I don't think it is supported anywhere else currently, but Batocera has a simple wsquashfs format. It is basically the game compressed into a squahsfs. Then it can be managed as simply as other traditional ROMs:
I am pleased to see hardware not being locked down as a selling point:
> Yes, Steam Machine is optimized for gaming, but it's still your PC. Install your own apps, or even another operating system. Who are we to tell you how to use your computer?
It feels very commonsense that you should be able to run whatever you want on the computer that you have purchased, but it is surprisingly uncommon.
Valve gets it. I very much want to support them and vote with my wallet. Unfortunately the Steam machine isn't a good fit for me. I will buy the frame in a heartbeat though. HMD with a FOSS OS? That's in its own class.
Even though I balked at the Steam Deck prices on the recent inventory restock, as they were up ~30% presumably due to the same hardware shortages, I got one anyway. Prices won't drop anytime soon and if any for-profit organization has earned my loyalty, its Valve.
When I used it I was somewhat incredulous that I could simply exit Steam mode have an actual Linux desktop environment, where I could literally do what I wanted. It was my computer, a proper general purpose computing machine, and it was (willingly* in my control. No sneaky root needed.
genuinely what do you use AR for? I see alot of people saying this same thing. I don't have any VR/AR experience as the frame will be my first VR headset
Virtual boxing with friends (Thrill of the Fight 2). AR allows me to see my room instead of some virtual ring so there's less risk of hitting walls or furniture
The Apple Vision Pro. I really wish Valve would release a $3500 Steam Frame with all the bells and whistles. Of course, with the price of RAM it might be $7000 so maybe I'll just have to wait until hopefully the market cools down a bit and baseline hardware advances some more.
Is there really a killer app here though? I've tried it and I think the hardware is really cool, but it doesn't really strike me that any of the software justifies the purchase price.
Notably with the Steam Frame you're stuck with the high end snapdragon and 16GB of RAM even if you'll use it with a computer, but they didn't want to splurge five or ten dollars on color cameras. Weird priorities.
The whole front part with the lenses and processors is removable, and there's an expansion connector on the face piece for future accessories, so it's certainly possible that colour cameras could be released later, and be an add-on for the Frame without needing to buy a new device.
Sure, and I'd really like a true black display. I accept that any mass market device coming from a niche will have compromises in the interest of reaching a broader market. The high end is already served by pimax and bigscreen.
wasn't it strongly implied that things like that would be enabled via the expansion port and aftermarket products? I would not be surprised to see color AR within a year of launch
Loot boxes are, by any and all definitions, evil. It’s gambling. Worse even, it’s gambling with real money over digital ephemera.
Loot boxes are not a fun mechanic. Loot boxes are not designed to entertain you or give you good value for your money. Loot boxes only exist to make you gamble with your money over something that could easily be sold as a single purchase item, or better yet, be rewarded in-game. Simple as that. It’s a gambling scheme. Always has been. Always will be.
Gambling is a game mechanic. It can be evil. But if its restricted to non game affecting items for people over the age of 18 it isnt evil. Its completely optional. I remember playing CS:GO and ignoring the loot boxes until fridays in the afternoon when my mate would come online and we would crack a couple together and put our new stickers on our guns.
The problem with visual only loot boxes is that people will pay for rare skins and so everyone still gambles on that stuff. I don’t know if they solved that, used to be you’d buy the keys to unlock them and hope to profit from selling a skin. Adults should also be protected against dark patterns like this.
The last generation of steam controller still had a mode you could start it in where it would register as xinput device. Seems that's gone on the new generation.
Would you rather have it degrade to the functionality of an Xbox 360 controller without Steam? That's the best they could do without all games including support for the controller (latest SDL3 has it).
Not really. Can't really map a touchpad as an analog stick. Can't map a gyro as a joystick. Can't take XBox rumble and map it to the Steam Controllers haptic feedback.
Can you hack it together in theory, get something working but making sacrifices left and right? Sure. But why would Valve want to do that? Use experience would be incredibly bad.
But give it time. There will be a standalone driver for Windows eventually, either from Valve or from the community.
It's possible already. Using an open source app called PadForge. I've setup a profile that works without steam and emulates xbox360 pad. I've used it without problems in Forza Horizon 6 which is an UWP / PC Game Pass game, also in various emulators.
They need to do that because, in some sense, they're competing with Gaming PCs, not really with Gaming consoles. Gaming consoles sell their consoles at a discounted price because they can recoup a lot of it when selling games. Steam can't have a markup on games because they share their marketplace with other PCs.
Sony have admitted to selling the PS5 at a loss during the first 8 months of sales. Even when they announced the $499 disc drive SKU was no longer selling at a loss, they admitted the $399 SKU still cost more to make than it sold for. Things are no doubt different today, but Sony absolutely subsidized the PS5 at launch.
But if they subsidize the hardware, non game users will purchase the hardware and use it for non game use-cases, where valve cannot recoupe the costs.
A interesting scenario would be to sell the hardware at cost, but include a 30% off ticket to the steam store (up to a few hundred dollars, in savings).
Instead they made the right choice and subsidise the software. Valve has been sending patches for Linux for over the last 10 years as well as giving SteamOS out for free for other hardware now.
If you don't want to play games, why would you buy a steam machine? Even with a subsidized price, you could get a mini PC with no GPU for half that or less.
If Valve subsidizes PC by $200 why would people not buy for office, art, video editing? And gaming is not only Steam, there is also GOG, EGS, Microsoft Store.
> If Valve subsidizes PC by $200 why would people not buy for office, art, video editing?
I already said why, but you ignored my second sentence out of two sentences...?
Let's say Valve subidizes it down to $800. But you can get a good office/art PC for $300, and a steam machine isn't particularly good for video editing. So why would you pay $800 and pick the steam machine if you're not gaming?
> And gaming is not only Steam, there is also GOG, EGS, Microsoft Store.
Why are you bringing up a whole different argument now? Yeah Steam won't get their cut for all games. But they'd get their cut for most games. If they have 75% market share then reduce the subsidy they could reasonably apply by 25%. Well, less than 25% because most people are leaving Steam OS on there and are even more likely to buy on Steam.
We have entire handheld lines for console emulators. More performant GPUs useful for Dolphin, PPSSPP, RPCS3, Ryujinx. GPU used for 3D modelling and sculpting, video editing, encoding. Steam machine subsidized by $200 PC would be used for anything but Steam, payed by Steam users.
You've ignored "art, video editing" and you claim that your point ignored? Why do you type words at all if issue is their consumption?
> We have entire handheld lines for console emulators. More performant GPUs useful for Dolphin, PPSSPP, RPCS3, Ryujinx.
Those people are gamers! If they want the steam machine it supports the argument I actually made before you brought up something entirely different (most of them buy steam games too btw).
> GPU used for 3D modelling and sculpting, video editing, encoding. Steam machine subsidized by $200 PC would be used for anything but Steam, payed by Steam users.
It's not a particularly good GPU. I don't think you'd get a lot of those users.
> You've ignored "art, video editing" and you claim that your point ignored? Why do you type words at all if issue is their consumption?
What are you talking about? I addressed both of those.
Use ctrl+F if you need to.
You've gone beyond skipping what I said to gaslighting me about it.
Entity asks question, unable to comprehend answer, claim any gaming leads to Valve revenue, discards video editing and art examples. Please stop wasting bytes.
Steam take 30% of the purchases made via the Steam Store.
If you sell a game on Steam, you can redeem as many Steam Keys for your game as you wish.
Those keys are sold at 100% profit to you, Steam dont take any.
You could still offer this, similar to the ad tier and ad free tier of a kindle, or a carrier locked phone.
$799 for a locked down version, $1049 for an unlocked version. Opportunity to pay $300 to unlock it later at any time. 5% discount on purchases on a locked device.
Fun fact about the kindle ad thing: I don’t know if they still do this but when I got mine, you could just write to the support and let them know you found the ads inappropriate (extra points for mentioning a child in the household) and they would just remove the ads for free.
I would assume it also has to do with if not fundamentally manifesting from Steam being an organisation of technologists. They don't want to put out a project which has a worse operating system than their workstations.
I like that we can write the story that Microsoft sold their software with the home computer on the idea of productivity at home while the actual incentive was entertainment, and valve ends up justifying buying gaming hardware with the incentive that it can do productivity.
The urge to tear down the stack of cellphones I have and pull the boot flash chip hits me occasionally. It would be a substantial project, though, so I haven't done it. Yet.
You have to do things. You can't sit on project ideas forever while they become obsolete. A lot of things on my project ideas file became obsolete while I didn't do them, and that is sad. I even had enough time to do them but still wasted it on places like HN.
I know. It hurts to let things die in my project backlog. But there's so much of 'life' outside the project log that I don't have time. I have to prioritize.
I feel the 'don't waste time on HN' thing. I'm working on it, minimizing social media usage, minimizing non-productive screen time.
AFAIK there are signatures that are checked at the SoC level. In other words, it's not a write lock that can be bypassed by flashing the chips directly.
I got a Steam Deck for my son. Docking it to an external monitor with mouse and keyboard in desktop mode is just running a nice desktop Linux with KDE Plasma by default. I showed him the basics and it's perfectly usable for his school needs. And he can still put it in his bag and play Skyrim on a train ride.
The Steam Machine is nothing special either and it’s being sold at a ridiculously price. I wouldn’t hold my breath on the Frame being affordable by any stretch of the imagination.
Yeah, the Steam Machine is pretty tough to justify against something like the Minisforum AtomMan G1 Pro, or indeed a smaller much cheaper mini PC that’s closer
to Steam Deck performance.
I think it’ll sell well though because of the form factor, Steam OS simplicity (and the size of many people’s Steam libraries), and the fact there are not actually many options with the living room friendly form factor and someway reasonable modern gaming performance.
The Frame on the other hand has no competition. I know I’m buying one. I hope it’s more reasonable but it could be a worse deal than a Steam Machine and… yeah.
Just like there is a market for high end cars, with the "community" aspect being sold as part of the package where you connect with owners of the same brand, there really should be a market for high end multiplayer gaming. Maybe Steam Frame will be that. Way fewer players, higher game cost, but experiences tailored to appeal to people who have the lifestyle that lets them afford a $10k headset + indoor space to play with it, rather than the high school broccoli heads that are high off their vapes most of the time.
As long as you're running Zuck's spyware OS. The frame is a a linux box with fancy packaging and peripherals. You will be able to put arch on the frame and turn your new singular hobby into building drivers.
My quest is currently sitting in a drawer because it refuses to play the games I already bought unless I "verify" my "meta account" - which they demanded I create in order to use the oculus locally - by uploading my drivers license. Which I, of course, refuse to do.
Last I checked you needed either a developer account or a jailbreak to load "whatever apk you want" onto the quest, and there didn't seem to be any jailbreaks around.
If this state of things has changed, please do share! I would love to be able to actually use the hardware I already paid for.
I do hope they will release drivers for the Steam Machine, otherwise the openness isn’t very useful. Or at least make it possible for others to make drivers by publishing specifications.
Edit, reply to bjord as I am rate limited: HDMI CEC, the chipset, GPU drivers, controller receiver etc.
Edit, reply to robhlt: Thanks! Hope we can get that ported to Windows
and it makes Steam Deck the best console ever made.
i picked up Darksiders 3 a few weeks ago to play on my deck. at some point i realized i was pretty underleveled but i didn’t wanna grind.
so, opened chatgpt in desktop mode and uploaded my save, asked it to write me a script to set my souls/xp/money to whatever number. it analyzed the save and spat out a bash/python script. after a chmod +x it worked flawlessly. done from bed took like 15 mins to figure it out end to end.
no other what other (handheld) console in history combines the depth of library, the slick console experience, and also lets you chmod +x.
a trainer takes more work and substantially worse security. i can code review 40 lines of shell+python at a glance cannot say the same for most general purpose trainers
It’s just hard for me to be impressed by one of the weakest entries from both a performance and image quality point of view. It’s all subjective though so if others do find it impressive, all the power to them.
I actually think the SW2 port is the most “impressive” handheld experience I’ve seen so far. Given its a superior experience “out of the box” as it were.
You write this on the forum where often in apple-based topics folks here defend locked down system ie on phones for themselves as something actually superior. Its often paid PR or folks to deep in the topic to have objective opinions (or simply employees/shareholders) but still, I've had that talk few times and downvotes were flying left and right.
I’m fine with both. My phone and my “console experience that’s more open than an xbox” are wildly different scenarios, for which I have different needs and expectations.
There are alternatives for both, if/when I ever want them.
So long as the developer pays the Apple Tax to have their code signed. Otherwise it will be marked as sus and the user has to go into Security, and manually allow the software to run. (alternatively, you can have them use the terminal to bypass setting the security bit). This is a step back from older versions that had an "Trust This Program" button right there during execution. And indicates a clear roadmap to ensure no unsigned code can run on OSX.
Apple could handle dev keys for free, if this was actually about security. But they don't because its another step on their road to locking down OSX like they do iOS and ensuring they make every platform developer pay their taxes.
Developers also can't access the biometric security features at all without an Apple dev account either. Even for my local software that I build for myself, I cannot use fingerprint unlock without an Apple dev license.
I don't really want to pay $100/yr to release free software for OSX, so I don't.
Probably because it's very niche. Talking to many friends, and an increasing number of posts on various console subreddits, there's lots of comments from PC gamers that embraced the console life due to it's simplicity. This has increased since the PS5 Pro released - "Close to PC-level graphics, without the PC-level costs and mucking around with settings"
There is a certain appeal to this for many people that hacking it to run your own OS isn't really sought after.
Kind of funny because most games on the PS5 Pro have performance tuning settings. It's not as comprehensive as you'd find on a PC game, but it's clear the console audience is also wanting to tweak how their game runs. And, for what it's worth, pretty much every new PC game has an auto-configuration that customizes the settings for the hardware on install. So you don't have to ever go into settings, so long as you're happy with the play experience the developer decided you should have.
That's true, but even the settings you can tweak are essentially a curated set to choose between higher res vs lower fps, or vice versa.
I think the other aspect is that when gaming on console, you know the game was optimized for a certain hardware config - not having to worry about whether the graphics card you bought a few years ago will net you the best experience on a recently released game.
It's just one less thing to worry about for many people, including myself.
> Nobody has even hinted that it would be nice to have a 3rd party store or the ability to run whatever OS on them freely.
If people are going through the trouble to defeat DRM, I would say that's more than a hint that people want the ability to run whatever OS on them freely.
Every console on the market right now is locked-down proprietary garbage, that's the basic reality. The PlayStation 5, the Xbox One, they are also technically x86 PCs as they run on x86 processors, but they are specifically locked down to prevent any use outside of their narrow use cases that are optimized to make them money. Valve is really the only company that's developing proper consoles with a custom operating system and custom AMD chips while not locking down the hardware, despite the strong incentives of locking people into paying them 30% forever and preventing access to competing game stores
Sure and maybe Google also subsidizes the Pixel phones because they'll make up for it with Google Play transaction fees. But what if I don't want something that's arguably illegal price dumping, and would rather pay a bit extra to actually own my hardware and be able to run what I want, even after it's discontinued? We don't get such an option.
Quickly more and more companies are adopting the model of finding ways to trap the user into continuously paying them more money after the sale, then locking down hardware and software to ensure the customer is properly trapped, and maybe price cutting their competitors a bit. The death of mobile computing is actively happening right before our eyes as Google completes the trap by restricting users ability to install apks. Ultimately customers end up paying more and having a shittier experience as a result of this.
I think it needs to be applauded when a company refuses to engage with this model and simply lets you own what you bought and paid for, and brings this idea to a market that has long been infected with lockdownitis. (Unfortunately in this case the price is not "a little bit higher", but what can you do when component prices have become crazy...)
The PS5 and Xbox are also very close to being an x86 PC, but you're not installing your own OS on there even though there are few technical hurdles if the manufacturer removed the mechanisms to prevent that.
1) Full compatibility with SteamOS. You won't have to fiddle with drivers/hardware/whatever to get it working[1].
2) The physical hardware is maximally condensed, more so than you'd be able to do yourself with a SFF build.
I'd have definitely considered this if I wasn't already doing my own SFF stuff. Gaming on the Deck is a delight and I'd love that console-esque experience for my primary gaming PC as well.
> I'd love that console-esque experience for my primary gaming PC as well.
So does the typical gamer who's not a nerd like GP. I'm not framing it as an insult, more like a reminder: we infamously ignore the power of brands and sensible defaults chosen for you.
The Steam Machine is the best of both worlds, yes, it is a plain PC and Valve is recognizing that. However, they are also selling a fully supported Linux gaming rig that plays many Windows games out of the box.
It supports HDMI CEC, it has a built in dedicated radio for the steam controller, it ships with Steam OS, and will receive support from Valve.
If you are comfortable building a custom PC and fixated on the spec sheet sure, it's not that exciting. But there are some rough edges with PC couch gaming that are sanded off with this machine.
The Xbox and PS5 are x86 but they aren't PCs. They are gaming appliances purpose built to run their respective purpose built operating systems. Without hacks, they don't do anything but only run code that's allowed to run. A Steam Machine is a PC. Yes, it's intended to run games (like any other gaming PC) but you can run whatever code you want on it.
Everyone loves to say the Xbox and PS4/5 are just like an x86 PC except for the fact they are missing a huge aspect of what makes a PC a personal computer. If the vendor locks you out of doing personal computing, it's not really a PC, is it? Refering to x86 as a PC is such an outdated way of thinking. I can go buy an ARM-based laptop and do more with it than an x86 console. Even an iPhone offers a more PC like experience than an x86 console. The Hubble Space Telescope runs a 486, does that make it a PC as well?
I think it's because if it was someone else (e.g. Epic), they would have locked down the hardware and sold it like a console or smartphone where you can only install things from their app store.
I don't think of HTML as low level, and I don't think that writing "high-level" web (whatever that is? React?) would be any faster to develop or produce better results for his example.
If you looked at the gov.uk page [1] that he linked, it is clean and readable. It doesn't look hard to me to make, and I don't think it is lacking functionality.
I'll grant that writing web-apps without a framework is going to be harder for many people (especially with all the fancy features that are expected now days), but that is not the point of this writing. This is an argument that the web (especially government services) should be usable on limited devices too.
What a depressingly elitist and exclusionary view. The modern web browser contains all the technology right there to make fast, maximally-accessible websites and even some “app”-like things, but nah you can’t be bothered, screw the less-fortunate. Would you want to “just go to a library” instead of use the device you already have? I strongly doubt it.
Public libraries are great and there should be a lot more of them and everyone should enjoy them, but they should absolutely not be a substitute for respectful, accessible web design and engineering. The elitism is that only people with the shiniest new devices should get to use your website on their terms.
You are either refusing to address the central point or your reading comprehension needs a lot of work. A premise of your original post was that libraries have newer devices than some users. I maintain that libraries should not have to be a fallback for your crappy website.
Right, and I’m positing that you don’t need to support 20 year old devices that receive zero updates because everyone has access to libraries in an absolute last resort.
There are limited resources when developing software. This is a pretty bad resource sink.
There are types of software for which I’d largely agree with you. Websites are not one of them: it takes effort or incompetence to make them slow and inaccessible.
My point is that websites are particularly amenable to being cheaply built in a fast and accessible way. I would say classes of, say, macOS apps are similar. Government certainly should be insulated from at least the market pressures that push websites into being slow and inaccessible. Competence is more a roll of the dice, I’ll grant you, but I’m not as pessimistic as you on that.
If we were talking about JS or Python or something, I’d agree with you. Most people just don’t have expert-tier knowledge of pure HTML, and even if they do, they’re slower to develop. I could get a feature out today to 99.9% of my desperate users, or I could get it out to 99.99% by waiting another two weeks. It just makes no sense. It has nothing to do with pessimism and everything to do with economics.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. There’s nothing “expert-tier” about plain accessible HTML, and with LLMs, there’s even less excuse. I’m not primarily a frontend web engineer and I can manage it.
Yes, I’m certain you can “manage it” despite not considering things like screen readers, page layout reversals, mobile responsiveness, working with legacy codebases that are 30 years old (when was the last time YOU had to update a site that simply must shut down every night for processing?), etc.
Everything looks easier from the outside. Maybe we should focus on getting private corps to provide a small amount of accessibility before forcing onerous requirements on our already-underpaid civil servants?
We're talking about governmental document-like websites with relatively simple forms here, not your particular legacy web app, there is no excuse for not getting them right. Gov.UK did. Plain HTML, used in a straight-forward way that is very clear from the approachable documentation on, say, MDN, is already responsive, readily consumable by screen readers, and works with any backend that already exists. If you have to fix a mess left by someone else you have my sympathy - I've been there too. But the original post is appealing to people who have a choice between plain, standard-use HTML, and any alternatives. And yes, I'm all for much harsher penalties for private companies that produce inaccessible web sites/apps too.
My home server has been running alpine for a while now. I'm always delighted with how simple and robust it is. Not that this is probably recommended, but I have a cron script that checks for upgradable packages every night and automatically installs them. It has always been seamless. My family uses this server throughout the day, and the only daytime down-time has been due to power outages. (In some way the reliability is an issue because it enables me being lazy with backup testing).
For a little home-server, I am in love with the KISS-ness of Alpine.
It gets attention in headless, but I've come to enjoy it on desktop as well. I've even got it on a Steam Deck and it's... 90% great. I do need to swap the kernel because the default one disables some modules (mostly the built in audio), but it's been surprisingly nice.
Agreed. It beats Arch and Void hands down IMO when I was looking for a no fuss simple and minimalist yet up to date and secure system after Slackware lost its way.
Can you to into more detail on your Steam Deck setup? I have a MSI Claw running Bazzite and I would love to look at some different options, especially Alpine.
It's really nothing special. Normal install, add KDE, in my case add flatpak (and associated portal, etc.) to run Steam, and I think I had to add sc-controller from testing/edge which you're maybe not supposed to do but it works and it's useful for mapping the controls. I can do a more detailed write up if it'd help but it really isn't that different from any other x86_64+UEFI machine. I will strongly suggest just wiping and repartitioning the whole disk; I tried to keep the SteamOS home filesystem intact and that just made things way harder than they needed to be.
We’re also on Alpine for our home server, and it’s been great. The major issue is that I refuse to use systemd, and therefore miss out on a lot of ‘assumed simplicity’ from projects that depend on it. I’m always having to find a work-around to do something that could’ve been easy. But the init and service system of Alpine is great to use compared to the systemd can of worms.
That is just what the (edited) title makes it sound like. The article states that Christopher Olah will be a speaker present at the encyclical release. It does not imply that he had any hand or influence in the content.
Well yeah, private companies influencing doctrine would be far more scandalous for believers I guess. The point is the church making connections with companies straight away, sidestepping heads of state.
The title seems to be editorialized. To me, it makes it sound like Christopher Olah (the mentioned Anthropic co-founder) is a co-author. Instead he is going to be one of several speakers present when the encyclical is released.
> Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, Magnifica humanitas, on preserving the human person in the age of artificial intelligence, will be released on May 25. A presentation event with the Pope and various speakers is scheduled for the same day at the Vatican.
Among the "various speakers" is Christopher Olah. But hard to express under 80 characters I bet.
“Claude, today you will be speaking ex cathedra …”
Actually I may try that as a prompt. Last week I was having git commit messages all be in iambic tetrameter to see if anyone noticed but it annoyed me to death after the first two.
Now to look up “load-bearing” in Latin, just in case.
As other commenters here have noted, I found this interesting but a little frustrating. The second color it asks about is clearly cyan (or turquoise). For me, this is like showing an orange screen and asking if it is red or yellow.
I understand that across cultures "orange" does not exist as a distinctly named color (it only got its name in most European languages around the 1500s), but as someone who was trained since preschool that orange is a distinct color, it would feel wrong to "round" it to red or yellow.
I haven't had green-cyan-blue drilled into me the same way as red-orange-yellow. So sometimes I do "round" it. I might note how "green" some cyan river water is, or call something cyan "blue" when it is next to something kelly green. But when I just have a screenfull of pure cyan light, I don't know what else to call it.
As a side note, I do wonder how differently a child would perceive color if they were taught more than 7 colors in preschool.
People are freaking out about this test like it’s some judgement of their character or something. I just picked “green” or “blue” without thinking.
The biggest problem here is that people have wildly uncalibrated monitors that often have color cast tints. I color calibrate my monitors and even my factory calibrated MacBook has a slight green tint.
People should also do hue differentiation tests like this one to see if they have any color deficiency: https://www.xrite.com/hue-test
> The biggest problem here is that people have wildly uncalibrated monitors that often have color cast tints. I color calibrate my monitors and even my factory calibrated MacBook has a slight green tint.
Even if anyone actually calibrated their screens, many cheap monitor panels are so shitty the calibration can’t help. I bought two 4K LG monitors at the same time and based on serial numbers, they’re likely from the same batch but LG likes to mix panels on their cheaper products. They have wildly different color spaces to the point where one swallows several points of grayscale*, which means I have to use the right monitor when viewing sites otherwise I lose the subtle gray-on-white that designers love so much.
I'd love to see a photograph of a 32 bit greyscale gradient on both. I wonder if some monitors with similar issues would not be able to represent the photograph properly.
You can do it on Linux but you need to buy a device you attach to your monitor. I have a Spyder X Pro but there are others.
It’s like $200 and it’s not worth it unless you do color sensitive work (photo editing, printing or video editing) and you have an expensive monitor or expensive laptop with good color support. Many monitors will fail so badly the calibration won’t be able to fix it.
But if you’ve ever had a lot of trouble trying to get colors to match when printing or between devices, it could be a godsend, although it’s only one of the many reasons colors might not match.
I wonder if photo stores might have the device, and if they would loan it. I'm surprised there is no method of calibration against common objects of known colour, such as Euro bills.
Other languages draw those boundaries in different places. For example, in Russian, light blue and dark blue are separate basic color terms (goluboy vs. siniy), so asking a Russian speaker to collapse those into a single category would feel just as wrong as collapsing orange into red or yellow does to us.
Cyan isn't a basic color term in English. So yes, the test is basically asking: if you had to assign this color to one of the basic English categories, what would it be?
The frustration you're describing is kind of the point. With something like orange, English gives us a clear category, so "rounding" feels wrong. With cyan, it doesn't, so people end up splitting it differently.
The person you were responding to said that cyan feels like a completely different color to them, neither green nor blue. I had the same reaction when it gave me a color that I immediately identified as teal, and I learned my colors as a monolingual english speaker in Ohio. Therefore the supposition that all English speakers see only blue or green is an oversimplification.
I didn't say that English speakers only see blue or green. I said that those are the two basic color terms that cyan is in between, and cyan isn't a basic color term and thus collapses to one or the other if categorized under basic color terms. Same goes for teal.
With all due respect, you're one individual and basic color terms for a language are not determined by a single individual. If you look at usage via proxies like Google ngrams[1] or Google trends[2], cyan barely registers, which suggests it hasn't really shifted to a basic color term.
But its frequency still rose by over 300x since the start of the chart, which might suggest that for some people it is a basic color term.
"English" isn't one monolith. Every English speaker speaks their own version, some closer to each other than others, and new features are constantly being added or removed.
The further you have to narrow down the set of speakers for whom it's a basic color term, the less of a basic color term it is for English as a whole. We don't have to have this argument about e.g. orange.
Thanks, this seemed obvious to me too. But I would add, this could apply to orange too - there are a lot of orange tones between yellow and red, and if you likewise wanted to determine your subjective boundary, which this is only about, you would be able to say "rather red for me" or "rather yellow for me", regardless of the intermediate color. Since the space of colors can be described as convex, so to speak, you can between every two arbitrary colors determine your subjective decision boundary, regardless of any color in between. The premise is just accepting to ignore those colors.
I'm a Russian speaker, but I've never thought of goluboy and siniy as separate colors, unlike blue and green. To me, goluboy and siniy are like pink and red; just different shades of the same color.
> Other languages draw those boundaries in different places. For example, in Russian, light blue and dark blue are separate basic color terms (goluboy vs. siniy), so asking a Russian speaker to collapse those into a single category would feel just as wrong as collapsing orange into red or yellow does to us.
I don't know. I am a russian speaker and for me light blue (goluboy) is simply a type of blue.
While "orange" did not exist as a single word in most languages, already in Old English or even in Latin or Ancient Greek one could find mentions about things that were "red-yellow".
Moreover, in ancient languages there were very few words that designed just a color, with no other meaning for the word, but it was very frequent to use words derived from the names of various things, which meant "of the color of the X thing".
For instance it was frequent to say that some things were "of the color of fire". Most likely this was intended to say that they were orange. For red objects one would have said "of the color of blood", while for yellow objects one would have said "of the color of sulfur" or "of the color of gold". "Of the color of saffron" is also likely to have meant "orange", though saffron may have many hues, from reddish to yellowish, depending on how it is prepared.
> Moreover, in ancient languages there were very few words that designed just a color, with no other meaning for the word, but it was very frequent to use words derived from the names of various things, which meant "of the color of the X thing".
Isn't this how things are still today? For example "orange".
> Isn't this how things are still today? For example "orange".
Well, it's true that that's how we got the color term "orange".
It's not true that words that refer specifically to a color, as opposed to metaphorically referring to the color of the noun that is the primary meaning of the word, are rare. They're not rare in modern languages, and they also aren't rare in ancient languages. Your parent comment is mistaken.
I was having a discussion closely related to this recently because of my background in philosophy of language. Languages are functional, but not rigid. The rules and referents of "blue" become kind of pointless around the edges, and narrow words like cyan or turquoise -- even words borrowed from other languages -- are more functional. This is exaggerated further when the functionality becomes very important, which is where technical jargon starts to come into play. Languages should useful to the speaker; they do not define the constraints of the speaker. "Blue" is useful for the average English speaker, but completely useless for a graphic designer.
For different brains, the answer has to be no because the images you see are a "neural net" construction and if that neural net differs then the "image" you see is different
There is a cognitive science research group in japan that looks into this kind of problems [0]. They made a similarity judgement task, and construct embendings using it, which is basically a similarity structure in some vector space.
[0] Is my "red" your "red"?: Evaluating structural correspondences between color similarity judgments using unsupervised alignment https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40124475/
I was talking about something a little more empirical. Like, literally, does my g-protein consist of exactly the same amino acids chained together in the same sequence, and folded identically? Some minor mutations don't always make the protein non-functional, not all would result in color-blindness. I thought this was the basis for tetrachromats anyway, just with a different protein (and a more significant mutation).
Same with "firmware". If our brains process the data differently, then our actual perception might vary in (eventually, I would hope) real-world measurable ways.
The current use of "cyan" for blue-green is a modern confusion caused by people who have used Greek words without bothering to check their true meaning.
In Ancient Greek, "cyan" was blue, not blue-green. More precisely, it was the color of the pigment "ultramarine blue", which has remained widely used until today. The name of this pigment was already used by the Hittites, long before the Greeks.
An example of a Latin author who distinguished consistently green, blue-green and blue in many places is Pliny the Elder.
Blue was referred to as the color of the sky or the color of the blue pigments used in painting, like ultramarine blue.
Green was referred to as "green like grass", "green like tree leaves" or "green like emeralds".
Blue-green was referred to as "green like the littoral sea", "green like turquoise" or "green like beryls".
This is especially obvious in the discussion about emeralds and beryls, which are identical but for their color, the former being green and the latter blue-green.
Similarly, in Latin "red" was used for both red and purple, but the two colors were distinguished as "red like crimson dye" (beetle-based dye) and "red like purple dye" (snail-based dye).
> current use of "cyan" for blue-green is a modern confusion caused by people who have used Greek words without bothering to check their true meaning.
This is a misunderstanding of how language works. Words don't have any "true" meaning. A word exists to convey an idea from a speaker to a listener. If at that moment the intended meaning is conveyed, that is the word's true meaning at that point in time.
When I say "cyan" and a listener pictures a light color whose hue is around 180° similar to the sky on a clear day, then neither one of us is confused and the correct information has been transmitted from one brain to another.
Whether some long-dead Greeks would have used that same blob of phonemes to convey a different spectral idea is irrelevant. When you said "turquoise", but did you mean to convey "from Turkey"? When you said "beetle", did you mean to convey "little biter" or an insect? Probably not.
There is no doubt that confusions are the origin of these English words.
It is extremely unlikely that any of those who introduced these words in English chose intentionally to use them for other things than for what they had been used for millennia.
For a modern user, it is no longer a confusion to use such words in their currently widespread sense. When speaking to others, I also use such words with their current meaning, in order to be understood.
Nevertheless, it is good to know their original meanings, especially when reading older texts, which may use those meanings. I have seen a lot of ridiculous claims about texts written in the Antiquity, or even about some texts written a couple of centuries ago, where those who had read those texts had been mislead by believing that the words had the same meaning as in modern English.
Especially about the colors known by ancient people, e.g about the Ancient Greeks, there have been many fantastic theories, e.g. that the Ancient Greeks did not know blue or brown, when already in the Iliad of Homer there are a lot of instances of words meaning "blue" (= "the color of the ultramarine blue pigment") or "brown" (= "the color of burnt wood").
Someone has downvoted this, despite the fact that what I have written is not an opinion, but just facts.
Because I have seen on HN extremely frequently downvotes that just show that the downvoters are ignorant about what they downvote. I stopped a long time ago to downvote comments.
Now I either upvote when I agree and otherwise I write a comment explaining why I disagree.
It would have been better if others had followed such a policy.
Perhaps the downvoter had something to say about "cyan", but this is indeed only one example of a long list of Ancient Greek words that have been borrowed into English during the 19th and 20th century, but which are used with incorrect meanings. Most likely this is due to the fact that those who have introduced these words did not study the Ancient Greek language and they also did not consult anyone knowledgeable or any good dictionaries. Another example of this kind is "macro" used as an opposite for "micro", i.e. as "big", while the true opposite of "micro" is "mega" = "big", while "macro" means "long", the opposite of "short" ("brachy" in Ancient Greek).
It is not an incorrect meaning, it is that meaning of the word in English is different. What it meant in ancient Greek or in 1805 is not relevant to what it means today.
Words meanings shift over time in all languages. And when languages take sounds from other languages, they also regularly shift their meanings.
Awful – Literally "full of awe", originally meant "inspiring wonder (or fear)", hence "impressive". In contemporary usage, the word means "extremely bad".
Just because we can - and should - understand what people mean when they use words wrongly, doesn't mean that words don't have correct meanings. That makes the world poorer, for no benefit at all.
>As other commenters here have noted, I found this interesting but a little frustrating. The second color it asks about is clearly cyan (or turquoise). For me, this is like showing an orange screen and asking if it is red or yellow.
This, it commonly gets reposted on reddit and the colorblind sub, but it's basically worthless because most people acknowledge that there is a color between blue and green and forcing them to choose one or the other doesn't give you any valuable information.
>For many people, there is no difference between blue and green at all!
That's sorta not true, it's just a quirk of language development. If they only have one word that covers both, they use additional words to describe the actual shade they're talking about.
Of these, the only language that I know a bit about, in Chinese 青 (blue/green) is the older word and nowadays used less than the more modern 蓝 (blue) and 绿 (green), but actually 青 is still used a lot in specific phrases, and I prefer to think of it as the "colour of things in nature" - so a blue sky would be 青, a blue/green sea would be 青 and a field of lush grass would also be 青. That aspect also comes through in how it's used metaphorically, in the senses of youth or vitality.
This is the same character that's used for Japanese traffic lights when foreigners find it funny that they call obviously green lights "blue".
Fun fact: Japan's traffic lights actually do use a blue-green color; it's not the same green that most countries use. ("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.")
The latter tests were all a bit pointless because they were just turquoise, and all looked much the same - a mix of blue and green, so I was pretty much answering based on whether it was bluer or greener than the previous image.
The results said "Your boundary is at hue 179, bluer than 82% of the population. For you, turquoise is green." and definitely if I was judging the boundary on a gradient, I'd have placed the line a bit further to the right.
Yes, the structure of the test is designed to produce a fake result based on a spurious premise.
It wants to do a binary search in the color space to find "The Boundary" between your personal concept of green and your personal concept of blue.
No such boundary exists. If you abandon the idea of binary search and just present a bunch of similar colors in no particular order, you'll get more realistic results, which look like "you called color x 'blue' x% of the time, and 'green' (1-x)% of the time". You could even display a grayscale histogram of the blue-green continuum according to the odds of any particular point on it being labeled "blue" or "green". That would be fun.
Yes, very annoying, we know from extensive work in psychometrics that single-item, binary / forced-choice items produce junk responses that are heavily contaminated with response styles (answer in most socially-desirable way, select closest response to mouse/finger, select same response as last time, select random response, etc). Just give people an out ("Diagree with the question / premises", "Prefer not to answer", "Unsure / Can't decide", etc) and make sure you have e.g. a 5-7 point Likert-type scale for multiple items, or up to an 11-point scale for single items.
This kind of site / demo does none of the above, and so can't even be trusted for directional effects (the direction of response may simple be due to the type of people responding, etc).
My daughter was watching Blue's Clues. They were doing color combinations (red + blue = purple, yellow + blue = green, etc). They then also did a further step, blue + green = cyan, and did green + yellow = chartreuse. Now maybe its my male engineer brain, but I haven't heard of that color in 36 years, but it does make sense and it is rather distinct.
I think using violet as a name for the entire color-range around (~128, 0, 255) is also common. So in a sense purple is an element of the violet color-range. But as points they are distinct. I think purple is more specific - as a color-range it'd cover less area.
Cyan isn't between green and blue, at least not completely. If you take green and blue, you won't be able to represent a good chunk of cyan hues. It feels greenish and blueish, but is neither, and is broader than any combination of the two, which is partly why some bright cyan objects (like the bird eggs on Wikipedia) look kind of unnaturally intense. Those eggs are a bright, slightly blue-leaning cyan.
That went from a fun, interesting experience, to wondering if this is how SCP 3125 was going to get me, as the entire screen seemed to become a wild glowing green long after the animation likely ended.
funny thing is that I would have said cyan was blue going into this, but the outcome had me classifying the boundary at "more blue than 93% of the population" -- meaning that I classed cyan as green when asked, without even remotely questioning it.
Except you can reject the very (stupid) question / framing, in which case, the response is to either close the tab, or respond in a particular response style, neither of which makes the data more informative. This kind of clumsy stuff is just dumb with what we know now, edutainment distraction for the HN crowd.
There was a time when there were no separate names for blue and green in the Japanese language. Some languages right now have concepts of fundamental colors like navy blue and light blue, where English rolls it into a single "blue". Naming colors is highly cultural and changes over time. The idea that colors have boundaries is fascinating from both psychological as well as linguistic perspectives.
The framing seems stupid if you take the naive perspective that your language's way of dividing colors is the only valid one. Exercises like this and discussions that follow help expand perspectives.
I mean, that's the whole point of this exercise. In reality there is no hard line between green and blue, and if you make someone pick, their line is going to be entirely subjective, and different than others.
That's like saying there's no hard line between e.g. white and gray, or even white and black if we take it to an extreme. And that is accurate, if you slowly shift between the two then people will claim a transition at slightly different points, but it's entirely meaningless because it's (getting back to the blue/green example) not like anybody is going to insist 'no that's blue!' or 'no that's green!' It's obvious that it's intentionally ambiguous and so any pick at such a point is going to be largely arbitrary with little attachment held by anybody.
Actually people will definitely insist on "no that's blue" or "no that's green." My husband and I have frequent disagreements about a specific shade of blue/green. I think it's blue. He thinks it's green.
I had a similar reaction at first, but I also realized that the point isn't to literally say "if someone asked what color this was, I would say blue or green" but "do I consider this 'more blue than green' or 'more green than blue'". With the idea of color as a spectrum rather than a discrete set of values, it's reasonable to ask whether a given shade falls closer what you'd consider one value or another. Even though I don't consider cyan to "be" blue, I do consider it closer to blue than green, in the same way that I consider magenta to be closer to red than blue. This is entirely subjective though, and at least personally I find it fun to see the variety of perceptions people have!
Red vs orange vs yellow is not the same as green vs cyan vs blue though. Red and orange and yellow are the same distance on the color wheel as green and blue and purple, so you could do this same thing with red/red-orange/orange or the orange to yellow spectrum exclusively.
I have no idea when the words entered the languages, but I find it quite interesting that the color Orange in Thai is literally the color of the fruit (สีส้ม) whereas in Hungarian it is the same fruit as a shade of yellow (narancssárga).
Like, I'd be interested to see if where my boundaries between blue and cyan, or cyan and green, are compared to the rest of the population.
But there's a whole other color between blue and green! A color that is primary under the subtractive CMYK model.
And it's an even bigger difference than with orange, because while red and yellow are 60° apart on the color wheel so that orange is 30° from each, blue and green are a full 120° apart on the color wheel, with cyan being 60° from each. So it's actually even worse -- it's as bad/nonsensical as showing yellow and asking if yellow is red or green.
That's very funny to have my exact reaction present in the first comment, I was thinking "that's turquoise" but I do also feel like turquoise is green, like you'd call the Copenhagen copper domes green, and the word verdigris comes from green
There are no "cyan-receptors" on your retina so it's not a cultural thing, it's a bio-physics one.
Plus as many mentioned the calibration of you display has propably a way higher impact on this than anything else.
Not only that but once you pick green or blue it's going to skew your results in that direction. I got a higher level of blue as my result but it's only because that's what I picked since I had to pick one of them.
This makes me realize that one of my formative childhood experiences was seeing the Crayola 64 crayon pack and thinking "huh, I guess there is NO limit."
I’m aware of cyan, of course, but it never occurred to me while doing this quiz, because the point was clearly to choose between blue and green. Of course there’s cyan, turquoise, teal, sky blue, etc., but the point is to make the potentially difficult choice between only blue and green.
Also, as it happens, I feel like cyan is just not really in our everyday vocabulary if you’re assigning colors to everyday objects. Maybe it’s because it’s rare to see something truly that bright and saturated. I feel like in practice I would end up just saying “blue-green” more than cyan, turquoise, teal, etc.
> As a side note, I do wonder how differently a child would perceive color if they were taught more than 7 colors in preschool.
Just as all other modern schooling, the teaching of colors is done deliberately order to dumb down children and starve them from their natural ability to learn.
A child will learn at least dozens, if not hundreds of colors, if they are allowed to and taught. This has a real impact, because unless you learn this, it can be very difficult as an adult to be able to actually see the difference between colors.
But instead idiots make toys with only simple prime colors, and even playgrounds. Even though children themselves prefer more diverse and interesting color schemes.
Although after a few dozen color names, I think children are more benefitted by learning more about color theory such as physical paint mixing, digital mixing like RGB and HSL, and physical light effects on colours.
It's almost like color is a spectrum of light and we just arbitrarily slice it and decide "this has a name" because we are finite being who demand order from things that are not ordered and then demand further order from that order and get REALLY mad.
I would struggle to have to choose between only the words "red" and "yellow" to describe orange colours. Except for the orange fruit. I'm happy calling those yellow.
> Though it may seem comparably ridiculous that 700MB is small in 2024 when DSL was 50MB in 2002...
It really depends on what you are looking at. This is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison, but OpenWrt happily works with 16MB of disk space, and can go down to 8MB if you squeeze it. It includes a modern Linux kernel, shell, networking stack, ssh server, package manager, text editor, web server with dynamic pages, etc...
Part of it's trick is that it aggressively pares down the hardware support, such that you normally download an OpenWrt image customized to your exact router. But of course the biggest difference is that it doesn't include a graphics stack or any GUI applications.
I work in embedded Linux, and its a whole different world here of trimming the fat on Linux to keep the BOM prices low. But you'd be surprised how lean we can get it.
https://wiki.batocera.org/systems:windows#folder_compression
reply