Vegetables are a social construct.

I don't know if this is what the parent poster was talking about, but color pickers in many programs present you with a cubic representation of their available color space. The default Windows color picker does nowadays as does Corel. Maybe Adobe too, but I haven't used any Adobe software in years so I don't know how they do it now.

Since computer monitors suck at truly displaying three dimensional information ^[citation^ ^needed]^, you're presented with a rectangular slice of a cube. Here's the Corel color picker, for instance:

The X axis is saturation, the Y axis is intensity, and the "depth" or Z axis is hue, which is controlled with the little slider on the bottom. As you move the slider up and down your "viewpoint" of the slice moves up and down through the depth of the cube, essentially representing it in 256 little vertical slices (or however many based on your bits-per-pixel).

Despite being the graphics nerd that I am, I can't tell you off the top of my head how this cubic representation is flawed, although computer monitor color rendition itself is inherently flawed because most color spaces probably can't actually fully represent all the colors that normal human vision is capable of differentiating, but what the hell do I know. Browns and oranges are famously difficult to reproduce with only red, green, and blue, the usual three additive colors available to you. The cube map itself, at least, gives you a spatial method by which to select any of the 16581375 possible RGB values actually possible an 8 bit per pixel format, even if the methodology for presenting them all to the user might not quite make intuitive sense.

You can also do cubic map of only hues, with each axis in the cube corresponding to red, green, or blue, like this one courtesy of Wikipedia:

They've killed so many child processes, oh god, the blood

Oh wow that was a deep rabbit hole. So if I've understood correctly, by super determinism, the outcome of the big bang has more influence on the measurement of particles than particles have locally with one another.

If two particles are entangled, "independent" measurements to verify this are contaminated by their causal connection to the big bang, which will still give readings that the particles are entangled.

Or, if I have a bag with an orange and an apple, I throw one at random to Alice and one at random Bob, Alice catching an orange has nothing to do with Bob catching apple, but more to do with the which side of the bag the apple was leaning on in the bag initially?

Is that right?

Holds up a triangle and nods

inhales smoke
But I'm retired chief, I jus can' parley so good no mor