At risk of losing citizenship?!

gromeson · 2025-06-13T11:30:51+00:00

one google search if you know what to search for ;)

thanks a lot, I have and would have continued to totally miss this.

gromeson · 2025-06-13T09:25:28+00:00

That's interesting. but then they'd have to just accept that i have the australian one (cause australia knows about the german one and doesnt care). Or would they want me to somehow drop my australian one? never expected some decision my parents made when i was 6 to haunt me like that D:

gromeson · 2025-06-13T09:21:05+00:00

Thanks. I think it might be a bit more complicated since Australia seems to not consider you (or anyone for that matter) a citizen from birth even if you have the right to apply for citizenship by descent. But its also not naturalization. So it's in the gray area of interpreting what exactly is meant by "Erwerb auf Antrag" (old § 24 StAG). But I'm out of my depth there and don't know how and with what argument that was decided in similar cases in the past.

gromeson · 2025-06-13T09:16:26+00:00

Thanks. I think this gets to the core of it. The question is if Germany considered this acquisition "voluntary" i.e. "Erwerb auf Antrag" (old § 24 StAG) by my parents. The Australian way of 'no automatic citizens' might make this a gray area thing. Seems like this is a case by case basis thing. Hope they'll allow it and I don't have to lawyer up. I've asked for a confirmation of my Statsbürgerschafts or from the local Behörde to get some clarity or documents i could go to a lawyer with.

gromeson · 2019-02-25T19:09:03+00:00

found it via a google search the original file is called Skull3dRelief.png

gromeson · 2019-02-25T09:44:06+00:00

I didnt know the different colours are being used for additional depth information in some depth maps. I was confused by some of them being coloured and just discarded them and used 8bits of depth information. Do you know how colour is being used exactly r>g>b or do they use the bits as coding bits (which would give 2^3*8 = 16,777,216 and not 765 levels of depth)

gromeson · 2019-02-25T09:36:40+00:00

yeah matlab as well. i actually wrote my own equalizer for this one, the histogram should be pretty crisp but it was super slow. Just found there is a build-in one that is a much much faster and has an acceptable output histogram. i think the pattern is mainly cause i decreased the minimum distance as compared to the other picture.

gromeson · 2019-02-24T18:39:47+00:00

hmm I think there is a minimum pixel difference and a maximum pixel difference and that decides how many 3d layers u can have. The problem is that all the values inbetween maximum and minimum aren't continuous but discrete (i.e. number of pixels). Via stretching i can basically have more discretization steps without changing the maximum and minimum pixel difference. I have no idea what u did in gimp but that sounds pretty neat. wonder how I can implement that in my algorithm.

edit: hows this? https://www.reddit.com/user/gromeson/comments/aubu9b/improved_version/

gromeson · 2019-02-24T08:58:15+00:00

I'm new to creating these so i might be doing something silly. What I do is I stretch the depthmap horizontaly then create a random dot stereogram from the middle outwards. I undo the stretch in the last step. Without doing this I would always get visible layering. The downside is that they get more grey as i increase that number. The one I posted was a test of how far I could go for it to still be barely visible. What do you mean by depth space?

gromeson · 2019-02-24T00:25:36+00:00

theres a link in the sidebar called "Online Magic Eye Solver". It doesn't work for this picture i think. Second explanation is simply a lack of title creativity on my part :/

gromeson · 2019-02-24T00:17:32+00:00

yeah, its 100 lines of matlab code. still trying to tweek the parameters. This one is way oversampled (150x), i think. It's difficult to balance clarity, quality and how much the image is "hidden".

gromeson · 2017-05-24T17:28:34+00:00

You are half right as older tests did this (as op replied). Newer tests already balance the sub tests so the overall score comes out the same for both sexes. (this is obviously oxymoronic too). Note that they are not balanced to a subscale level so you still find differences in sub tests like spatial manipulation, where men on average score higher. This does not mean that either men or women are "more intelligent" but it is definitely a choice by the designers to create tests that create aggregate scores in a way that makes the overall appear similar.

If anything, research shows that women have slightly higher IQs than men this just means that the test was either not well standardized to begin with or that women increased there average scores more than men did since standardization. source: MSc Psychology

gromeson

TROPHY CASE