as good as crossing your eyes, but something I can reliably do.
And it's also not really a usefull life or even primitive skill, just a byproduct of our double eyeballs, which are meant for redundancy and depth measuring.
Pass.
(Although it was cool to do it once and see the third image in the middle.)
So cool!
Typically this utilised a negative photographic plate (so that bright objects appeared as dark against a light background making their presence easier to detect for our visual system), and the plates were rapidly flipped. The object which moved or suddenly appeared and disappeared was the new element.
This works for nearby moving objects (planets, asteroids, comets) which would track against the stellar background, or distant variable ones (supernovae, variable stars, pulsars) which would appear and disappear (or brighten and fade) over time.
Now of course this is automated and direct sensor readings can be interpreted, but the childs' game was at one time Best Scientific Practice.
Described here, "How are asteroids discovered?" <https://catalina.lpl.arizona.edu/faq/how-are-asteroids-disco...>.
There are archives of these astronomical plates, and there are projects which utilise older observations so recorded to make new discoveries even now (or in the recent past). I'd first learned of this visiting the Lick Observatory on Mt. Hamilton near San Jose some years back. Key was that old plates were used to compare current observations using the same 'scope, an otherwise now-archaic instrument but not without its advantages. As I recall, the astronomer doing the study was the same one who'd made the original plates many decades earlier, and was doing this as his own retirement project. There's a description of similar work (including Lick observations) here:
"Astronomy's Photographic Glass Plates: Demonstrating Value Through Use Cases"
<https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/istl/index.php/istl/art...>
On plate archives:
"Preserving an Astronomical Legacy"
<https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/preserving-an-ast...>
"APPLAUSE: Archives of Photographic PLates for Astronomical USE"
<https://www.plate-archive.org/applause/info/>
(dylan604 noted this use case earlier: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42657956>)
I’m not sure how this new learned trick, can apply to other stuff… but I’m happy I tried it and it did amazed me haha thanks for the share dude!
Boy was I wrong. This is an actual super power.