Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Louvre makes its entire collection available online

collections.louvre.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 215 posts

Re: Louvre makes its entire collection available online

#181

Post by cloudfifty »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #179
anoncake wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no evidence for that. Markets don't randomly stop working because you tax people – they would be quite useless tools if they were that fragile. > Generally interfering with social processes through top-down cookie cutter measures leads to negative unintended consequences, because the rationale behind said intervention is based on an overly simplistic understanding of a highly complex system. If my understand…

There is plenty of evidence for that, that economists have documented for nearly a century. For example, there is a very strong negative correlation between government spending, as a percentage of GDP, and economic growth: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/upl... And no markets will not "stop working". They'll work less effectively. >>If my understanding of the system seems highly simplistic, i…

> The evidence speaks for itself.

Not really? There are other countries than the US which have had a significantly larger government (as well as higher taxes), or so called mixed-economies, that did just fine or even great?

It seems rather bad faith to omit such glaring examples when trying to prove a point.

As a side point, there's a discussion to be had regarding economic growth and GDP. Those measurements don't measure the well-being of a society, just economic activity. So we have countries with much lower GDP per capita but much also happier.

Re: Louvre makes its entire collection available online

#182

Post by cstejerean »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #170
ridaj wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because that one is a copy of the original (still old, but ~100 years posterior to Da Vinci's). According to https://www.pop.culture.gouv.fr/notice/mnr/MNR00265 its last known owner was Friedrich Welz, an Austrian gallery owner, so the work must have come to Paris postwar to figure out whether it needed to be restituted to a previous owner. The original Joconde is https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl01…

Sorry, just to clarify. "The" Mona Lisa - or at least the picture presented as such - in the Louvre, in Paris, is not the actual picture but a later copy by a different artist? There's nothing on Wikipedia suggesting that, based on a skim, it says: >It had been believed to have been painted between 1503 and 1506; however, Leonardo may have continued working on it as late as 1517. It was acquired by King Francis I of…

I was similarly confused at first. But it looks like the Louvre has two versions, the original by Davinci and this other copy by an unknown artist.

Re: Louvre makes its entire collection available online

#183

Post by goblin89 »

capableweb wrote: post #64
Hjfrf wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can sell Jack's tweet right now. That's a bigger issue than Jack being able to sell it multiple times.

You can. Is it the same? No. Just as it's not the same if a random person tries to sell movie props from famous movies, compared to if the person actually being in that production in the first place.

What? If they sell verifiably the same physical prop, then what's the difference?

Jack's tweet doesn't become counterfeit if Hjfrf sells it, it's non-figuratively and verifiably the same exact tweet.

Re: Louvre makes its entire collection available online

#184

Post by [deleted] »

cloudfifty wrote: post #181
CryptoPunk wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is plenty of evidence for that, that economists have documented for nearly a century. For example, there is a very strong negative correlation between government spending, as a percentage of GDP, and economic growth: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/upl... And no markets will not "stop working". They'll work less effectively. >>If my understanding of the system seems highly simplistic, i…

> The evidence speaks for itself. Not really? There are other countries than the US which have had a significantly larger government (as well as higher taxes), or so called mixed-economies, that did just fine or even great? It seems rather bad faith to omit such glaring examples when trying to prove a point. As a side point, there's a discussion to be had regarding economic growth and GDP. Those measurements don't me…

[deleted]

Re: Louvre makes its entire collection available online

#185

Post by cloudfifty »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #179
anoncake wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no evidence for that. Markets don't randomly stop working because you tax people – they would be quite useless tools if they were that fragile. > Generally interfering with social processes through top-down cookie cutter measures leads to negative unintended consequences, because the rationale behind said intervention is based on an overly simplistic understanding of a highly complex system. If my understand…

There is plenty of evidence for that, that economists have documented for nearly a century. For example, there is a very strong negative correlation between government spending, as a percentage of GDP, and economic growth: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/upl... And no markets will not "stop working". They'll work less effectively. >>If my understanding of the system seems highly simplistic, i…

Update to your edit:

> Which countries?

Which countries would you pick yourself as counter-evidence?

> If ever you've lived in a country with low per capita GDP, and seen how ordinary people have to struggle so much more to afford to meet basic needs, you'd see why.

Alright, that just an anecdote with some added feigned care of the poor. It's already clear that this won't go anywhere.

> But it's a very very good measure

It's not, and that was acknowledged by even the "inventor" himself.

A GDP growth of 2-3% per year is also deeply unsustainable, doubling the economy every few decades can't continue.

Update 2:

> Norway

> But anecdotes are not as important as large datasets, and large datasets show a strong correlation between small government (relative to GDP) and high economic growth rates.

Hmm? A statement saying that a large government (and likely high taxes) inherently causes a bad outcome doesn't need a long-term graph to be falsified. Scandinavia is sufficient, even much of western Europe on top of that.

>>>feigned care of the poor

>> It's always good to assume that the person you're interacting with might be debating in good faith, and know things you don't.

Just saying that The Free Market believers aren't famous for their concern for the poor or inequality, so it sounds pretty false given both your link to "Institute for Market Economics" and your comment history:

> "the alliance between rent-seeking labor unions and the Democratic Party"

> "when the US was still a free market where people had a sacred right to freely contract."

> "How is the freedom to engage in profit-motived activity exploitation? The whole principle behind the free market is that all interactions have to be mutually voluntary in order to be legal."

The latter is the most obvious example of not caring for the outcomes of the Free Market on the poor.

Re: Louvre makes its entire collection available online

#186

Post by dorkwood »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #176
dorkwood wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can costs upwards of 200 dollars to mint an NFT, and it's quite common to see artists who have minted several NFTs but not sold anything yet. I'd say the likelihood that poor people are being harmed is quite high.

Those are temporary growing pains as demand for Ethereum block space exceeds supply, and will be solved with the ImmutableX NFT-focused zkRollup, which will increase Ethereum's maximum throughput from 15 NFT transactions per second to 8,000: https://www.immutable.com/

How temporary? I can't find a timeline on their website.

Re: Louvre makes its entire collection available online

#187

Post by mattkevan »

Arech wrote: post #174
mattkevan wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made a list of museums, galleries and libraries that make their collections available in the public domain with high resolution downloads. A lot of places, even if their collections are out of copyright only have low resolution images available. https://www.kevan.tv/articles/the-best-sites-for-public-doma...

Nice, but wouldn't an "awesome list"-like page on GitHub be more manageable and update-friendly?

Possibly, but it’s all on and managed by GitHub anyway. https://github.com/MattKevan/kevan.tv/blob/master/_articles/...

Re: Louvre makes its entire collection available online

#188

Post by pbhjpbhj »

cstejerean wrote: post #182
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, just to clarify. "The" Mona Lisa - or at least the picture presented as such - in the Louvre, in Paris, is not the actual picture but a later copy by a different artist? There's nothing on Wikipedia suggesting that, based on a skim, it says: >It had been believed to have been painted between 1503 and 1506; however, Leonardo may have continued working on it as late as 1517. It was acquired by King Francis I of…

I was similarly confused at first. But it looks like the Louvre has two versions, the original by Davinci and this other copy by an unknown artist.

I knew that, but, I see where the error is now.

The OP posts saying ~'why does _the_ Mona Lisa image say this' and then the responder doesn't explicitly correct them: the linked image is not _the_ one but one of the copies, a copy that's also in the Louvre collection.

Aside, Wikipedia says it's been "on permanent display" in the Louvre since Louis XIV; not quite right, perhaps they meant part of the permanent collection.

I'm interested that Wikipedia claims it had no special renown until pretty recently, yet there are several high quality copies. Is that consistent?

Post reply on HN