Okay, first off, I am NOT one of THOSE people. Honestly, I absolutely suck at math, and yet somehow I’m abnormally good at eyeballing. I actually came to the comments hoping some genius had done a whole bunch of math and triangulated your exact height or some shit, but alas. Again, I am not that guy.
The TV looks huge and it’s way up high. I’m assuming the cord is at least long enough to reach an outlet with at least some slack, with two wheels on the stand pushed all the way against the wall, just because it would objectively require a longer cord otherwise. Again, literally just eyeballing it, I’m assuming the TV itself measures diagonally to within roughly 60"—possibly somewhat smaller, although probably not by much if so. It could even be somewhat larger; it’s hard to tell. I say that because I used to have a 60" TV and for no other reason; it looks like that, give or take. 60" is 5’, and for whatever reason or none, I don’t specifically recall having seen power cords for TVs that measure an odd number of feet. Also, I really doubt they would’ve given it a power cord shorter than the diagonal measurement of the TV is to begin with, because that would be silly. Also also, it just looks like it would need to be longer than 5’ to reach the outlet, and so based on all of that, I think it’s reasonably safe to conject that the cord is either 6’ or 8’ because it really doesn’t look like 10’.
Now, the socks. I have no idea how women’s clothing sizes work and I won’t pretend to. However, they’re just barely higher than knee height, and just barely high enough as to constitute thigh-highs by definition. Also also, one’s higher than the other which makes it obvious that they were both pulled to 100% maximum length. I could be way out in left field with this part, but it just looks like they were probably made to fit most women, and that—by merit of whatever length that is apparently being close enough—that you are taller than most women.
You also look bigger when you stand closer to the mirror and vice versa because that’s how mirrors work. That is clearly a rather tall mirror, and we can get some amount of perspective about that: you’re standing far enough away from it to include both sides, as well as the top of its frame in this picture. That means you had to stand that far away in order to get your entire vertical height it the shot. I do realize we’re not getting to see the entire bottom of the mirror, and even if I’m accounting for that, we’re still not getting very much of the floor even at that. I’m not sure why the mirror is slightly leaned back at the top and I won’t speculate.
Finally: it’s obvious by observation alone that you carry more muscle around than the average woman. Personally, I think that’s beautiful, and frankly, how I feel about that is completely irrelevant to me eyeballing how tall you are. I mention because I have never seen—at least in person, or at all that I know of—any woman who appeared to have the amount of muscle mass you appear to, and whose skeleton appeared to distribute that amount as evenly as yours appears to, who was not at least my own height. Or, I think I would remember if I had, anyway. I mean this exclusively as a compliment and a statement of fact AFAIK, but just eyeballing it, you look like you’re carrying around too much muscle weight while carrying it too leanly to also be shorter than me.
I am, myself, comically close to 5’6", although I’m a comically small fraction of an inch short if I’m being totally honest. I would estimate your height at precisely 5’6" at the very least, and I won’t speculate as to how much taller. You have my express written permission to make fun of me in the event that I’m wrong, and that you’re at all shorter than 5’6".
Okay, first off, I am NOT one of THOSE people. Honestly, I absolutely suck at math, and yet somehow I’m abnormally good at eyeballing. I actually came to the comments hoping some genius had done a whole bunch of math and triangulated your exact height or some shit, but alas. Again, I am not that guy.
The TV looks huge and it’s way up high. I’m assuming the cord is at least long enough to reach an outlet with at least some slack, with two wheels on the stand pushed all the way against the wall, just because it would objectively require a longer cord otherwise. Again, literally just eyeballing it, I’m assuming the TV itself measures diagonally to within roughly 60"—possibly somewhat smaller, although probably not by much if so. It could even be somewhat larger; it’s hard to tell. I say that because I used to have a 60" TV and for no other reason; it looks like that, give or take. 60" is 5’, and for whatever reason or none, I don’t specifically recall having seen power cords for TVs that measure an odd number of feet. Also, I really doubt they would’ve given it a power cord shorter than the diagonal measurement of the TV is to begin with, because that would be silly. Also also, it just looks like it would need to be longer than 5’ to reach the outlet, and so based on all of that, I think it’s reasonably safe to conject that the cord is either 6’ or 8’ because it really doesn’t look like 10’.
Now, the socks. I have no idea how women’s clothing sizes work and I won’t pretend to. However, they’re just barely higher than knee height, and just barely high enough as to constitute thigh-highs by definition. Also also, one’s higher than the other which makes it obvious that they were both pulled to 100% maximum length. I could be way out in left field with this part, but it just looks like they were probably made to fit most women, and that—by merit of whatever length that is apparently being close enough—that you are taller than most women.
You also look bigger when you stand closer to the mirror and vice versa because that’s how mirrors work. That is clearly a rather tall mirror, and we can get some amount of perspective about that: you’re standing far enough away from it to include both sides, as well as the top of its frame in this picture. That means you had to stand that far away in order to get your entire vertical height it the shot. I do realize we’re not getting to see the entire bottom of the mirror, and even if I’m accounting for that, we’re still not getting very much of the floor even at that. I’m not sure why the mirror is slightly leaned back at the top and I won’t speculate.
Finally: it’s obvious by observation alone that you carry more muscle around than the average woman. Personally, I think that’s beautiful, and frankly, how I feel about that is completely irrelevant to me eyeballing how tall you are. I mention because I have never seen—at least in person, or at all that I know of—any woman who appeared to have the amount of muscle mass you appear to, and whose skeleton appeared to distribute that amount as evenly as yours appears to, who was not at least my own height. Or, I think I would remember if I had, anyway. I mean this exclusively as a compliment and a statement of fact AFAIK, but just eyeballing it, you look like you’re carrying around too much muscle weight while carrying it too leanly to also be shorter than me.
I am, myself, comically close to 5’6", although I’m a comically small fraction of an inch short if I’m being totally honest. I would estimate your height at precisely 5’6" at the very least, and I won’t speculate as to how much taller. You have my express written permission to make fun of me in the event that I’m wrong, and that you’re at all shorter than 5’6".
Am I correct?