Pink is a combination of red and white light.
There are almost surely numerous combinations of various spectral colors that will look exactly like ultra-pink to our limited eyes. Fitting into the various color gamuts involved in color reproduction and perception is not very simple at all.

Whiter than white washing powders work by using fluourescence -- they transmute some of the ultraviolet light striking them into visible light. The reason this works is explainable by a color gamut, the gamut of the human eye. If we could see in the ultraviolet range that is being absorbed then the trick wouldn't be nearly as effective. There are animals, for example bees, that do see colors bluer than we can, and in fact some flowers have patterns that are visible only to them.

It is possible that fluorescence is partly responsible for ultra-pinkness. If it is, that would have been more interesting than what was presented.

I suspect, but do not know, that the CMYK or RGB color representation schemes are up to the task of encoding the colors you describe. The problem is that there is no practical process that can sense them in an image, nor any practical process that can mechanically reproduce them.

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.

"But Catholic priests, bishops, and cardinals don’t give “reproductive advice”; they articulate the truth about human life and reproductive ethics in accord with Catholic teaching. A teaching promulgated and practiced for centuries by an entire religious group is fundamentally distinct from a panel of “virgins in bathrobes” dictating to women what they can and cannot do."

I'm...failing to see the difference... It all seems like an appeal to tradition. The fact virgins in bathrobes have been telling women what to do for centuries doesn't actually make them right.

also "truth" LOL

FFS, I'm not trying to make an argument. As for watching the video, that wasn't a waste of my time, it was entertaining and informative unlike the article which was desperately trying to excuse an awful situation.

But fine, you want an argument? Let's do this.

"If one doesn't want the very small set of restrictions that go with some (not all) religiously affiliated hospitals, don't go there. One does have a choice."

You have that backwards. If you don't provide all the services required of a hospital, you don't get to call yourself a fucking hospital.

How would you feel if there was a Jehovahs Witness hospital that didn't do blood transfusions? Or a Christian Science hospital that refused to do medical treatment?
Both of those are real world examples where people died.

There's a big bloody difference between "not equipped" and "unwilling". In a local area, there might be several smaller medical facilities, but finding two major care centres across the road from each other is pretty rare.

And it's a bit fucking rich to bring up false equivalencies when you just compared unavailability of potential life-saving medical treatment to someone whinging over not getting a big mac at kfc.

As for the article:

"First, Bee ignores the fact that Catholic teaching on human life and reproduction is a fundamental, longstanding tradition of the Church, passed down from one generation to the next for centuries. "

Irrelevant. Next...

"But Catholic priests, bishops, and cardinals don’t give “reproductive advice”; they articulate the truth about human life and reproductive ethics in accord with Catholic teaching."

Really? They "articulate the truth"... as I said before, this is self-evidently complete and utter fucking bullshit.

"the claim that women will be without care if they are refused service at a Catholic hospital."
Er, even the article acknowledges that Bee understands this point and makes the point that in an emergency situation, you go to the nearest available centre that can treat you.

"This is another straw man. In most cases, when women want a particular reproductive service, they have ample time to locate and attend a non-Catholic hospital. "

Yes, and in most cases, people do. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE FUCKING TALKING ABOUT.

"Even in the few emergency situations — which Bee presents as if they are the vast majority of cases"

No, she really doesn't.

"Though it sometimes might be inconvenient for a woman to travel to a non-Catholic hospital, the inconvenience surely does not outweigh the importance of conscience rights, which demand that Catholic hospitals not be forced to provide procedures that Catholicism deems morally wrong."

Yes, "inconvenient" is exactly the right word for a woman who is probably in the middle of the worst day of her life.
I mean, she might end up "inconveniently" dead, but hey, we wouldn't want to stop catholics telling other people how to live, would we?

"In reality, a direct abortion (in which a doctor intentionally kills a child) is never medically necessary to save a mother’s life. If a woman is having a miscarriage, having her child killed in an abortion will do nothing to improve her health or save her life."

And here we come to strawman of all strawmen. The problem is NOT that a woman needs a "direct abortion", it's that she may a surgical procedure that kills the child inadvertently. And this isn't theoretical, women have died from this.

The fundamental point is that religion has no place in medicine. If a patient wishes to refuse certain treatments because of their beliefs, well, they're an idiot, but it's their choice to be an idiot.

But a hospital doesn't get to refuse treatment based on some bronze-age belief. If the treatment is legal in its jurisdiction and they have the capability to provide it, they must provide it. Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds ("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")

As you said yourself "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else".

And that's why religion and healthcare don't mix.
Or at least shouldn't.
Call me insane but when it comers to matters of female healthcare, you know, the pussy stuff, men shouldn't be allowed to be involved unless they are medical doctors. If there's any legislative decision involving reproductive organs that aren't male to be made, only women should be allowed to make any decision.

The Galaxy Tab S2 (and the iPad) has a 2048x1536 (not 1080p) screen, but it's not the resolution they're bragging about. Samsung uses OLED screens, which offer far better picture quality than IPS LED. The contrast, color reproduction, and viewing angles are way better than any IPS LED screen.

Display Mate rated the S7 screen rated as the best they'd ever tested. ([url redacted] I really want to get an OLED TV someday, but they're so expensive... Someday...

Edit: It won't let me post urls, so you'll have to google the display mate review I guess...

The the vegan ideology is: to not exploit any animals unnecessarily.

It doesn't matter if someone or something is not aware that it's being exploited, it still is wrong. If I steal money from you, and you never find out, does that make it OK? If you tranquilize a person and molest them so that they'll never know, does that make it OK? Of course not.

Also you can't really exploit plants, since most of them have evolved to be eaten as part of their reproductive cycle.

You are right though, there are definitely some blurred lines in some areas.

He never talked about the bed bug that mates through "traumatic insemination".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bed_bug#Reproduction

You're wrong about virtues of Christianity
And you're wrong if you agree with Sean Hannity
If you think that pride is about nationality, you're wrong

You're wrong when you imprison people turning tricks
And you're wrong about trickle down economics
If you think that punk rock doesn't mix with politics, you're wrong

You're wrong for hating queers and eating steers
If you kill for the thrill of the hunt
You're wrong 'bout wearing fur and not hating Ann Coulter
Cause she's a cunted cunt

You're wrong if you celebrate Columbus Day
And You're wrong if you think there will be a Judgement Day
If you're a charter member of the NRA, you're wrong

You're wrong if you support capital punishment
And you're wrong if you don't question your government
If you think her reproductive rights are inconsequent, you're wrong

You're wrong fighting Jihad, your blind faith in God
Your religions are all flawed,
You're wrong about drug use, when its not abuse
I hope you never reproduce

You're getting high on the downlow
A victim of Cointelpro
You're wrong and will probably never know

Love this song *promote

OK, since again you are going to continue to comment to and about me after asking me to ignore you (so I can't read your lies to reply to them), I logged out, read them, and now I'll comment back.

BULLSHIT! You had a shit fit for days when I downvoted a video you posted and it went to the bottom of 'new and upcoming videos', and you cried censorship over and over and claimed it had been removed because you couldn't find your own video. You complained to dag and lucky repeatedly, and tried to have me banned for erasing your video (which never happened, you were just too lazy or incapable to look for it, and continued complaining for days after multiple people pointed out you were 100% wrong and showed you where your video was).

No single political opinion is solicited here, so even the suggestion that those matching yours might be sought out by the admins to make it 'fair and balanced' for you shows a clear lack of understanding of the site and the world in general. At least you understand it won't happen.

As to your specious claim (based on a fox new poll or nothing at all?) that there are more conservatives than liberals in America, it's ridiculous, and easily contradicted with actual facts....for instance, the 2015 Gallup poll said "PRINCETON, N.J. -- Thirty-one percent of Americans describe their views on social issues as generally liberal, matching the percentage who identify as social conservatives for the first time in Gallup records dating back to 1999."...so even SELF identified liberals match self identified conservatives, if you go by actual political leanings on issues, there's no contest, 'liberals' outweigh 'conservatives' 3-1 (+-).
"Liberals" as you and the rest of the far right define them are clearly the majority view in America. Actual statistics follow:
Those in favor of reproductive choice >50%, anti choice<44%. 78% of Americans want Citizens United overturned. 70% of Americans don't want Social Security cut, 65% want it expanded. The same goes for wanting more financial regulations on banks and wall street, taxing the extremely rich at higher rates, adopting true single payer health care, doing public projects and works, having a standing army (yes, that's a liberal idea...as the army is a socialist program), etc. Those consistently holding "conservative" viewpoints across the board are an extremely small minority, contrary to how many people self identify.
"Conservatives" may hold a majority there in the Fox bubble, but in the real world they are a minority, consistently ridiculed for their total lack of knowledge about the things they complain about and for basing their backwards stances on 'truthiness' rather than fact, especially by those in other countries.

Now, once again, for the umpteenth time, I'll ask you kindly to "ignore" me just like you asked me to ignore you. It's pretty infantile to ask someone to ignore you so you can continue to publicly talk crap about and contradict them without fear that they'll respond...and I find that methodology typical of 'conservatives' that refuse to live by the rules they angrily insist everyone else must live by.
You really don't want me focusing on you in anger, which will happen if I'm forced to un-ignore you and re-engage because you can't quit me. Just stop and quit it, or no complaints when I re-engage with vigor and vitriol.

Interesting.
I'll be consistent and say yes, it's "fair" that she lost her job, as it's clear that her employers have an often stated interest in her reproductive system and firm rules on how it may or may not be altered, as a part of their faith, and properly following that faith is essential for being a good teacher...in their eyes. That means that having artificial insemination makes her a bad roll model, and being a near perfect roll model is a major part of the job.
EDIT: I wonder who ratted her out? She DID have a right to keep her personal medical information private, and those with access have a legal obligation to keep it private as well, so she DID get ratted on.

Also interesting was your comment/position there, which seemed to mirror mine here. In part, you said....
" Freedom cuts both ways, you're free to do what you want..but if you don't act within some semblance of societal norms and what is considered decent, no one is going to want to be around you or work with you. "
The business not wanting to work with him is what happened here, but now you seem to take issue with that, and you take serious issue with others boycotting the company (which didn't actually happen here, but you've been complaining that it did) while back then you seemed to be celebrating it. What changed besides the reason someone lost their job?

So I'm playing Pillars of Eternity...

It is wonderful. Practically everything I dreamed it could be. There is a hint of the modern mechanics I find distasteful. I really don't want all my characters spamming minor debuffs that last 7 seconds each in every fight, but I've been able to pick passive abilities for the most part and keep special stuff on the spellcasters where it belongs.

It's built with such obvious love. Everything from the title screen onward: the careful reproduction of the infinity engine aesthetic, the writing and characterisation, the soundtrack (I never notice music in games), the little text-adventure style sections, the puzzles... I was genuinely almost moved to tears by it all within my first few minutes of this incredible game.

Baldur's Gate III. I'm playing Baldur's Gate III.

And for that reason, *promote

Ok, I'll explain it.

It's a comedic piece, not a lecture on reproductive health.

It doesn't matter if condoms are 97, 80 or 50% effective. They are being used as a stand-in for something that HAS a 97% consensus on its accuracy.

Granted, it's not a completely perfect analogy (they are comparing efficacy to consensus), but it's poetic licence. In other words.....

it's a fucking joke.

As for writing people off, everyone is entitled to make mistakes, but really at this point climate deniers are up there with creationists, homeopaths, and flat earthers. There's only so much slack we can cut them, before we move the fuck on and say "If you believe that shit, you're an idiot"