That is the point of the exercise though. Is 50% really where you draw the line?

But the point is, there is no line which separates white and black (or green and blue). 50% grey is neither black nor white, it's grey. Turquoise is neither green nor blue, it's turquoise.

I see it as having a blue component and a green component. If the mixture has more green than blue, then it's green.

The analogous version in black and white is "is this dark grey or light grey?" because that's the one asking you to guess which side of the 50/50 split the color is on.

Ok, but presumably you can make a test that goes from 50% gray to 100% black and you have to say "this is black" or "this is gray"

No scientific line. But where does your mind put it if asked without being told which it is? This test is about where you perceive that line to be.

but when does turquoise start and end and green starts and blue ends? or is there just another color there between them. And then what about that color?

I think you're (accidentally?) hitting on exactly the point there.

For some people's language usage, blue and green are adjacent colors, and thus defining a point that divides them is perfectly fine.

For other people, these are not adjacent -- for some people, there's a single color (aqua? turquoise?) between them, and green and turquoise are adjacent colors, as are turquoise and blue, and it's reasonable to ask about a dividing point between those adjacent pairs.

For those who don't use language this way -- do you consider red and blue adjacent, or do you consider purple (violet?) a necessary intermediate? Are you comfortable defining a point between red and blue, or are you instead comfortable defining a point between red and purple, and a point between purple and blue?

And for all I know, there are people for whom blue and green (or blue and red) have a distance greater than one, or greater than two...

Are there really people whose language treats “cyan” and “turquoise” as distinct colors which are not in the “blue-green” family?

I don't know if there are people who treat turquoise and aqua as distinct, but I certainly treat them as distinct from blue (azure, cobalt) and green. Several of the colors around the mid range in the linked page are not colors I would use the words "blue" or "green" for. That doesn't mean that I have strict rules here; I don't actually know if I would call what you call "cyan" turquoise or blue; ditto plenty of other words like "seafoam." That's kind of my point -- modulo another poster's comment about this being a test of bad monitor calibration, it's really more about language than about color.

I think there's another set of questions here -- why is "blue-green family" a thing in your mind, rather than "blue-yellow family"? Is there a "red-blue family"? "Orange-blue"?

Our green cones are the most sensitive and their range significantly overlaps with red cones, so it's only natural that going from green towards red you'll be able to make clearer distinctions between colors than the other way.

Also, yellow-blue and red-green are opponents that can't be mixed because of how our retinas preprocess the signals from cones. Therefore, you obviously end up with blue-green (cyan), red-yellow (orange), yellow-green (lime) and blue-red (magenta, which actually doesn't exist on the light spectrum) families of related colors.

Many Slavic languages do that, as well as Albanian for some reason?

Russian speakers broadly consider sky blue / turquoise / cyan a distinct color right between green and blue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue%E2%80%93green_distinction...

Although the question "is the color distinct and basic or just a shade?" is very subjective. Is pink distinct or a shade of red/purple? Is purple distinct or a shade of red/blue? Is green distinct or a shade of blue? (it's well-known that in Japanese green separated from blue only relatively recently, with very bluish traffic lights and other quirks included)

One of the problems is that "forever passwords" is a term used positively when I worked in banking, as it was a password that the customer could not forget and would not need support using.

So I could easily see a lot of people viewing this as a positive.

That's a really good point. It lays bare some of my biases when it comes to thinking about and communicating with "normal people" about this sort of thing.

People having a bad memory is it enormous cost to institutions, which is why biometrics is so appealing in the first place.

Them being forever passwords is the value prop. The risk scene has changed, but that was essentially always the pitch.

Biometrics are fine. My dog has an ID chip in injected under his skin.

Your dog has nothing worth stealing and is not responsible for anything.

> The thing is, the pain I’m solving is real. People just want to solve it themselves.

It is not that painful if they can solve it themselves though and are not immediately interested in a solution.

The other problem is that for most people, they are doing Claude building in parallel to other work. It taking 10 hours of Claude prompting is not the same as it taking 10 hours of my time.

What if they can't actually solve it themselves though? The solution I'm building works significantly better than something you can throw together with n8n in a few hours, but people's perceptions are all that matters. The pain is real, but the way we measure success (especially for consumers) doesn't necessarily have to match reality.

I should also state, I have customers and I have competitors. This isn't necessarily something that isn't worth solving. I'm just noticing over the last 6 months it's becoming increasingly common for people to 'believe' they can do this with claude more and more. Whether they can or not, and whether its worth their time or not, the perception is increasingly that the value of one's own time doesn't matter.

Then they presumably either crawl back to you or the pain is in fact not real.

To be more generous, it is the action that can be taken unilaterally.

Trying to eliminate gambling has vexed many an emperor and cleric.

So if he had paid someone to streak he would have gotten away with it though.

We are only seeing the very dumb here.

Cowork and Openclaw are very distinct offerings.

I haven't tried it in a while, but a known way of jailbreaking an LLM used to be to play with their "emotions."

I recall in university that many of these existed but all died as soon as they wanted payment. This seems like airline seat space. People find small seats painful. They find paying anything extra even more painful.

Fair point — that's the graveyard of this category. My current thinking: keep it free and see if it's actually useful first.

Monetization only makes sense if retention is real.

What killed those apps — the paywall itself, or the retention already weak before they charged.

I mean, given that students have for long periods crammed for tests 72 hours before and that the number of course hours is also sparse and inefficient, I am surprised it took this long.

You look at a lot of places and between unions, procurement rules, or an obsession with certain classes of contractors, government capacity is badly hobbled from the start.