It's fun but I can barely see the difference between the horse and donkey colors which makes it really hard.
javascript:(()=>{const e=document.documentElement;let n=parseFloat(e.dataset.hue||"0")+20;if(n>=360)n-=360;e.dataset.hue=n;e.style.filter=n?"hue-rotate("+n+"deg)":""})()
Sorry for the previous one, it was too long.
Also, Firefox blocking Canvas elements does something really funky to the hex tiles making it harder. Allowing access does make the tile background change to pink/yellow-green instead of them all being lilac/lavender/purple animations.
The colours make it too difficult for me on a good display, and the dancing 'thing' (wheat?) doesn't help.
You really have trouble differentiating between 5fd3ff and b58cff? These are dramatically different hues (65 degrees on the colour wheel).
I mean, maybe the site is A:B testing different hue combinations, or there is a technical fault happening for some users, but if you really have trouble differentiating those two hues, one of your two declarations at the beginning of your comment must be false.
So yes, while I can tell the difference between these two colours doesn't make it good to play or an acceptably accessible choice even for those with good colour vision. They are objectively too similar.
Either you are in denial about a personal vision deficiency, or you bought your display on Temu. Or you're just trying to show some sort of vision solidarity with the colour blind, which, fair enough. We should all be more thoughtful of accessibility.
We all know that these aren't good colours for the small percentage of people with colour blindness. I literally directly addressed it in my root post, to then get confirmation that the person has colour blindness. Citing a page literally regarding being accessible to the colour blind is not making your case.
They are objectively, blatantly clearly different hues to the vision normal. Which is why I addressed the comment wondering if the person had colour blindness, which they of course do.
Objectively different hues is bunk: #fffeff is 120 degrees from #fffffe - I defy anyone to tell them apart. It's just not as simple as hue as the only factor.
Color also seems fine to me. Horse is bright blue and the other is lavender.
EDIT: I've now been "downvoted" multiple times for this harmless observation, and now have a clown declaring me a "bad llm". Is this what HN is reduced to?
Then I think it became a kind of put down and/or a way of saying certain inauthentic comments seemed insincere. In this context as reply to you, though, it feels pretty inexplicable.
What frustrates me is that this has happened even with color coding in video games where I myself was part of the UI team and flagged the issue a year before release. (Need For Speed, 2015)
Seems like something you should probably declare upfront if you're complaining about the colour choices, right? As is your comment looks weird to the vast majority of people -- and yes, the vast majority of people are not colour blind -- who have no issues with the colours.
Should every colour-based game, chart, display, and so on have colour blind modes or safer colour selections? Sure.
I didn't discount anything, and that's a simply ridiculous slur. My observation was absolutely correct.
Yes, a very small minority of people have trouble with certain hue combinations.
The "both sides" meme was funny when jon stewart was doing it in 2008. It has run its course.
It didn't even occur to me that it was saying republicans and democrats are the same. That's just ridiculous ;-)
Edit: To clarify there's good evidence that people overestimate the degree to which people on the other side of the political divide hold extreme views by about a factor of two. We genuinely are less different than we think. It's not necessary for people to be the same for this to be true.
Where can I read more about that evidence?
Because ~70 million of my countrymen have voted for a convicted rapist.
If accurate, I'd say "only about 30%" of each side having extreme views is quite concerning, regardless of anyone's perceptions.
Real differences in policy still matter:
https://isps.yale.edu/news/2026-09-09-political-polarization...
What is easier to change than people's opinions, is the two party political system which tends to resolve such questions to one of the two extremes based on one side achieving a tiny majority, rather than to the average which is usually a lot more sensible.
And surely you can agree that each side has key issues they feel very strongly about (abortion on the left, guns on the right) and again, think the other side's view on said issues are utterly disgusting, right?
And SURELY you can agree that gerrymandering has occurred at various times in the past, from both sides, can't you? For example, take a look at the map of Illinois congressional districts[0]. Perfectly sensible districts here, yessir!
The low IQ take is pretending there aren't places where both sides do in fact behave the same way.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_congressional_dis...
But Gerry died in the nineteenth century. This practice is almost as old as the United States of America itself. I would say it's as bad as if the US still had slavery, or still had capital punishment, but oh yeah it still has both of those too. Do better.
Inmates are frequently forced to work for pennies.
Mandatory "Penal labour" isn't chattel slavery but it would still be recognised as slavery in any modern understanding.