What s wrong with this picture

MyNeo 💙

Advertisements

Video-Facts What’s Wrong With This Picture? Answers

Video-Facts What’s Wrong With This Picture? Answers Video

Video-Facts What’s Wrong With This Picture? Answers Disclaimer

Q 2. Something’s not right here. Do you know what it is? Enter your answer below.

Q 4. Something’s not quite right here. Use the “Type Answer” field to fill in what it is.

Q 5. Can you type in what’s wrong with this picture – in just one word?

Q 6. We can’t put our finger on what’s wrong with this scenery – can you? Enter your answer below.

Q 7. Even beyond the final frontier, things seem to be off a bit. Type in what’s wrong with this lunar setting.

Q 8. Welcome to the Big Apple! But wait – something’s wrong! Do you see it, too? Type your answer right in.

Video-Facts What’s Wrong With This Picture? Answers Fun Facts

Solving such quizzes like video-facts what’s wrong with this picture? is going to help you exercise your eyes and brains.

Q 10. Breaking: News video contains flaw! Click PLAY to watch the video below, then type in the answer to the question.

Options
Globe
Earth
Universe
Black Hole

Q 11. Let’s quickly type in what’s wrong with this picture so that we can get out of the cold. Remember to use just one word!

Q 12. Let’s relax a bit and take a stroll in the park. But why does this seem so weird? Type in your answer below.

Q 13. Do you feel like a shopping spree? Apparently, you’re not alone. But what’s that? Type in what’s wrong in this picture.

Options
People
Mall
Leg
Dressing Worse

Q 14. What a marvellous sight! But can you shine some light on what’s wrong here? Enter your answer below.

Q 15. There’s nothing like a good read to calm down from the stress of the day. But there’s something out of order on your book shelf. Can you identify it? Type in your answer below.

What s wrong with this picture

Author: Lori Alden

Audience: High school and college students

Time required: About 5 minutes per photo

Summary: This is a series of photos depicting scenes we’ll likely never see in the real world. Ask your students to explain why. The photos can be used to introduce new concepts or to review definitions.

Concept: Public good. What’s wrong with this picture? Sunsets are a non-excludable good, in that non-payers can’t be prevented from enjoying them. Other examples of non-excludable goods are national defense, fireworks, and lighthouses. Private firms tend to underproduce non-excludable goods because customers have little incentive to pay for them. Public goods are both non-excludable and non-rival.

Concept: Opportunity cost What’s wrong with this picture? Most of the homes on this lakefront are expensive and built close to each other, so it’s likely that the lakefront lots are highly valued. This, in turn, suggests that the opportunity cost of living in the shack is high. We rarely see shacks on expensive lots because the owners usually conclude that they’d do better by selling their property and buying a nicer house on a less desirable lot. (Click on the photo to download a high resolution version of this image.)

Concept: Economies of scale What’s wrong with this picture? It’s hard to imagine that Mark and Sally will make a profit with their business. Suppose a customer asks them to deliver a small package to a city 200 miles away. Unless they have many other packages going to the same city, they’d have to charge a lot just to cover their variable costs—labor, gas, and depreciation. They wouldn’t be able to compete against companies like UPS and FedEx, which can keep their costs down by handling a huge volume of parcels. (Click on the image to download a high resolution version of this image.)

Concepts: Equilibrium, law of one price. What’s wrong with this picture? The more expensive gas station probably won’t get many customers and will be forced to lower its prices. The Law of One Price says that identical goods in efficient markets must have only one price in equilibrium. (Note: Click on the picture to download a high resolution version of the image.)

Concepts: Incentives, adverse selection and moral hazard. What’s Wrong with this Picture? Adverse selection suggests that speeders will be more likely to sign up for this kind of insurance, while moral hazard suggests they’ll have little incentive to slow down once they’re insured. Both of these problems mean that the insurance company would have to pay out a lot of claims. The problems of adverse selection and moral hazard plague many insurance markets.

Concept: Opportunity cost, comparative advantage What’s wrong with this picture? It’s nice of Superman to rescue a kitten, but has he considered the opportunity cost of doing so? Rescuing kittens is so easy that children often do it. With all the accidents, crimes, and natural disasters that occur in the world, surely he could spend his time more productively. The concept of comparative advantage suggests that Superman should focus on tasks that others can’t do well, like stopping runaway trains or transporting nuclear weapons into deep space so they can detonate safely.

Concepts: elasticity, price discrimination What’s wrong with this picture? You’d think that movie theaters would charge students and children more than adults, since kids are more likely to spill popcorn and make noise. But theater owners know they can earn more revenue by charging students and children less. The reason is that kids are more price sensitive (in economic terms, they have a higher price elasticity of demand), and therefore less likely to come to the movies if the prices are high. The practice of charging price sensitive customers less is called price discrimination.

Concept: Law of diminishing marginal utility (or benefit) What’s wrong with this picture? It’s not just the calories—a Big Mac with supersized fries has more. The law of diminishing marginal utility says that as a person increases consumption of a good, holding consumption of other goods constant, the marginal utility he or she gets from each additional unit of that good declines. This suggests that the marginal utility of the second egg will be smaller than that of the first, and the marginal utility of the third will be smaller still. For most people, the marginal utility of the tenth egg would likely be negative. (Note: Click on the picture to download a high resolution version of the image.)

Concept: comparative advantage, absolute advantage What’s wrong with this picture? The man and the boy would probably get done more quickly if they switched chores. This isn’t because the father can mow the lawn faster, since it’s likely that he can mow AND sweep faster (i.e., he has an absolute advantage in both chores). They should switch since the boy likely has a comparative advantage in sweeping the driveway, while the man has one in mowing the lawn. (Note: Click on the picture to download a high resolution version of the image.)

Concepts: Incentives, externalities, law and economics What’s wrong with this picture? We rarely see banana peels on the floor at grocery stores, and it’s not because of government regulation. It’s because stores understand that they could be sued for damages if anyone were injured on their property. Lawsuits can improve economic efficiency by causing firms to internalize some of their external costs. (Click on the picture to download a high-resolution version of the image.)

Concepts: opportunity cost, substitutes, demand What’s wrong with this picture? People offer this service in less developed countries, but they don’t in richer countries. Most Americans have scales at home (a substitute for public scales), so the demand for this service is small. It’s unlikely that this man would get enough customers to cover the opportunity cost of his time. (Note: Click on the picture to download a high resolution version of the image.)

Concepts: There’s no such thing as a free lunch, incentives, equilibrium. What’s Wrong with this Picture? According to a popular economist joke, two economists are walking down the street when one sees a dollar on the sidewalk and says so. «Obviously not,» says the other. «If there were, someone would have picked it up!» Though the joke intends to mock economists, it’s rare to find dollars on the ground because, well, other people have already picked them up. (Note: Click on the picture to download a high resolution version of the image.)

Concepts: Externalities, opportunity cost What’s wrong with this picture? Freeway accidents, even if they’re off on the side of the road, usually cause traffic jams. These jams occur because drivers don’t take the external cost of their actions into account when they slow down to take a look. For example, if a driver slows to take a two-second look at an accident, it costs that driver just two seconds of time. But that one look delays everyone in the lane behind him by two seconds as well. If there are 1,000 people who are held up in the lane behind the driver, the external cost to society of that one driver’s look is about 33 minutes. (Note: Click on the picture to download a high resolution version of the image.)

© Lori Alden, 2005-7. All rights reserved. You may download the content, provided you only use the content for your own personal, non-commercial use. Lori Alden reserves complete title and full intellectual property rights in any content you download from this web site. Except as noted above, any other use, including the reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission, republication, display, or performance, of the content on this site is strictly prohibited.

What’s wrong with this picture?

This is a nice picture, so what’s wrong with it?

10 Answers 10

I think the problem is

There are stars visible behind the moon.

So it should look like this (courtesy of @Chuck):

In addition to other answers, palm trees don’t natively grow under that geographical latitude, which is more than 46 degrees:

There are lots of problems with the image.

1. Red and blue squared stars has been used a couple of times.
2. Yellow part of the sea has been used three times.
3. You cannot have stars inside the moon and the white blue area is added later and there is a clear blur in the photo as shown below.

There’s also a scary monster looking at you.

Beastly’s answer does work. Here are some other things I noticed:

see illuminated tops and bottoms of tall trees but their shadows are totally missing given such separation between those trees.

illumination happens from the other side( on which the moon is located ), the trees also should cast sharp shadows, which are missing.

The 3 patterns of stars immediately above the horizon are of type copy and paste, so not natural!

There’s no dusk light in the sky.
With such a thin crescent moon, the earth-moon-sun angle is only slightly off 180 degrees, so the sun would be only just over the horizon, so there should still be some light from the sun in the sky. But there isn’t.

There also seems to be a yellow shadow in the water.

The other answers taking the image apart in discrete steps are right on the spot. However, having tried to create landscapes in Photoshop countless times, I can tell you I immediately knew this was artificial, even before noticing the three bands in the sea. The lighting, the lack of noise, how the waves don’t play with the shore, the impossible exposure (you can’t produce such image with a camera), the lack of the DOF.

It’s about the holistic approach. All the little things could be overlooked if only the pieces worked together. If you look at the works of the old masters, they are also often «faulty» from up close.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Context

I’m a developer (not a designer) working on a drawing app, and I’m a little clueless about ui / ux design. The functionality is there, but something is really wrong with the look of the menu bar. It’s hideous. Any thoughts, dear internet?

I think it’s intuitive but ugly. How do I fix that?

Update 1: some information about the icons

Update 2: A New User Interface

Some quick other info: I was amazed by the feedback! This in an incredible community. I incorporated as many of the notes from this page as I could. The app lets users make short, instructional videos on their iPad: I’ve been building it over the past 6 months as I taught myself to code. It was important to me that every change (pen color, line width, eraser, different screen, new screen, record, etc) be just one tap away. Right now, the only thing that fails that test is the ‘add an image’ button.

What’s the verdict on the new look?

The Whiteboard While Not Recording

The Whiteboard While Recording

One Of Many Forms In The App

The Landing Page

What It Looks Like When All Four Thumbnails Are Used

7 Answers 7

I think some styling improvements could be made.

It feels like there are mixed formal and informal styles in the interface. Icons are too abstract and angled, which creates formal mood. This style is too official and probably not best choice in your case.

Curved controls looks more sketchy and user friendly. Benny Skogberg showed style of the Balsamic. It has real sketching mood.

UPDATE
Nice and simple design!

Still, you could improve the interface:

I think organizationally, it’s too cluttered. Grouping related items will help quite a bit. Not knowing the exact needs of your users, here are a couple options that I came up with. Just might give you some ideas.

What you see is a sketching tool to make mock ups. It doesn’t look as other applications since the general idea is different. A sketching tool is very different from an Enterprise Resource Planning system or a developer tool such as Visual Studio.

Why one may wonder? The general idea is to draw sketches and mock ups too look like unfinished work. If a customer see a sketch they know it can easily be changed. We in the industry can tell that there is no difference changing a sketching app outcome with changing something designed in Photoshop. But the customer makes that very distinct difference. It is there to make the customer tell what they want since the design isn’t finished.

That’s why the toolbar looks so different from any other toolbar. Do make the distinction that this is a very different app with a very different purpose.

Back to the drawing board.

But first ask yourself:

I noticed you’re developing this for an iPad. If that is the case, I don’t see users having small enough fingers to hit those individual colors or stroke weights.

In an ideal UX world, less clicks is better. When it comes to touch-screens, it’s a bit harder to aim with your finger than it is with your mouse (because once you touch it, you’ve clicked it, as opposed to a mouse where you can aim and then fire). For that reason, I would move the colors into an icon that activates a menu so the user can then select their color. Same for stroke weights.

In terms of the thumbnails, that design is not scalable, unless they can only have three pages at a time (which is probably not the case because you have «Plus Sign» there to add more pages). What will happen when there are 6 pages?

Beyond that, I think the choice of icons are intuitive and I think Alexey Kolchenko made some good points.

I’m sorry for giving you more «things to think about» than an actual solution. UX design usually takes iterations.

Let’s get some actionable constructive criticism in here. Some of the design recommendations are great, but difficult to take action on.

At the least, you should segment the different types of buttons. Colors should be boxed (or do something similar to Kwahn’s mockup).

The gray background which melds into the top bar (time/battery/etc bar) looks pretty bad. Consider making the top bar differently colored, and not using grey for the toolbox.

The toolbox feels «thick». Try reducing its height and making all the tools use a similar height. Reduces the feel of wasted, ugly space.

The red button thing in the top right looks awful. Is that indicating your current color choice? And is that why the red color on the palette is bigger than the others? Lets combine the two and encircle the current color used on the palette, and remove the right button thing completely. Also, making the red bigger looks. inconsistent. The border should be plenty.

Speaking of the border, the black you’re using is very strong. I think you could go a few shades lighter and not lose the «black» feel.

Hope this is a good starting point for you!

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

If you spend much time out in nature, you know how to recognize the subtle and unsubtle signs of an ecosystem in distress. It could be a forest that’s eerily silent where you should hear birds and insects. It could look like an invasive species run amok: leaping Asian carp in the lower Mississippi River, kudzu devouring the Southeast or blackberry brambles overtaking woods in Oregon. When I visit the North Shore of Lake Superior in Minnesota, a favorite childhood destination, what hits me are the ubiquitous stands of dead and dying birch trees where I remember lush summer greenery. (The story there is complicated: the birches themselves were a non-native arrival a century ago, supplanting pine forests that had been clear-cut.)

All of these things tell a story: Something is out of balance here. Something is not right with this picture.

I do a lot of thinking about the built environment of our cities and towns as a sort of ecosystem in its own right. Our human economy is a complex adaptive system. And like an ecosystem, the whole thing exhibits emergent order, even though individual cause-and-effect chains are dizzyingly complex. It’s why we can observe phenomena such as supply and demand dynamics on a large scale, much as an ecologist might look at how predator and prey populations fluctuate. Build too much retail space, for example, and you’ll watch rents fall and vacancies rise. Patterns observable in the world give us clues as to the health of the overall system as it tends toward some sort of stable equilibrium.

Here’s the question, though: do we know how to recognize the signs of disruption in our urban habitat, the way we can spot them in a natural one? Or are we so accustomed to living in deeply unnatural, disrupted environments that we take them for granted, the way you might have played as a child in a stream that in your grandparents’ day was teeming with salmon, without ever becoming aware of the salmon’s absence?

Take, for example, the surroundings we see around train stations in some of America’s largest and wealthiest cities—and, by and large, don’t blink an eye at.

A Twitter user who goes by @dataandpolitics shared a collection of photos taken at Caltrain commuter rail stations in the affluent southern suburbs of San Francisco. They made the striking observation that at station after station, the immediately adjacent land uses are remarkably low-value. Parking lots. Vacant lots. Strip malls, auto body shops, a range of boxy, mundane, single-story buildings. In some of America’s wealthiest ZIP codes, there is a stunning lack of wealth, development, or much of, well, anything interesting at all, visible from most of the stations. Here are some of the photos (reproduced with permission; the original tweet thread has been auto-deleted with age):

This is not a phenomenon unique to Caltrain, by the way: you can see a similar thing at a startling proportion of New Jersey Transit stations, for example. It’s common in North America—but not in much of the rest of the world, as we’ll see below.

Here’s the thing: in a former chapter of my life I rode the Caltrain every day. I was a budding urban planning geek at the time, and am now a trained planner. And yet despite that, I had never really thought about the strangeness of this. It just was, in the same way that Walmarts with a parking lot twice the size of the store just are to many Americans; neighborhoods of hundreds of identical homes with identical 3-car garages just are; freeway interchanges fully the size of Renaissance Florence just are.

When you stop and think about it, it makes zero sense. This should be some of the most valuable land in the entire Bay Area (and by extension, the world), with some of the most lucrative development potential. On an always-crowded train with me every morning were employees of Facebook, Google, Apple, Oracle, Intel, you name it, who would disembark en masse at stations like water spilling out of floodgates. In the other direction, just as many commuters head for San Francisco’s financial district, one of the most extraordinary clusters of wealth and innovation and high-paying jobs in the Western Hemisphere.

“ Do we know how to recognize the signs of disruption in our urban habitat, the way we can spot them in a natural one? Or are we so accustomed to living in deeply unnatural environments that we take them for granted? ”

The San Francisco peninsula is the ideal environment for commuter rail. Here, even the wealthy use public transit in large numbers, and that’s been true for decades. The Peninsula’s rail-friendly geography—a linear string of suburbs 50 miles long but never more than about 5 miles wide, hemmed in by bay and mountains—ensures you’re never too far from a train station. Most of these suburbs have a historic, walkable main street or downtown district not far from the station, too, like a string of pearls on the necklace that is the Caltrain line.

So wouldn’t you kill to have your business right at one of these stations enjoying its steady stream of foot traffic? Or your apartment right nearby where you can head out your door and hop on the train? These are spectacularly convenient, desirable locations; they should be the most developed places in their respective cities, and we should see the intensity of land use gradually drop off to low-rise offices and single-family homes as we move away from them. We’re far more likely to see just that in other countries with rail: commuter rail stations in suburban France, Spain, the Netherlands, Japan, and so forth are hubs of concentrated, walkable development. So why do so many of the Caltrain stations look like if you waved a magic wand and made the rails and boarding platform vanish, you’d never know they had been there?

I want to emphasize one point: this isn’t about subjective preference for one development pattern. I’m not saying, “We should have dense, walkable development around train stations because I happen to like dense, walkable development.” This is an observation about urban land economics. We should expect dense development around train stations because the land around train stations ought to be some of the most valuable land there is, and that should lead to denser development than elsewhere. When it doesn’t, we ought to look at it like an ecologist looks at a forest where there should be birds singing, and instead there’s silence.

This situation is rooted in distortions imposed on this economic environment by government policy. I’ll point out not an exhaustive list, but likely the two biggest ones.

Distortion #1: Zoning

The Bay Area went all in on the suburban experiment in the post-WWII half century, and nearly regulated traditional urban land uses out of existence. They did it through restrictions on building heights and densities, parking minimums, and in some cases the demolition of the previous urban fabric in favor of large-scale shopping centers and parking lots. The legacy downtowns may have been grandfathered in, but you couldn’t go and rebuild taller even in those districts.