Ephemeral is developing tattoo ink designed to disappear after a year • Hacker News Board

Re: Ephemeral is developing tattoo ink designed to disappear after a year

#131

Post by aristus » Tue, May 10, 2016, 3:50 PM UTC

cafard wrote: post #127

aristus wrote: post #37

Long long ago I was a tattoo artist. With very careful needle adjustments, color choices, and a steady hand, this is already possible with conventional inks. Simple example: white ink is titanium oxide, basically sunscreen, and breaks down rapidly with exposure to UV. But you are still gonna have scarring and roughening. If you're gonna get ink, be prepared to have it for life. Also, testing on pigs? Like, live pigs?…

A friend's daughter does tattooing, and from the friend I heard that apprentice artists work on pigskin. I had imagined footballs, but no, this is obtained from slaughterhouses or butchers. Anyway, I guess that footballs aren't made of pigskin.

Pigskins, oranges, old shoes, dumb friends... :)

But they are talking about tattoos that fade because they are broken down by a biological process, which makes me giggle picturing Arnold The Pig with "Born 2 Trot" on his hock.

Re: Ephemeral is developing tattoo ink designed to disappear after a year

#132

Post by aristus » Tue, May 10, 2016, 4:13 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #128

aristus wrote: post #37

Long long ago I was a tattoo artist. With very careful needle adjustments, color choices, and a steady hand, this is already possible with conventional inks. Simple example: white ink is titanium oxide, basically sunscreen, and breaks down rapidly with exposure to UV. But you are still gonna have scarring and roughening. If you're gonna get ink, be prepared to have it for life. Also, testing on pigs? Like, live pigs?…

Titanium dioxide does not break down in the presence of UV. Any fading would likely be from migration.

You are correct. Tattooists aren't known for their biochem chops.

Re: Ephemeral is developing tattoo ink designed to disappear after a year

#133

Post by TrevorJ » Tue, May 10, 2016, 5:02 PM UTC

ChristianBundy wrote: post #47

aristus wrote: post #37

Long long ago I was a tattoo artist. With very careful needle adjustments, color choices, and a steady hand, this is already possible with conventional inks. Simple example: white ink is titanium oxide, basically sunscreen, and breaks down rapidly with exposure to UV. But you are still gonna have scarring and roughening. If you're gonna get ink, be prepared to have it for life. Also, testing on pigs? Like, live pigs?…

> Also, testing on pigs? Like, live pigs? I'd pay money to see that. :) Disgusting and shameful behavior, I can't believe that attitudes like this still exist.

Why? They are testing if the tattoo fades or not, there's really no chance of adverse effects. The worst thing that happens is a pig has a permanent tattoo.

Re: Ephemeral is developing tattoo ink designed to disappear after a year

#134

Post by cname » Tue, May 10, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

solipsism wrote: post #25

Oh good, even more barbed wire biceps, carp sleeves, black fore-arm stars, "tribal" patterns on white dudes, spiderwebs, hummingbirds, infinity symbols, and other ways for people to show how eager they are to express their "individuality"! Edit: Down-vote me if I offend your tattooed rebellious self-image, it's fine, but there's a real point to be made. This technology will lead to a lot more tattoos, and a lot more…

I wonder if you show this kind of disdain toward all types of fashion--like the clothes you yourself wear--or just toward certain things you likely associate with "hipsters" or some other easily-disparaged group?

I'm not sure I would have downvoted your original comment, but your edit about "rebellious self-image" seems uncalled for. Not everyone is trying to be rebellious all the time.

Just thinking out loud here... I wonder what would happen if we all stopped being so superficially judgmental and making nasty comments about people based on assumptions. Maybe people would actually end up making better choices on the whole because of a lack of pressure and there being nothing to rebel against.

Re: Ephemeral is developing tattoo ink designed to disappear after a year

#135

Post by tehrei » Tue, May 10, 2016, 6:03 PM UTC

PeCaN wrote: post #62

ChristianBundy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, testing on pigs? Like, live pigs? I'd pay money to see that. :) Disgusting and shameful behavior, I can't believe that attitudes like this still exist.

Can't blame someone for finding pigs getting tattoos quite amusing. :-) You know full well that it's not a big deal and you're just making edgy comments for the sake of edgy comments. For fuck sake dude, it's a pig. If you actually care about living things, do something about the slave labor used to source raw materials for the computer you wrote that on. I'm going to guess your conviction is about living creatures i…

People aren't animals. They're capable of self-saving.

Re: Ephemeral is developing tattoo ink designed to disappear after a year

#136

Post by dang » Tue, May 10, 2016, 7:27 PM UTC

solipsism wrote: post #130

wpietri wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not calling you names. (That would be "You are a dick.") It's describing your behavior. "Being a dick" is a term of art. For many years, Wikipedia had a useful page called "Don't be a dick": https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Don%27t_be_a_je... They've more recently renamed it "don't be a jerk", so if your delicate sensibilities can't handle my original comment, feel free to read it as "jerk". In…

Grow up, man. It's unbelievable you'd spend your time arguing that "don't be a dick" isn't name-calling. This is third-grade material. Imagine what the teacher would say to a student making this argument... and apply it to yourself. Maybe take a step back. Someone expressed an opinion you didn't like, but one that didn't attack anyone personally. You proceeded to immediately call that person a dick -- oh, sorry, you…

Your comments have been breaking the HN guidelines in quite a few ways. Please stop posting personal attacks, going on about downvoting, being snarkily dismissive, and posting comments with no substance in them.

Yes, calling you the d-word was also against the "please don't call names" rule (at least arguably).

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

Re: Ephemeral is developing tattoo ink designed to disappear after a year

#137

Post by dang » Tue, May 10, 2016, 7:31 PM UTC

hoodoof wrote: post #100

aristus wrote: post #37

Long long ago I was a tattoo artist. With very careful needle adjustments, color choices, and a steady hand, this is already possible with conventional inks. Simple example: white ink is titanium oxide, basically sunscreen, and breaks down rapidly with exposure to UV. But you are still gonna have scarring and roughening. If you're gonna get ink, be prepared to have it for life. Also, testing on pigs? Like, live pigs?…

Do the pigs have beards and skinny jeans on? Perhaps ear piercings with giant holes? Hipster hogs.

You've posted a lot of unsubstantive comments to HN. Please don't do that. We're hoping for a higher signal/noise ratio here.

Re: Ephemeral is developing tattoo ink designed to disappear after a year

#138

Post by pyre » Tue, May 10, 2016, 10:07 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #95

pyre wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic doesn't work because the two acts are not necessarily equal. Let's take another example: Would you equate the following items? - Torturing an animal to death for fun. - Killing an animal quickly and eating it. They both end up with the animal being dead. Does that mean that they are equal and that you can't find one "disgusting and shameful" but not the other?

I wouldn't equate those two, no. But it's also worth mentioning that it's common in the natural world for prey to spend hours dying (and more rarely, days or even weeks). The idea that a 'natural predator' death means a quick death is a myth. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

Using that as an excuse for (or in defence of) your own actions is akin to saying "he's doing it, so why can't I?" though.

Re: Ephemeral is developing tattoo ink designed to disappear after a year

#139

Post by pyre » Tue, May 10, 2016, 10:11 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #109

pyre wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is specious logic. You're saying that anything up to, but not including, getting eaten alive is ok because "it could always be worse."

It's only specious if your interpretation is correct. > Getting a tattoo isn't even close to the worst thing that can happen Isn't the same as "it's ok"; or "anything up to" (the distance is mentioned, implying it might be relevant to context).

I'm not sure you would find anyone in agreement of a defence of the Iraq War that was along the lines of "It could be worse, just look at the Holocaust!" Pointing to something else and saying "it could be worse" isn't a defence of the actions in question. It's something along the lines of "passing the buck."

Re: Ephemeral is developing tattoo ink designed to disappear after a year

#140

Post by solipsism » Tue, May 10, 2016, 11:02 PM UTC

cname wrote: post #134

solipsism wrote: post #25

Oh good, even more barbed wire biceps, carp sleeves, black fore-arm stars, "tribal" patterns on white dudes, spiderwebs, hummingbirds, infinity symbols, and other ways for people to show how eager they are to express their "individuality"! Edit: Down-vote me if I offend your tattooed rebellious self-image, it's fine, but there's a real point to be made. This technology will lead to a lot more tattoos, and a lot more…

I wonder if you show this kind of disdain toward all types of fashion--like the clothes you yourself wear--or just toward certain things you likely associate with "hipsters" or some other easily-disparaged group? I'm not sure I would have downvoted your original comment, but your edit about "rebellious self-image" seems uncalled for. Not everyone is trying to be rebellious all the time. Just thinking out loud here...…

Thanks for your comment, and fsociety's as well. More substantive and well thought-out than my original comment.

I admit I'm annoyed by a lot of fashion. Obviously I wear clothes -- not only are they practical, I wouldn't function well in society without them. But I'm annoyed by the way some people seem to go so far out of their way to brand themselves part of some particular subculture. This takes many forms. I'm annoyed by die-hard Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, meat-eaters, vegetarians (the die-hard ones who use it as yet another tribe to be a member of.. not anyone who eats meat or doesn't), punk rockers (it's my favorite kind of music, but the attire at a punk show is much less individualistic than that of the general public), bumper stickers, etc. And when this homogenization is sold as being rebellious or individualistic, it annoys me even more.

I could go on at length about why I have a problem with homogeneity and why it's a little more than simple annoyance, but I suppose I've lost my chance. I could go on at length about how important I think it is for every person to express hisself/herself however he/she chooses, even if it happens to annoy me, but this is also not too relevant. Most people probably wouldn't agree with me, but that's hopefully okay in the marketplace of ideas.

My original point, which was understood by basically no one (this is my fault, of course), was that I feel this technology would lead to more of homogeneity, which I would consider a bad thing. I said it poorly, and then acted poorly afterward as well.