As dumb as People magazine is/was, it is not algorithmically optimized to hook its readers through constant notifications and rewards. I'd say social media has the edge in terms of its ability to cause sleep deprivation, cognitive fragmentation, and addiction, especially in kids.
Great project! It's visually dazzling and it really drives home the sheer size of the universe(s) of named colors.
I've long been interested in the names of colors and their associations. If I may plug my own site a bit, check out the "color thesaurus" feature on OneLook that organizes color names more linearly. Start with mauve, as an example: https://onelook.com/?w=mauve&colors=1
(It also lets you see the words evoked by the color and vice versa, which was a fun LLM-driven analysis.)
I am the creator of the 3d thing that was shared. I am very interested in collaborating on something. Is the data you used for it accessible somewhere?
X11 color names are atrociously bad. Inconsistent prefixes and suffixes, flatly wrong names for many handfuls of RGB triplets, and it’s what got hard wired into CSS and HTML.
Agreed. Techno-solutionists now use the verb "solve" in every imaginable context -- often where there's not a coherent question, let alone a workable answer ("AI will solve physics!"). It's comfortable to see everything as a system of equations.
> Cloudflare can detect and block verified AI bots that comply with robots.txt and respect crawl rates, and do not hide their behavior from your website
It's the bots that do hide their behavior -- via residential proxy services -- that are causing most of the burden, for my site anyway. Not these large commercial AI vendors.
I learned of this when users of my dictionary search site (OneLook) started complaining. I'd been in contact with folks from dictionary.com in their early days, and I've watched its rise and fall with curiosity. If whoever owns reference.com now is reading this, I'll buy it from you and I can promise to honor its original mission as I have with OneLook -- make me an offer.
FYI dictionary.com and thesaurus.com are still available on their original domains. I believe that, under prior ownership (IAC), they consolidated the traffic of their properties under reference.com in order to get higher audience numbers in ComScore and hence better ad deals. It's baffling to me that they (apparently) either let the domain expire or sold it to a spammer. It's accrued brand equity since 2008 -- and no doubt a lot of backlinks, for whatever that's worth now.
This makes me think about the credibility of single-author vs. multi-author papers in different disciplines. In computer science, a paper is seen as suspicious if there's just one author (at least nowadays). But in economics it seems much more common. Can an economist explain this for me (or perhaps a paper written by multiple economists?)
While in CS multi-author papers are the norm, in econ it is quite common to have solo-authored papers, with senior PhD students solo-authoring papers without their advisor as a coauthor. And it is rare to see an econ paper with more than 3 authors.
As a CS PhD who has worked with many economists, my understanding is that the culture sees it as diluting credit, and so might put people in the acknowledgements where computer science folks would add them as authors.
A study that cannot be replicated is a study that cannot be falsified. Authors don't mind putting their names on them because there's no accountability to be held and is purely net positive (one more publication and additional citations).
