https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue%E2%80%93green_distinction...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue%E2%80%93green_distinction...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Color_Terms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity#Colour_t...
Blue includes green, so they’re not wrong.
In other words, that the colour that is commonly called "pink" and occurs in nature has always somewhat bluish tint, while the "neutral pink" you refer to is somewhat rare in the nature.
In computer terms, named colour `pink` is
rgb(100% 75% 80%)
whilst the "neutral pink" of the same lightness would possibly be a darkened variant of the the `misty rose` what is defined as rgb(100% 89% 88%)
Arguably the "blue" accent in computer `pink` could be an adjustment addressing some technical display peculiarities, but I like to think that the real reason for the standardised `pink` being really "light magenta" is the intent to adhere to the natural counterparts (and resulting common language).Look at how yellowish the "darkened mistyrose" rgb(100% 77% 77%) appears compared to "pink"
<p style="background: pink">
<p style="background: rgb(100% 75% 80%)">
<p style="background: rgb(100% 77% 77%)">
<p style="background: rgb(100%, 89%, 88%)">
<p style="background: mistyrose">
https://myfonj.github.io/sandbox.html#%3C!doctype%20html%3E%...The article talks about the specification and it's more... specific than that: > “In 1973, the government mandated through a cabinet order that traffic lights use the bluest shade of green possible—still technically green, but noticeably blue enough to justifiably continue using the ao nomenclature,” Allan Richarz writes for Atlas Obscura
It's roughly the color of the HN title bar.
This looks uncannily like the first line of a lost Walt Whitman poem.
Thank you! Then the long-ago time spent in my American Lit classes was not wasted.
[1] https://www.taste.com.au/food-news/we-just-found-out-arnotts...
https://allthingslinguistic.com/post/33117530568/why-dont-we...