Best cone of shame I ever saw was coloured like a sunflower.

Shame upon shame.

Hmm, The Great Wikker-paedia claims this is actually a colour change and not just a trick of the light or viewing angle. Neat.

It also says the bug is upset when it's not gold, so not so neat as well, I guess.

Sorry, but this argument is nonsense.
CGI, colour grading and digital cameras aren't "ruining movies". All those tools can be used well.

What's ruining movies is dumb scripts and bad filmmaking.

I mean, to be clear, all things have colour because of physics.

Reminds me of that XKCD comic somewhat:
https://xkcd.com/1882/

...and also having endless debates about whether pink is real or not.

*promote for Colour. I mean Gal. I mean colour. I mean Gal...

Basic RGB technology.
Not at all complicated to those of us who work with it all the time, Much like the CMYK colour model.

I recently re-read this as well as Robinson Crusoe. I find both to be very interesting in that you get an understanding of dominant philosophies of the time, the traditions of life, language and more subtly writing; how all of those developed together and reflected upon each other.

But they are also both incredibly dull. I sort of wish I could read it as someone from that era read it, because I imagine it might be a little like seeing a film with revolutionary use of new film tech like sound or colour for the first time. It might be another old western, but it's engaging with parts of your brain you're not used to using in that particular medium. Whereas we're used to advanced and refined versions of the same thing, because it influenced so many.

It's the parents fault for using reinforcing the ide gender colours

Well you missed out the following highlights:

Awful optics of white guys standing around with tiki torches.
Proper breakdown of attendee groups
Short bit on the tiny ideological difference between antifa (communists) and white nationalists (nazis).
Commentary on Trump
More discussion on the rise of white hate which is creating new racists.
Left grading people by their skin colour (including lighter skinned people of colour)
etc

The entire point of the Daryl Davis sift was to show the importance of listening and hearing, to get to know the opinions of others. If you can't even spend 30 minutes listening to alternate opinions (and Sargon isn't even right wing/a supporter of the alt right...) that don't explicitly conform to everything you expect to hear, how do you ever learn?

It's the same confirmation bias that keeps the kkk on life support long after it should have died out.

And Chomsky! flies his hypocritical colours at full mast in those comments. So the Spanish anti-fascists/anarchists (that he loves so dearly) were fighting the good fight but Antifa and Redneck Revolt are mere tools of the Neo-Nazis? The first time the US left has displayed some chutzpah in years and he's spouting slander!

Those comments are so woefully off that I wonder if he's just been massively taken out of context or something.

Being a Canadian colours my view, but it seems there is at least some parallels between race relations up here and in the US. The difference is up here is it's aboriginal/white as opposed to black/white.

I don't know how close the parallels are, but in Canada it is statistically accurate to observe the following:
-Aboriginal people are disproportionately the victims of violent crime
-Aboriginal people are disproportionately committing violent crime
-Aboriginal people are over-represented in the prison system
-Living conditions on Aboriginal reserves even compared to neighbouring municipalities are, on average, grossly worse

These are basic facts that are, statistically speaking, irrefutable.

There facts clearly indicate there is a problem in society. Unless you believe that race determines criminality, they indicate that a group of people is facing some kind of systematic disadvantage, currently, historically or both.

Canada has failed in trying to address this issue IMO. Instead of looking for the systematic problems, we are trying to treat the symptoms. For example, we have passed laws that demand differential sentencing to be more lenient towards convicted criminals if they are of aboriginal back ground.

What we really need is to discuss the root issues. If you grow up on a reserve or in a terrible neihgbourhood, that matters. If the likelyhood of growing up in those places is still racially distributed, that's a major root cause that needs addressing above all others.

The way some people have written about "destroying" North Korea, it would make you think that we haven't been talking about a weapon of mass destruction which would indiscriminately incinerate women, children, pets, and leave swathes of radioactive land uninhabitable which would then leak mutation/radioactivity into the rest of the world's ecosystem.

Western civilisation has surely succumbed to some kind of mental sickness, turning us all into mindless clones repeating "the greater good" when we get promised large, colourful explosions. When war after war ends in disaster and further misery, we continue to talk about "bringing an end to suffering" everywhere in the world as though it's both a duty, and something we haven't catastrophically screwed up time after time. Worse is the underlying pride in that perceived duty; "We're gonna make their lives better whether they want it or not! OORAHH!"

The moralising about whether or not they deserve it is an exercise in narcissistic god complexes, covered with a veneer of regret, "oh no, we should have gone to war years ago, now it's too late, should we? shouldn't we?" Like it's great fun to discuss whether or not people should burn and rot to death over the course of weeks, from the comfort of your breakfast table back in good ole metropolis.

And if you decide to bomb? Ah well, it had to be done. Yes, it's a terrible burden, the kind of pain that people burning to death will never understand or thank us for. But we'll continue, because we're the hero they need not the one they want.

Trump's handling of the NK situation is a perfect marriage of the worst elements of the usual neoliberal approach (pro- profit & power orientated) and the thuggish exaggerated threat approach favoured by teenagers in playgrounds.

Our own countries are in an absolute SHIT state. With our indifference towards global warming, the developed nations are the most dangerous threat to life on Earth for *every* country. Why do we still have the arrogance to go around discussing how to improve countries that we've never even fucking been to?

Essentially there is no such thing as white light or indeed pink light. White light is when all your color receptors are saturated, what you think of as pink is when blue and red light is combined, and the possible wavelength combinations in both cases are sadly endless and impossible to represent fully in a simple table or graph.

Pink is a relatively easy color for monitors because, unlike for example yellow, pink is always a combination of blue and red light, while real life yellow is represented by a combination of blue and green light on your monitor and blue and green receptors in your eye. So yellow exists but we only ever see its representation as a mix of green and blue, while pink is a virtual colour all round :-)

Yes I suspect fluorescense is at play in this case somehow.

With RGB and CMYk the key word is representatiom. There are real life impressions of colours, and then there is the wish for standardisation and representation, but the eye is a very imperfect tool and representation is approximate. Real life paintings are awesome and you dont even come close watching photographs or computer monitors or prints in books.

It does not have to be about fitting into gamut, pink is a combination of blue and red light, which monitors are good at.

The problem with real world materials is that perception is not as simple as that. The combination of reflected, refracted, and even radiated (transformed wavelength) and polarized light, the micro-structure of the surface and possibly other properties can influence perception.

Like your favourite washing powder makes your whites whiter, this stuff makes pinks look pinker somehow. Its about fooling your eyes in specific conditions. You can simulate the difference between a known pink - a standard colour sample - and this awesome new pink by putting them side by side and calibrating the camera and monitor to show the new pink as pink and the reference pink as less pink, like at the end of the video, but that cant beat walking into an art gallery and seeing it with your own eyes. I mean probably, I havent seen this particular pink, but I have seen modern paintings which look nothing like their RGB or CMYK reproductions.