• PugJesus@piefed.socialOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    1 day ago

    Explanation: In WW1, a curious form of camouflage known as razzle-dazzle was used on ships. Rather than trying to hide the ship, the intent was to make it difficult for submarines to determine a moving ship’s exact direction and speed, which are necessary when trying to figure out where to launch a torpedo to intercept it.

    … we’re still not sure if it actually worked.

    • troglodytis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      “we’re still not sure if it worked” sounds like an ringing endorsement for an evasion tactic

    • Bourff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      56 minutes ago

      I wanted to upvote, but this is too on-point and I don’t want to be the one breaking it.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      The idea was that it would make figuring heading and speed hard to figure out. The guns were reaching at ranges where you needed to know that fairly accurately to land a shot even close to that.

      The reason the dazzleflage went away was radar, which didn’t care about paint or even being close enough to be seen.

    • real_squids@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      And modern digital camo is like when your GPU is dying (or old solid green fatigues if your gpu died that green type of death instead)

  • hansolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    This again?

    Last time this got posted, it was determined that the poses and dresses are real and different. It’s not one image with 3 patterns. It’s 3 pictures of the same human wearing 3 different dresses. So the poses, and therefor the width of the human in pixels, is, in fact, different in each pose.

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      herefor the width of the human in pixels, is, in fact,

      Yeah, I copied the right image to all three positions, masked the dress and infilled the patterns.

      The horizontal one in the center did show some interesting artifacts around the hips, making her look a bit lumpy as the shadows and black lines ran together.

      https://lemmy.zip/post/54743159/23280305

      • hansolo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        When this got posted a few months back someone measured everything. It’s just 3 photos cut out and pasted side by side. This is a post of a post, they used the image front Twitter as well.

        The point is that regardless of how the stripes make her look, it’s 3 photos with slightly different poses and scaling. It’s an imperfect comparison crammed in a twitter post.

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Yeah, and I just posted the link to the last time we has this discussion, where I edited the pic to be three exact copies of the same image and eliminated the differences, making it a fair comparison.

    • Dr. Bob
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Link is broken. Unless you’re selling websites.

  • massive_bereavement@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 day ago

    My take on dresses is that the third one is the best, the second is a Dalton brothers cosplaying and the first one looks like an old times bathing suit.