Chirag Mehta

A very good reason to put demo on a separate page is to simplify the implementation and make the html/css readable. I love demos where I can view-source, read the few pertinent lines of CSS/JS and have the library working within minutes. Putting demos on the main project page means going through non-essential site-specific code. E.g. see my http://chir.ag/projects/drop-search/ project demo on: http://chir.ag/projects/drop-search/demo.shtml vs http://chir.ag/ - the search works throughout my site but it's very easy to see how to implement it on the simple demo page.

"There have been many competitive versions of Life written over the years." Mistaking "Conway's Game of Life" for "Cellular Automata in general" can produce sub-optimal results. The same thing that makes Life so interesting is that from its simple rules, extremely surprisingly things result. In some sense it is in the class of maximally interesting "suprisingness" as it is Turing-complete. But this same surprisingness and the wolly, humanly-unpredictable way it manifests make it almost entirely useless for game playing. The general idea of cellular automata can be turned into game form, but you're better off defining your own rulesets, which can produce things like http://chir.ag/stuff/sand/. I also remember playing a game that actually resembles the linked page, but where each player moved a mouse cursor around, the cells tried to follow each corresponding player's mouse cursor, and the various blobs would eat each other. Probably one of the most clear examples of a game I god good at (relative to my opponents) and couldn't even begin to verbalize my strategy, even though I had one.

Well this is funny and cool to see, I spent the better part of Sunday playing with the name that color script (http://chir.ag/projects/ntc/) and jPicker and I compiled a larger color list for it using a couple additional sources. That particular script's color list only requires the name and hex value of the color which is a little more compact. I don't see any other major differences though. It's handy to know that the Wikipedia list has duplicate values for different names (Chestnut Rose = Indian Red for example), looks like your script just grabs the first match it finds. I was wondering what to do with darker colors as they are less represented in terms of color names. So, when you pick a random darkish color the accuracy reduces because there are less names to choose from. I was thinking perhaps the best solution would be in these cases to extrapolate a lighter variation of the picked color and display that color with a measure of its darkness (30% darker purple). Right now, if you pick a color like #291c36 you'll get dark jungle green when it's a dark purple. Any thoughts on tackling that problem?

I use a similar app called Name That Color — https://chir.ag/projects/name-that-color/#6195ED I like sharing descriptive names with designers instead of naming everything "light blue" "dark blue" "not quite as light but still not dark blue" etc. This new thing is tons of fun but seems a bit less practically useful.

> I keep reading people making this claim repeatedly on orange-site If this is suppose to mean HN, the header color is blaze orange https://chir.ag/projects/name-that-color/#FF6600

I've used this website for years, for just that purpose. Can't believe it's still up, actually. https://chir.ag/projects/tip-of-my-tongue/

I've been using this resource: http://chir.ag/projects/name-that-color/ in naming CSS colour variables for years. It can often help with that gray-700/800/900 or gray-light/lighter/lightest issue where another colour needs to be added to the palette between existing values.

>Duplex gave me shivers. Enough that I ended up wondering what would happen if I logically extrapolated from that: http://chir.ag/201812180030 The scary part is that a large subset of people here will read that as a instruction manual and not a warning.

This is very well done and looks beautiful. What an iPhone app is made to look like. For everyone who is wondering how he got the hex, and names, etc. there are links in the bottom of the coneapp.io page. Here are the links: > The Resene RGB Values List is copyrighted to Resene Paints Ltd, 2001. Name That Color by Chirag Mehta Resene RGB Values List: http://people.csail.mit.edu/jaffer/Color/resenecolours.txt Resene Paints Ltd: http://www.resene.co.nz/ Name That Color: http://chir.ag/projects/ntc/

According to "Name That Color", your color is (almost) "Moss Green". :) http://chir.ag/projects/name-that-color/#A7D6AE

Being colorblind myself I can't attest to its quality, but: http://www.colblindor.com/color-name-hue/ edit: apparently based on this (which has a worse color picker but probably better results): http://chir.ag/projects/name-that-color

Bar Graphs aren't good for visualizing landscapes. Pie Charts aren't good for understanding physics. It's a visualization. It's good for certain things. It's bad for others. I have seen tag clouds used very well, for example here: http://chir.ag/phernalia/preztags/

Literally, you're saying that because he stated a truth about pessimists, you decided to not read further. I think you're probably actually implying that you object to him promoting optimism, even though it is not accurate. Two counters to this: 1. a realist can use these ideas to be more accurate in their thinking. By being aware of when we are generalizing and personalizing, we can reconsider whether that is accurate or not. Although he said that a pessimist is more accurate than an optimist, it seems that a pessimist is not perfectly accurate, because pessimism creates distortions when over generalizing or over personalizing. 2. Your premise here, of insisting on positive knowledge, is a trap, because many things are unknown, and when failure has a low cost, experimentation is the rational strategy. Optimism supports this approach (you don't take failure seriously, and you keep trying.) But when failure has a high cost, being cautious is a more rational strategy. Pessimism supports this. That is, for acting in the world, one should weight probabilities of success/failure by costs and rewards/dangers (as opposed to only observing, in order to discover probabilities for their own sake, as a scientist might, who isn't concerned about making something happen). 3. a bonus thought from my 101 Philosophy: studies have shown that athletes who believe they will perform better, actually do perform better. That is, an inaccurate estimation becomes accurate. Other Pygmalion…