I was arguing against the author's assertions that: 1) Euclidean geometry is a plane (though, on re-reading, she said that a plane is pure Euclidean geometry).

I was arguing against the author's assertions that: 1) Euclidean geometry is a plane (though, on re-reading, she said that a plane is pure Euclidean geometry). So, to be fair to the author, that may well be me over-reading her statement (could be "within", rather than "equal to"). 2) That Burberry's dress on Ruby Rose for the 2017 Met Gala somehow meaningfully steps outside of Euclidean geometry for it's execution. It's a layered skirt composed of rectangular-ish cuts. Any apparent colinearity stems from the center-start of each panel and vertical alignment (aided, visually, by the aspect ratio of the panels). Maybe the ruching around the body? I don't see it, and to hang an argument for involvement of a field on the particulars of that dress is pretty baffling. The best I could suggest is that any dress could be called non-euclidean when cut from planar fabric due to the (general) requirement that a dress be at least a genus one manifold (or a public indecency ticket). I don't see anything in Ruby Rose's dress that implies any meaningful departure from or special knowledge of euclidean to non-euclidean considerations. Except maybe the price tag... That probably bends more than just space...