Submitted 2 weeks ago by Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to [deleted]
https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/0a72bacc-cb85-459f-8de2-30e211b0003b.jpeg
How are y’all arguing this? The banister makes it unquestionably obvious that it’s at the top. There’s no debate to be had here unless the banister was intentionally installed wrong just for the purpose of this meme, which would be crazy.
The mattress is at the top, y’all.
So the people walk on the wall? (Wear of the carpet and lack of visible ledge that stairs should have)
I guess I should address the “wear” on the carpet as well: it doesn’t look worn to me, it looks disturbed. Like before this person tried shoving their mattress up the stairs and got it stuck, they carried a heavy dresser or or something up the stairs and dragged it up each stair, sliding it along the carpet. I suspect this is a person moving into a cheap efficiency apartment, since the one my father moved into last when he was still alive looked extremely similar.
My stairs don’t have a visible ledge. I don’t know why people are acting like that’s standard. I think only one of the homes I’ve lived in has had a stairwell with ledges.
So why is the carpet worn on the front and center of each stair step?
Because people drag shit up the stairs and that’s extremely cheap carpet?
There’s no banister in the picture. It looks like maybe there’s a support for a banister, but that doesn’t magically make the tops of the steps into the sides of the steps.
If you are so pedantic so as to not consider the support for the banister as part of the banister, then frankly I have no interest in the necessary effort required to discuss this or any matter further with you.
Ok. Then use what you know of gravity and look for things that should be the other way if this were at the bottom.
And do you suppose the banister would be installed if the mattresses were at the bottom?
If our view was from the top looking down at the bottom then the banister would be rotated 90 degrees towards us.
IKR. This was the obvious answer 24 hours ago but here we are discussing wear patterns and contrast.
Not convinced. It’s a different set of stairs and a different carpet. I have had stairs with a carpet more similar to the OP that did not have a riser. See elsewhere in these comments for a photo of these stairs, now bare. In the distant past, they were carpeted.
I think they’re cheap stairs without the bullnose. Makes it way easier to carpet. By the looks of the trim this is not a fancy apartment. The lack of bullnose contributes to the optical illusion.
While I’m not 100% certain it’s not just confusing perspective, it does appear that the slope rise is shorter than the run, suggesting that this is from the top of the stairs.
Nice catch. The carpet wear corroborates this.
At the top-left corner of the image we see a support bracket for the hand rail. The orientation of this bracket only seems to make sense if we are at the bottom of the stairs looking up at the mattress. The shadow cast by the mattress also looks like the light is above and slightly closer to the camera.
If we were at the top looking down, that would imply that the hand rail brackets were sideways instead of being vertical, and that the light was mounted on the wall instead of the ceiling. I have seen stranger things in construction but it would still be strange and unlikely.
So people walk on the face of the stairs now? 😁 Look at the wear of the carpet on the stairs.
Old carpet will show wear as people kick / drag against the backs of the steps. This is especially true for cheaper construction where the steps don’t have the typical overhang.
From the wear patten on the carpet I would say bottom, but the handle to the side makes me think top !..
Could be a sconce instead of a weirdly placed handle.
It’s a curtain rod to a window midway up the stairs. We’re looking down a flight of steep older stairs. The mattress is lit by the window that is (mostly) under the rod, and by an open door at the bottom of the stairs.
The railing probably has the hangers perpendicular to the railing instead of plumb to the ground. Just the cheapest ones you can get.
Bottom, we can see dust and debris accumulated on the “run” part of the steps.
And you don’t see the nosing of the steps.
The biggest factor IMO is something no one mentioned yet: we can only see one face of each step (either the top or the wall). If a photo is taken from the bottom, we would almost always be able to see the tops of the first few steps, which isn’t visible here. If a photo is taken from the top, the walls would pretty much never be visible (if they were, you could also see the photographer’s feet).
It is possible that this is an extremely long flight of stairs or that the photo was taken from a deliberately deceptive angle, but if that’s the case I have to say it was expertly done, because I am CERTAIN that we are looking from the top and the mattress is at the bottom.
Nah, the hanger for the banister is very common, it protudes from the wall and turns up into the bottom of the handrail, therfore we are looking from the bottom up. If we were at the top, the hanger would go into the top of the handrail, and you wouldn’t be able to run a hand down it uninterrupted.
It’s going at an angle, not up. It’s 90° from the handrail itself.
Exactly right. The steps sit on the risers. If you can’t see both it’s from the top.
Bottom, you can see the carpet on the steps are worn out.
Bottom, these stairs have a rounded lip to make them compliant with rise over run requirements in limited space.
Depends on whether the thing in the top right is a sconce or a railing.
I think it is the bottom of the top of the stairs because of the lighting to the bottom left of the mattress. That should be in shadow from the mattress if it was at the bottom of the stairs.
Curses!
We are looking down on the mattress and it is casting a shadow on the step below it. If we were looking up at the mattress it would be casting a shadow across the stairs in front of it.
Could be that there’s a door or window that’s contributing a lot of light down low, spilling under the mattress.
Definitely the bottom of the top.
Top the railing gives it away
And if you actually think for a moment you realize nobody carpets vertical parts of the steps
They absolutely do, and you’re arguing for the opposite position of the person above you
Bottom, look at the wear of the carpet, lots of people have walked here.
Not just that, but the steps seem unreasonably tall and get shorter in the distance.
Maybe but we don’t know where this is, stair styles could vary in different regions.
top. you can see part of the handrail on the top left of the picture
I think that’s a heavy duty banister bracket, like this one:
white heavy duty banister bracket
Some banister brackets have a swivel type arrangement so that the bracket can be vertical underneath the handrail, no matter the angle of the handrail. Basic heavy duty brackets like this one are completely fixed in orientation, so they’re installed with the vertical support at an angle to support the handrail. I suspect the bracket in the photo is at a 45ish degree angle and only looks vertical due to the perspective. The banister has been deliberately cropped out of the photo to make the perspective as confusing as possible.
Personally I think the photo was taken from the top of the stairs looking down, based on the wear in the carpet.
Thought something was weird here. The contrast and colour is making it difficult. If you turn up shadows it changes the entire feeling, including where the obvious light source is. I wouldn’t expect the dark side of the mattress unless there was a bright light directly above it.
Also the banister/handrail arm wouldn’t be horizontal. Most importantly, congrats, you got me invested.
No, the light could still be above the mattress on the ceiling at the bottom of the stairwell. This proves nothing.
But, the wear on the carpet indicates to me that those are the treads, so this is taken from the top of the stairs looking down. Also, not mentioned elsewhere, there is usually a nose on the treads and the carpet would follow the nose, which can’t be seen from above.
Bottom.
The risers on the stairs are not visible.
The wear on the carpet goes right to the edge. That’s consistent with people stepping on it, not kicking it on the way up.
If it’s at the top, the mattress doesn’t appear to have any of its weight resting on a step. It could be so wedged in that it’s being held in place, and that it was wedged that way by someone awkwardly pushing at the ends of it in a way that wouldn’t seem to give them enough leverage to do that. But the obvious explanation is more likely, that it’s at the bottom of the stairs.
If it was at the top those would be some big steps you’d have to lift your leg up over
I know as someone who has rabbits and cats that the hairfall on the close to camera stairs indicates we are at the top looking down. I know hair patterns.
Bottom. Carpet is really worn on the side facing us
Bottom. Wear marks from foot traffic + if that were the top. those mattresses would tip backwards unless someone was holding them in place.
Steps in a staircase have two measurements. Tread and rise. The proportions of what we can see make more sense as treads rather than rises. Therefore the mattress is at the bottom. Also what we can see of the handrail would make sense in either direction.
it’s about the wear patterns in the Berber.
that’s the bottom of the stairs because we’re looking at the treads.
The mattress is a metaphor, it doesn’t matter where it is.
There is no mattress.
The cake is a lie.
Omg you are right!
On the top.
On the top left you see something… The holder for the railing…
Trick question. It is actually stuck halfway along the entire staircase; the stairs go further on behind the mattress. 😤
The carpet has wear on one side, and it doesn’t make sense for the wear to be on the front of each stair, so most likely we’re looking down from the top of the flight of stairs.
Yes.
That’d be some tall risers.
This is gonna be our white and gold/black and blue dress, huh?
It’s white and gold!
I’m a stairs half full kinda person
Yes
DmMacniel@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
bottom, as we only can see the treads not the risers (that small inset underneath a step).
NielsBohron@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
And you can see the wear on the treads. plus the handrail mount in the top left would be at a very inconvenient height of we were looking from the bottom up
NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
The handrail argument doesn’t make any sense. It would be at the same height regardless of direction.
obinice@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It’s at the top, I have that same bannister mount, it points upwards to the banister.
The mattress is wedged at the top of the stairs thanks to its extreme springiness.
YoFrodo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It’s the top of the stairs because in the top left of thr image you can see the banister support. If the mattresses were at the bottom then the angle of that support would be different
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Why is no one else talking about this.
There’s no debate. It’s at the top of the stairs.
DmMacniel@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
when the mattress is at the top, where is gravity and on what is it resting?
NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
I think it’s bottom too but I don’t agree with your reasoning, I’ve seen steps without that bit.
papalonian@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
How does the single mattress in half bit make you think it’s at the top? If it were at the top, the force of the mattress trying to straighten itself out would push it down the stairs. Much more likely the mattress was pushed/ tossed/ fell down the stairs and got folded in that position, imo.
franzcoz@feddit.cl 2 weeks ago
That’s what I was thinking too
Dolphinfreetuna@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You live in fancy houses!
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
Some stairs don’t have different looking risers, but you’re still correct because you can see wear marks from steps on the carpet.
sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
agreed