Hacker News Reader

Comment by neals | Hacker News Reader

Kinda reminds of that other visual effect, where they add circles to a photo and give the illusion of the people in the picture being naked. Won't post the link here cause NSFW, but I can imagine it being a related effect: adding visual markers to change perception.

View on HN

In case anyone has trouble searching for this, the term you're looking for is 'bubbling'. Parent poster has already warned you that this could presumably be considered NSFW somewhere (apparently)

Yeah, I'd consider it Not-Safe-For-Work (nudity). Since you've been warned thrice here is a link: http://i.imgur.com/OeSyGw5.jpg

TIL There is a subreddit for this. http://www.reddit.com/r/bubbling.

I'm more surprised these days when there isn't a subreddit for something...

That would be rule #35 in action.

Obligatory reference: https://xkcd.com/305/

ITYM Rule 34.

The last panel is Rule #35

Actually I found out one. There is no Hale Berry subreddit. And even after I made a TIL post nobody cared :)

http://www.reddit.com/r/halleberry

Maybe if you spelled her name correctly?

:) Screw me

Well, that's a pretty weird subreddit. Lots of people on there trying to get their "friends" bubbled, probably without most of these "friends" being any the wiser...

There are a lot of pretty weird subreddits when you get right down to it.

Yeah, I guess so. This one verges on dangerous, though.

I've seen worse.

I mean, really, if you want to find weird stuff, and this is pushing your boundaries, don't look too hard.

Heh, yeah I know what you mean - I'm not offended by the weirdness per se, I'm just concerned about the privacy aspect of it.

A predict a live Bubbling app coming to Google Glass in 2016.

"Just imagine they are in their underwear" will get a whole new meaning.

reddit won't load for me now, but it's where it began in /r/pics I believe, I remember the guy who mentioned it he's a Mormon and would do this to Sears catalogue models, it was his only source of porn.

The interesting effect of bubbling is not so much that people appear naked, but that the original picture, containing clothed people (typically bikinis), appear naked.

I've read this sentence 5 times and still have no idea what your argument is.

There are lots of pictures of naked people online. Millions probably. A visual effect that makes it look like someone is naked isn't that impressive, because there are naked people all over the place. The nudity aspect isn't the most precise description of what makes the bubbles effect interesting, it is the undressing aspect that makes it a interesting psychological/visual effect.

hence the word 'illusion'?

reading this made me blow mountain dew through my nose into my ramen

Why did you do that?

After the bubbling, the people aren't any "more naked" than before. Their clothes are no longer visible, sure, but the people aren't any more exposed.

not sure if serious....

I don't get it. Of course he's serious.

I am genuinely baffled by the people who think bubbled pictures are more NSFW than their unbubbled originals.

because if you are at 'work' or such environment that warrants the NSFW (Not Safe For Work) tag distinction and you click on a bubbled picture, it would give the illusion of viewing softcore pornography rather than, say, a typical bikini picture from a social networking site (which would arguably not be okay to view at work to being with).

Your mind fills in the gaps. What makes a picture NSFW is what it makes people think, not so much what it actually is.

The meaning of this statement is that bubbling is basically covering up more of the body then the bikini. So, technically a bikini reveals more than a bubbled bikini.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com