71–80 of 116 posts
Short version: the photograph is only the second verified image of Billy the Kid. Verification of it required an in-depth analysis, including finding where the picture was taken.
I wish the article had gone into more detail about what the verification process is like.
If you had bought this picture for $2 later to find out it's worth $5,000,000, would you feel an obligation to share some of the proceeds with the shop from which it was purchased?
Lottery tickets are not a parallel, given that it's luck of the draw that determines the value of the ticket. At the time of purchase, the ticket is worth exactly the price of the paper it's printed on.
Here's a better, less extreme but real example. I just purchased a mandolin from a seller of vintage guitars. Paid $750, and were I to be patient I could probably get $1200 out of it. I have no plans to sell it, as I bought it to play, but let's supposed six months down the road I do sell it. Do I send a spiff back to Jimmy's Vintage Guitars? Nope. Jimmy admittedly doesn't know jack about mandolins. Jimmy didn't even get the model right, even though sixty seconds on Google would tell you the one easily-seen distinguishing feature that says it's a Gibson A-50 and not an A-40. I don't feel bad for Jimmy, because if he's going to take stuff to sell, he should know what he's selling because it's his business. Jimmy better have a big pile of "Vintage Instruments Value" books on the shelf, and know how to use the internet. I also assume that whether he obtained by trade or cash, he felt he got an acceptable deal when he took the instrument. So even though I got a bargain, Jimmy came out okay, too.
Now, I'm not a total bastard. Were I to find, say, a 1923 Gibson F5 at a yard sale for $50, I'd give the person $500. Two reasons for that: such an instrument is worth several thousand dollars even in rough shape, and I don't expect a person selling Grandpa's mandolin at a yard sale to have any idea of its value. They're not in the vintage instrument business, they shouldn't be punished (too much) for not knowing what they're selling. They get 10x what they were asking, and I still get a steal, everyone goes home very happy.
In the end, someone got lucky and it wasn't the person that sold the picture. I might very well kick back a little to the original seller, but I most certainly wouldn't feel obligated to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Already happened. Consider peafowls as an extreme examples, but there are many other animals displaying so elaborate patterns that the most reasonable explanation seems to be that someone in the past long gone was playing around with embedding vector displays in DNA.
>the most reasonable explanation seems to be that someone in the past long gone was playing around with embedding vector displays in DNA I think you're confusing reason with Star Trek. Elaborate, repeating patterns can emerge from any number of random or chaotic processes, that doesn't mean an intelligence tried to encode something in it. And even if it were plausible, given the amount of DNA we've studied by now, th…
I still sometimes forget that on HN, humour tags are obligatory. ;).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the most reasonable explanation seems to be that someone in the past long gone was playing around with embedding vector displays in DNA I think you're confusing reason with Star Trek. Elaborate, repeating patterns can emerge from any number of random or chaotic processes, that doesn't mean an intelligence tried to encode something in it. And even if it were plausible, given the amount of DNA we've studied by now, th…
I know. That was meant as a joke. I still sometimes forget that on HN, humour tags are obligatory. ;).
TIL that "senior numismatist" is a job title. It's consistently amazing how incredibly specialized our modern economy is.
You must have pretty specialised knowledge to look at that photo in the junk shop and say to yourself, "You know, that might be Billy the Kid. I should get this appraised."
Now imagine, sometime, somewhere, someone got a written manuscript from Plato, or the Buddha, or another figure and just used it to make fire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know. That was meant as a joke. I still sometimes forget that on HN, humour tags are obligatory. ;).
Hacker News has apparently destroyed my ability to tell...
BTW. You mentioned Star Trek, actually that (IMO) pretty ridiculous episode with holographic messages hidden in DNA was on my mind when I wrote the original comment...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whenever something like this comes up (item bought at flea market and the like sells for millions), this question or similar gets asked. But why is that? The purchaser bought the photo at $2, which is what the store priced it at or was willing to part with the item. That's the only obligation the purchaser had. Pay the store money.
I think you're right: there's zero legal or moral obligation to share your fortune with them. But I understand why this idea comes up. Put yourself in the shoes of the "junk shop" (from article) owner or flea market vendor. We're not talking about a high-end antique store. The seller is likely not wealthy. They're going to be devastated that they let this opportunity slip through their fingers. A tip or kickback of,…
If you had bought this picture for $2 later to find out it's worth $5,000,000, would you feel an obligation to share some of the proceeds with the shop from which it was purchased?
Whenever something like this comes up (item bought at flea market and the like sells for millions), this question or similar gets asked. But why is that? The purchaser bought the photo at $2, which is what the store priced it at or was willing to part with the item. That's the only obligation the purchaser had. Pay the store money.
I'm not suggesting any sort of obligation towards the junk shop; it's an interesting thought exercise of where one draws the line when there's a knowledge gap between buyer and seller, particularly one involving six orders of magnitude difference in value.