Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Colornames.org – A collaborative effort to name all 16.7M colors

colornames.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 237 posts

Re: Colornames.org – A collaborative effort to name all 16.7M colors

#201

Post by PeterStuer »

yoz-y wrote: post #147
PeterStuer wrote: post #144

WARNING There is zero indication on the whole site as to who is responsible for this. There seems to be no privacy statement. The registrar is anonymized. The chances of this being a cutesy email phishing site are VERY HIGH

They don't seem to be asking for emails though. At least not when you go to name a color or downloading data. The only place where they are asking for e-mail is on the contact form which makes sense.

True, but it lights up multiple red lights.

It's either a long con or a genuine cascade of oversights and bad decisions.

Re: Colornames.org – A collaborative effort to name all 16.7M colors

#202

Post by joeax »

Just go to any paint store and you'll find yourself halfway there. When we were searching for gray tones we were stunned at the creative names we saw for the thousands of grays available i.e. "mindful gray" "blissful stone" etc.

That's got a be a dream job for some uber-creative artist.

Re: Colornames.org – A collaborative effort to name all 16.7M colors

#205

Post by hithereagain »

joeax wrote: post #202

Just go to any paint store and you'll find yourself halfway there. When we were searching for gray tones we were stunned at the creative names we saw for the thousands of grays available i.e. "mindful gray" "blissful stone" etc. That's got a be a dream job for some uber-creative artist.

And a nightmare job for some other creative artist.

Re: Colornames.org – A collaborative effort to name all 16.7M colors

#206

Post by air7 »

GistNoesis wrote: post #124

Shameless plug for color-loving people : Are all verbs blue ? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/colorify/ It's parsing any webpage, and coloring words based on their Part-Of-Speech tags. The idea behind is that if we let the computer pre-parse the text for us, it should incur less mental fatigue, and help visualize the structure of sentences therefore improving our reading comprehension. The question is…

I like the idea but the demo page looks a boy clownish. As in, too many colors. Perhaps you should test which particular elements benefit most from this type of tagging

Re: Colornames.org – A collaborative effort to name all 16.7M colors

#207

Post by hyperman1 »

0xBA5ED wrote: post #122
NateEag wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't like to admit this, but "offensive" is by definition subjective (to whom does this give offense?). Thus, unless you're fairly explicit about who it's not okay to offend, "offensive" is at best vague and at worst weasel-wording.

It is, however, common knowledge that calling that particular person orange is meant as an insult. No need to have a precise definition of "offensive" for cases like that.

I, as non USAer, have no idea what is the relation between Trump and orange.

Re: Colornames.org – A collaborative effort to name all 16.7M colors

#208

Post by owenversteeg »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #106
asciimike wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's 256

It’s 250. There’s also a list of all colors in use, sorted by frequency: https://news.ycombinator.com/topcolors

Some funny ones:

c0ffee, dadb0d, badcab, deface, deadbf, baddad, daddad, debeef, beefed, adbeef, beeeef, efface, faceb0, deeded, facade, 2faced, decafe, dabeef

#debeef is a lovely lavender actually!

Re: Colornames.org – A collaborative effort to name all 16.7M colors

#209

Post by owenversteeg »

mikk14 wrote: post #120
nneonneo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I propose that names be considered more like probability distributions. For example the name “red” has a probability distribution that probably peaks in the neighbourhood of #FF0000 but includes a large range of colors; the distribution of the name “crimson” likely has a much narrower distribution. Under this interpretation, and given enough data, one could feasibly extract “the” name for any given colour using a max…

You might expect to hear this, but what you're hinting at was done by xkcd: https://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/ Particularly, what you're describing is this: http://imgs.xkcd.com/blag/satfaces_map_1024.png :-)

Every time I see that xkcd I'm never surprised that gold is the smallest section. It's consistently a pain in the ass to get something that looks semi-decent gold ish. A shine effect helps, but then that's more work to get right.

#b18800, from the xkcd, looks pretty bad; #d4af37 is a good bit better, #cfb53b is semi-passable IMO.

Re: Colornames.org – A collaborative effort to name all 16.7M colors

#210

Post by ggggtez »

Why do I get the feeling that you could programmatically name all these colors in some trivial way? Then you wouldn't end up with 30x "Blue" in your dataset.

Let's imagine we take the dominant byte of each color only. That's 4096 different color combinations. The lower byte makes up another 4096 color variations to each of those dominant colors. Just name 4096 "Color" words, like "Blue", "Aquamarine" etc. Then 4096 "useless adjectives" like "Mindful" and "Exotic".

And viola: Exotic Blue - 0x0xFx | xAx3x5 Mindful Blue - 0x0xFx | x5x5x5 etc.

8000 words is something a single person could do by themselves, and it would generate all 16.7 million colors. You could even have some intuitive understanding. "Aha, Mindful Blue is a little bit grayer than just 'Blue'." This isn't even the most useful schema you could come up with...

Realistically, it's foolish to even do this in the RGB colorspace. Humans are not going to notice the difference between #000000 and #000001. Colors should be organized in a way that's useful. Hierarchical color naming at least gets you partway there.

Post reply on HN