No, but it doesn’t mean the other answer is invalid too. If there is no reference in the picture to tell what kind of light condition it was shot at, both answers could be possible.

The yellow background could be lit by another window or a different light source, so one could argue we don’t have a good reference to tell. But the point is that the “picture of a thing” is not “the thing” itself, and there is always a possibility that they are different.

You missed the whole point. If I take a white dress and then shine a blue lamp on it, then take a photo.The pixels will be 100% blue, but would that mean the dress itself is blue?

I can’t quite understand what is your point? Are you arguing that both JVM and WASM are bad? With this I agree, they both have terrible performance and in an ideal world we wouldn’t use any of them.

Are you arguing that JVM bytecode is better than WASM? That’s objectively not true. One example is a function pointer in C. To compile it to JVM bytecode you would need to convert it to the virtual call using some very roundabout way. But in WASM you have native support for function pointers, which gives much better flexibility when compiling other languages.

Have you seen what it outputs? The same way we can compile C to brainfuck, it doesn’t mean it’s good or is useful.

You can’t compile C to java bytecode, they are fundamentally incompatible. But you can compile C to wasm, which is what you want for a good universal bytecode. Java is shit.

Some people have weird fetishes too, I won’t judge.