Oh, Boris! on 14:07 - Nov 10 with 1962 views | footers | Am I alone in thinking the Four Seasons thing wasn't actually a mistake? I just don't see how the president's team could make such an error, especially considering security arrangements. It seems more like another deliberately ridiculous thing to me, making his supporters fall even further down the rabbit hole. Or maybe that's generous. |  |
|  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:13 - Nov 10 with 1939 views | SpruceMoose |
Oh, Boris! on 14:07 - Nov 10 by footers | Am I alone in thinking the Four Seasons thing wasn't actually a mistake? I just don't see how the president's team could make such an error, especially considering security arrangements. It seems more like another deliberately ridiculous thing to me, making his supporters fall even further down the rabbit hole. Or maybe that's generous. |
I expected them to wheel out the owner in some kind of big 'this man witnessed ALL THE ELECTION FRAUD' reveal, but obviously that wasn't the case. I think it's as simple as they used that site in some kind of cringey, misjudged and guffy appeal to blue collar types. "Look at us manicured gents, completely at ease among these Hispanic day labourers in our $4000 suits at this wonderful *checks notes* Land Scaping Business! We love scaping the land like real Americans!" It's what happens when privileged rich white men roleplay as normal everyday folk. |  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | Poll: | Selectamod |
|  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:17 - Nov 10 with 1918 views | footers |
Oh, Boris! on 14:13 - Nov 10 by SpruceMoose | I expected them to wheel out the owner in some kind of big 'this man witnessed ALL THE ELECTION FRAUD' reveal, but obviously that wasn't the case. I think it's as simple as they used that site in some kind of cringey, misjudged and guffy appeal to blue collar types. "Look at us manicured gents, completely at ease among these Hispanic day labourers in our $4000 suits at this wonderful *checks notes* Land Scaping Business! We love scaping the land like real Americans!" It's what happens when privileged rich white men roleplay as normal everyday folk. |
At least they weren't pretending to enjoy a pint. What kind of monster does that? |  |
|  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:20 - Nov 10 with 1895 views | Steve_M | Why wouldn't they have produced two versions? Surely the logical actions in a situation with two possible outcomes. |  |
|  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:22 - Nov 10 with 1895 views | Guthrum | I don't quite understand how that works, technically. If the word "Trump" was erased, then the pixels which constitute it would be changed to background, not just fade like badly rubbed-out pencil marks. How are they still there? Also, why is the word "Trump" smaller and above the word "Biden", if it was meant to be in its place? Same with the other alleged text? Something odd about this. |  |
|  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:23 - Nov 10 with 1889 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
Oh, Boris! on 14:07 - Nov 10 by footers | Am I alone in thinking the Four Seasons thing wasn't actually a mistake? I just don't see how the president's team could make such an error, especially considering security arrangements. It seems more like another deliberately ridiculous thing to me, making his supporters fall even further down the rabbit hole. Or maybe that's generous. |
It went like this: Smart phone, Google, Bright sun, squint at screen, press call icon. "Hello, Four Seasons. How can I help you?" "Hello, can I book a Press Conference for the President's lawyer, Rudy Giulliani, in one of your outdoor areas?" "Yes! Of course!" A few hours later. A different intern is told to check up on the Hotel as they have been strangely silent. "Umm, no, we don't have a booking under that name..." First staffer checks phone: "Hello, Four Seasons. How can I help you?" "It's about the press conference..." "Oh yes, everything's fine. Dwayne is just jet-washing the asphalt in the parking lot. We're so excited!" etc |  | |  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:24 - Nov 10 with 1877 views | Bluefish |
Oh, Boris! on 14:20 - Nov 10 by Steve_M | Why wouldn't they have produced two versions? Surely the logical actions in a situation with two possible outcomes. |
The losers ribbons? |  |
|  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:26 - Nov 10 with 1868 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
Oh, Boris! on 14:20 - Nov 10 by Steve_M | Why wouldn't they have produced two versions? Surely the logical actions in a situation with two possible outcomes. |
The point is that having produced two text layers in Photoshop, ready to go, you're supposed to ensure that the solid background colour is 100% opacity, so nothing shows through, or the Trump text layer is deleted, or at the very least made invisible, before you Save As jpeg with the correct layer on top. Or have two different files ready to save, one with each text, and save the correct one. That would be even more sensible. It's very basic Photoshop skillz. |  | |  | Login to get fewer ads
Oh, Boris! on 14:27 - Nov 10 with 1860 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
Oh, Boris! on 14:22 - Nov 10 by Guthrum | I don't quite understand how that works, technically. If the word "Trump" was erased, then the pixels which constitute it would be changed to background, not just fade like badly rubbed-out pencil marks. How are they still there? Also, why is the word "Trump" smaller and above the word "Biden", if it was meant to be in its place? Same with the other alleged text? Something odd about this. |
It's all about the layers and opacity. See reply to footers. |  | |  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:29 - Nov 10 with 1859 views | DanTheMan |
Oh, Boris! on 14:22 - Nov 10 by Guthrum | I don't quite understand how that works, technically. If the word "Trump" was erased, then the pixels which constitute it would be changed to background, not just fade like badly rubbed-out pencil marks. How are they still there? Also, why is the word "Trump" smaller and above the word "Biden", if it was meant to be in its place? Same with the other alleged text? Something odd about this. |
Depends on the image was made. If someone did a quick job rubbing something out in something like Illustrator or Photoshop, it could show up under the right conditions. Actually interested if I can reproduce it... EDIT: Well I can't reproduce it. I'm not sure if Twitter allows you to edit already uploaded images on tweets. However, there are a large number of people with screenshots from people using Photoshop to see it in various different ways that would make me believe this at least was there. However, other than looking a bit stupid, I'm not surprised they had two images ready to go when the race was looking very tight. [Post edited 10 Nov 2020 14:39]
|  |
|  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:30 - Nov 10 with 1847 views | Guthrum |
Oh, Boris! on 14:23 - Nov 10 by ArnoldMoorhen | It went like this: Smart phone, Google, Bright sun, squint at screen, press call icon. "Hello, Four Seasons. How can I help you?" "Hello, can I book a Press Conference for the President's lawyer, Rudy Giulliani, in one of your outdoor areas?" "Yes! Of course!" A few hours later. A different intern is told to check up on the Hotel as they have been strangely silent. "Umm, no, we don't have a booking under that name..." First staffer checks phone: "Hello, Four Seasons. How can I help you?" "It's about the press conference..." "Oh yes, everything's fine. Dwayne is just jet-washing the asphalt in the parking lot. We're so excited!" etc |
Quite possibly. This can happen when you prize loyalty over competence. |  |
|  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:32 - Nov 10 with 1840 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
Oh, Boris! on 14:22 - Nov 10 by Guthrum | I don't quite understand how that works, technically. If the word "Trump" was erased, then the pixels which constitute it would be changed to background, not just fade like badly rubbed-out pencil marks. How are they still there? Also, why is the word "Trump" smaller and above the word "Biden", if it was meant to be in its place? Same with the other alleged text? Something odd about this. |
Think of it like a writing the two messages on OHP acetates. You put a piece of paper on your desk, put Trump message acetate on top, then a coloured sheet of paper, then Biden OHP acetate. Then you take a photo of it. In this case they used tissue paper instead of card for the coloured layer, allowing some of the Trump message to show through. Now you might say: "Why not take out the Trump OHP acetate?" And you would be 100% right. They should have deleted the layer, or been absolutely certain and double checked that they used card. |  | |  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:32 - Nov 10 with 1831 views | Guthrum |
Oh, Boris! on 14:29 - Nov 10 by DanTheMan | Depends on the image was made. If someone did a quick job rubbing something out in something like Illustrator or Photoshop, it could show up under the right conditions. Actually interested if I can reproduce it... EDIT: Well I can't reproduce it. I'm not sure if Twitter allows you to edit already uploaded images on tweets. However, there are a large number of people with screenshots from people using Photoshop to see it in various different ways that would make me believe this at least was there. However, other than looking a bit stupid, I'm not surprised they had two images ready to go when the race was looking very tight. [Post edited 10 Nov 2020 14:39]
|
Might possibly happen if the text is not entirely monochrome (e.g. a scanned image). But why would somebody do that, rather than typing the letters? Still doesn't explain why the text is in a different place. |  |
|  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:34 - Nov 10 with 1828 views | Guthrum |
Oh, Boris! on 14:32 - Nov 10 by ArnoldMoorhen | Think of it like a writing the two messages on OHP acetates. You put a piece of paper on your desk, put Trump message acetate on top, then a coloured sheet of paper, then Biden OHP acetate. Then you take a photo of it. In this case they used tissue paper instead of card for the coloured layer, allowing some of the Trump message to show through. Now you might say: "Why not take out the Trump OHP acetate?" And you would be 100% right. They should have deleted the layer, or been absolutely certain and double checked that they used card. |
Why would they do that, rather than typing it on a computer? Far quicker and easier. Especially given it was going out electronically. |  |
|  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:36 - Nov 10 with 1806 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
Oh, Boris! on 14:29 - Nov 10 by DanTheMan | Depends on the image was made. If someone did a quick job rubbing something out in something like Illustrator or Photoshop, it could show up under the right conditions. Actually interested if I can reproduce it... EDIT: Well I can't reproduce it. I'm not sure if Twitter allows you to edit already uploaded images on tweets. However, there are a large number of people with screenshots from people using Photoshop to see it in various different ways that would make me believe this at least was there. However, other than looking a bit stupid, I'm not surprised they had two images ready to go when the race was looking very tight. [Post edited 10 Nov 2020 14:39]
|
It's just an intermediate background layer at about 90% opacity, surely? Maybe they had two different background colours for the two candidates? |  | |  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:37 - Nov 10 with 1805 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
Oh, Boris! on 14:34 - Nov 10 by Guthrum | Why would they do that, rather than typing it on a computer? Far quicker and easier. Especially given it was going out electronically. |
No, not gonna bite. |  | |  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:40 - Nov 10 with 1779 views | DanTheMan |
Oh, Boris! on 14:36 - Nov 10 by ArnoldMoorhen | It's just an intermediate background layer at about 90% opacity, surely? Maybe they had two different background colours for the two candidates? |
For sure, it could be a number of things. I thought it was just the Trump bit at the top but looks like there was more writing underneath in a few other screenshots and videos that are there. Why they didn't just have two separate images is beyond me, just a bit lazy. |  |
|  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:44 - Nov 10 with 1744 views | homer_123 |
Oh, Boris! on 14:22 - Nov 10 by Guthrum | I don't quite understand how that works, technically. If the word "Trump" was erased, then the pixels which constitute it would be changed to background, not just fade like badly rubbed-out pencil marks. How are they still there? Also, why is the word "Trump" smaller and above the word "Biden", if it was meant to be in its place? Same with the other alleged text? Something odd about this. |
Yup - lemmings on the moon time isn't it? |  |
|  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:53 - Nov 10 with 1703 views | Guthrum |
Not trying to get a bite, I may have got the wrong end of the stick on what you were saying. As in layers of an image on Photoshop. That is possible. Would also explain the wrong positioning. Bit careless and slightly lazy not to simply make a new image (it's hardly a lot of text). But also not really a major gaffe, as Trump winning was a perfectly rational scenario, which also needed preparing for. |  |
|  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:55 - Nov 10 with 1685 views | HARRY10 | a thought "However, the smaller text size of the Trump message embedded in the Biden photo has prompted suggestions Downing Street had prepared a longer message congratulating the incumbent president — who enjoyed a good relationship with Mr Johnson — than the 47-word statement received by the Democrat, who has yet to speak to the PM since his win." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-joe-biden-twitter-t |  | |  |
Oh, Boris! on 14:57 - Nov 10 with 1674 views | DanTheMan |
Oh, Boris! on 14:44 - Nov 10 by homer_123 | Yup - lemmings on the moon time isn't it? |
It's just laziness from whoever created the image. Instead of creating two images with different messages, they made one and didn't completely hide the second layer, so it shows up when you increase the artifacting (or do something to highlight it). There's a video of someone doing this by just painting the background red with zero tolerance (which is miss the artifacting caused by compression) and it shows up. No real reason to believe it's faked. But as said, this isn't a bit deal, just a funny gaffe. EDIT: Seems they've admitted it, guess they reuploaded the image corrected which is why I couldn't reproduce it. As mentioned, text size differences probably suggest a slightly longer message for Trump for whatever reason. [Post edited 10 Nov 2020 15:04]
|  |
|  |
Oh, Boris! on 15:09 - Nov 10 with 1619 views | Pinewoodblue | Full marks to whoever took the phone call I'm sure I would have thought it was a prank call and quoted a silly price for use of facilities. |  |
|  |
Oh, Boris! on 15:22 - Nov 10 with 1581 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
Oh, Boris! on 14:53 - Nov 10 by Guthrum | Not trying to get a bite, I may have got the wrong end of the stick on what you were saying. As in layers of an image on Photoshop. That is possible. Would also explain the wrong positioning. Bit careless and slightly lazy not to simply make a new image (it's hardly a lot of text). But also not really a major gaffe, as Trump winning was a perfectly rational scenario, which also needed preparing for. |
The person who handles No 10 tweets will have a house style of colours and a set template for creating messages like this for the image canvas size in pixels x pixels. They would type the messages to be centrally justified. But a message to Biden as "President-Elect Biden" and to "President Trump on winning his Second Term" would create different amounts of text, and maybe the need for different font sizes to fit it all centrally with adequate white space around it. So, for example, if Trump's was over three lines, and Biden's over two, there would be both horizontal and vertical offsetting, and different sizes of text. Rudimentary experimentation suggests to me that the filled layer used as a background to the Biden text was at about 98% opacity, and so the Trump message can just be made out behind it. The gaffe is in sending it to Biden like that. A bit like sending a Christmas card to your brother and his partner, but putting his ex's name in and rubbing it out then writing hers over the top, but it's still obvious what it said originally. It's as big a gaffe as the Four Seasons thing: inconsequential, but a symptom of people not quite in control of things making mistakes as a result. |  | |  |
Oh, Boris! on 15:23 - Nov 10 with 1576 views | CrayonKing |
Oh, Boris! on 14:07 - Nov 10 by footers | Am I alone in thinking the Four Seasons thing wasn't actually a mistake? I just don't see how the president's team could make such an error, especially considering security arrangements. It seems more like another deliberately ridiculous thing to me, making his supporters fall even further down the rabbit hole. Or maybe that's generous. |
The Trump campaign has been sending out begging/threatening emails to supporters along the lines of "The election has been stolen. Your president needs your help. We need all the help we can get (flights, hotels, lawyers etc). Do your part!" I wonder if some wag at the four-seasons garden centre saw one of these and decided to offer the use of "Four Seasons, Philadelphia" to the campaign team, and then couldn't believe their luck when they fell for it? |  | |  |
Oh, Boris! on 19:28 - Nov 10 with 1461 views | Guthrum |
Oh, Boris! on 15:22 - Nov 10 by ArnoldMoorhen | The person who handles No 10 tweets will have a house style of colours and a set template for creating messages like this for the image canvas size in pixels x pixels. They would type the messages to be centrally justified. But a message to Biden as "President-Elect Biden" and to "President Trump on winning his Second Term" would create different amounts of text, and maybe the need for different font sizes to fit it all centrally with adequate white space around it. So, for example, if Trump's was over three lines, and Biden's over two, there would be both horizontal and vertical offsetting, and different sizes of text. Rudimentary experimentation suggests to me that the filled layer used as a background to the Biden text was at about 98% opacity, and so the Trump message can just be made out behind it. The gaffe is in sending it to Biden like that. A bit like sending a Christmas card to your brother and his partner, but putting his ex's name in and rubbing it out then writing hers over the top, but it's still obvious what it said originally. It's as big a gaffe as the Four Seasons thing: inconsequential, but a symptom of people not quite in control of things making mistakes as a result. |
Indeed. Similar to newspapers where nobody is doing the sub-editorial stuff any more (e.g. spelling/grammar/sense checking). |  |
|  |
| |