But what you're replying to isn't talking about whether colours are "invented," just whether Disney did it. It also discusses the article, with its full nuance, not just the headline.

So what exactly are comments for, if discussing aspects of the submission are off-limits?

What did I come in expecting? A specific shade that was A/B and panel tested and perhaps shown in eye-tracking studies to minimize the attention drawn to objects painted in that particular shade. A family of colors makes more sense (because there isn’t any one right answer for all scenes), but it’s still not an “invented color” - and notice that I’m not quibbling about the “invented” bit by saying it’s been used before or it was always there but they just discovered/names it.

Guess I'm not smart too.

I think it might be important not to assume that everyone thoughtfully scrutinizes the details in publications.

But this touches on something I now notice daily on HN and elsewhere that “smart” people congregate: a dangerously weak empathy for what’s actually “typical.”

While colors are not "invented", there use and application is material/situationally dependent. Vantablack is absolutely an invented "color" since it's use requires both the color and material application. Disney's painting of these buildings with a specific color, finish, and properties is not much different.

I just can't make my brain accept that vantablack is an "invented" color. It's not even an unusual color. It's black.

It's the other material properties that set it apart and qualify for the term "invented", not the color.

For instance, you can have a flat blue and a glossy blue that are the exact same color.