The thought that creating a safe, lasting red pigment could be sufficiently difficult as to be worth millions or billions of dollars is astonishing. To all the people who've made my world possible, I apologize for my apathy, and I'll do better.
It's my understanding that it was a badge of the senate, so wearing it would be like impersonation of a senator. Or worse, impersonation of the Emperor.
Snail Milker isn't a job one hears much of.
Many people will have heard of Lydia from the New Testament of the Holy Bible, who is referred to as a seller of purple, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_of_Thyatira.
A haute couture gown might cost $100k. It’s not apples to apples but that’s still a difference of 10,000X.
They make them by hand (by choice), and of course use the best materials, but a cashmere shirt at H&M is very cheap. Brands are priced out of reach of common folk, but materials and types of clothing aren't.
Is that right? I seem to think it was a myth and there was never such a law (at least enforced).
It doesn't seem to say much about actual enforcement, other than the lack of it for Louis XIII's decrees, and the repeated (and apparently ineffective) calls for stricter enforcement of the English laws.
Add to this that social status confers power and vice versa, so even if a rational king doesn't care for bling personally, he ought to wear something exclusive. Not just be cause displaying bling enhances his status and hence his power. But also because enforcing the sumptuary laws displays power, which confers status, which enhances his power etc.
My thought is that money helps covering the Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Social status is present only in the upper half of it. This should mean that people may care about money but not yet about status. (And as a fun fact, the causes that leads to a "rat race" are harder to ignore as one climbs down on the same Maslow's pyramid, which at least in theory means that it should happen less for social status than for other things.)
Note, by the way, that there is also esteem from being similar to others who like you, and esteem from meeting an absolute standard that others might or might not match too.
The one's purchasing for social status are regarded as wasting their time generally (and speaking from personal experience).
Is the house what they actually need or what they think they should have based on their social status?
I used to feel like that, but as I grew up I realized that social landscape is also part of the environment, so there's utility to be gained by being mindful of what you signal with your clothes or other status symbols. A suit, for example, might not be the most comfortable thing to wear, but can help you navigate the job market and acquire support of other people - in the same way a good pair of mountain shoes can help you navigate rough terrain.
But to the extent that people are caught in a rat race, then I say it is rarely about money itself except as a means to social status. And as in my example of the rational king, even people who do have it together, need to play the status game in some form.
Sounds silly when you type it out.
I think I can argue that the level of fondness for power that we're talking about does not bring comfort, as it is the result of paranoia. It's from the inabilty to be comfortable with the world; not from a want to change it (which is a symptom).
To believe that more and more power (and money) is going to somwhow finally fix things is clearly a fool's errand of Sisyphean proportions.
I want to live in a world without rat race, corruption, power hunger, etc, but being old enough to realize that it just takes a few to abuse everyone else, I don't know what safeguards need to be put in place first, for that to be possible.
Helping other people itself requires a certain kind of power. If you have no time or resources to spare, your good cause isn't going to get very far. If you have no ability to influence other people with power to help, your impact is limited.
I'm pretty sure you have the causality backwards here. Status symbols exist to show off that you have money. If someone shows off status symbols but everyone knows they don't actually have money, they'll be seen as a poser, not a clever social hacker.
In Impro, Keith Johnstone talks about status being the most important thing actors add to make their scenes instantly "life-like". Status is everywhere in our lives yet most of us ignore it--we know it happens but we don't like to think about it. It's only when you try to recreate life on the stage that you realize, oh shoot, people are all about status.
Among the cosmopolitan elite, conspicuous consumption is considered utterly gauche; status in this subculture is demonstrated through knowledge of art and culture, through holding the right political opinions and being up on the right trends. Those same cultural status symbols would mark you as low-status in a conservative rural community.
A high-status advertising executive instantly becomes low-status if they're in a room full of hackers or conceptual artists, because their status is denominated in the wrong currency - they're just a sell-out. The symbols of their economic status actively undermine their cultural status. In certain circles, driving a Mercedes and wearing Armani are symbols of a life wasted in the corporate machine.
All status symbols are relative and context-dependent.
Regarding the causality, I disagree with you andrewflnr. For instance, jewelry is older than money and there are even statuses in nonhuman circles.
I admit that it's debatable, but I think the value of money comes from the power it gives (you buy other people's time and stuff) but status can do the same and has a more permanent feel (it doesn't deplete linearly, unlike money spent). That's why in some communities, the local priest / doctor teacher is still considered more important than wealthier merchants / land owners. That's why Trump is more powerful than many wealthier billionaires.
(Hundreds of years ago, important signals would be clean skin, clothes and hair. Not to mention your accent, language proficiency and general knowledge. Today these are mostly affordable commodities.)
(The article only mentions mummy brown briefly so Ctrl+F for it if that’s the only part that interests you. Personally I think the whole article is worth reading.)
"Everything around you that you call life, was made up by people that were no smarter than you"
So ... most things were created by creatures with equal computing power as you.
but it stalled (apathy/time). well kinda - i have recently worked out how the measuring the moons distance worked - aristarchus over 2000 years ago got heliocentric and distances - impressive.
Just working through how we got here, the technology and the inventions, and you do see the fragility of all we have.
I also recommend The Knowledge by Lewis Dartnell, and How to defend your castle by William Gurstelle, and there is a youtube channel "primitive technology" which is kind of amazing if not wholly down this road
That prompted me to spend more time considering the intentions behind something first, and as a result understanding came much quicker. This applies especially well in computer sciences, but it extends to all things man-made. Even beyond that if you're religious, I guess.
I've never for a moment given God all the thanks he deserves for what He's given me. Color is one easy example - what a wonderful, beautiful gift that I've not thanked Him for, for the vast majority of my life. I constantly fall short of giving Him the honor he deserves.
my comment is quite directly related to this expression by OP
>but this comment is a reason why religion is not useful. This reply could be used as a response to any comment and adds nothing useful at all.
this is fallacious reasoning. Particularly affirming the consequent to my eyes (If religion is useless, religious comments are useless. this religious comment is useless, therefore religion is useless)
I hope you'll stay to discuss this topic (and others!) but I think you may get a better response from a more worship-oriented forum. Good luck!
All human cultures throughout history, humans have believed in some concept of God. The idea that the unexplained can be explained with an omnipotent, omniscient, infinitely-powerful being. Usually it’s based on some human form. It brings humility that there is still so much we can’t do and don’t know.
Just as numbers become so large that we can’t fit it in our heads, we attribute the symbol infinity for such numbers, God is a natural concept for the human mind.
I assume for most in HN, their idea of the infinity is the universe operating by the laws of physics, making the experiencable universe possible.
>For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Thank God for Christ, to redeem us from our lack of thanks and honor to God!
In response to that rule, another artist created the pinkest pink and a competing black ... available for anyone in the world to use -- except Kapoor:
How a corporate spy swiped plans for DuPont’s billion-dollar color formula -- https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-stealing-dupont-whit...
Semple's feud with Kapoor is similarly gimmicky. He described his Pinkest Pink (and the ban on selling it to Kapoor) as "like a piece of performance art".
Yes. Kapoor eventually got his hands on some of the Pink, and he published a photo of him sticking his middle finger in the pigment.
Semple then created a new pigment called Diamond Dust which contains pieces of broken glass. The whole purpose of Diamond Dust was "I dare you to stick your finger in this!".
From another article 
> One toy to watch out for? “Lego bricks from the ‘70s and ‘80s are the big fail,” Andrew Turner, the study’s lead researcher, told the BBC.
> Roar Rude Trangbæk, a spokesperson for Lego, told The Sun that in regards to hazardous elements, the company “phased that material out back in 1979 to 1981.”
Apparently its both yellow & red bricks. From a forum post  about the phase-out:
> Not much information has ever been given out by TLG in regards to the switch from LEGO "with" Cadmium to LEGO without it, except that TLG switched over to Cadmium free LEGO in 1973. However, that doesn't really say a lot. Just look at the switch from old gray to new gray that started in 2003. It took many years for the switch to be complete (old gray elements were still found in LEGO sets for many years). So a 1973 switchover likely only means that the Bayer Corporation stopped sending TLG red and yellow plastic pellets. As for what was still in the TLG inventory.... my guess would be that it continued to find its' way into LEGO sets for several years until the supply of old red/yellow pellets was finally depleted.
Makes me a bit wary to pass those down to my kids.
If the kids are old enough not to put legos in their mouth and choke on them and can be encouraged to wash their hands before meals, I wouldn't worry too much, personally.
It took Lexus ~15 years to develop "structural blue", a colorless paint that creates blue light using this structural interference. The making-of video is pretty amazing, and definitely worth watching.
This was all I could really find, unfortunately...
This is absolutely worth a read, and the less than 5 minutes to watch the video.
I'm not sure what the "Structural Blue Edition" cost (my guess is the range of $10K - $30K premium), but it's still far from the most expensive car paint jobs -- Porsche's "Liquid Metal Silver" for the 918 Spyder (created by BASF) was a $64,000 option (where the aluminum flakes arrange themselves in a specific way during application), yet there's been crazier stuff offered than that.
Moonstone sometimes exhibits red-orange coloration due to its structure of alternating layers of different types of feldspar. Opals do the same thing but by water-filled fractures inside a group of quartz spheres. We can synthesize both so making a structural red should not be difficult.
(Once you know this you'll suddenly start to see how a disproportionate share of red cars have failing paint -- particularly after sometime around the early 1980s when the use of Cadmium pigments started to fall out of favor for most uses.)
I believe this has largely been remediated by using a clear coat over solid colors. Older cars had single-stage paint for non-metallic colors, so there would be nothing on top of your nice red paint to protect it. Modern clear coats typically block UV light, so the color should last much longer (long enough that your car will be all scratched and swirled well before the color fades).
But on the other hand, some dyes diffuse into certain plastics very easily, and then never come out. It depends on the chemistry.
The only pigmented clothes I am aware of are "dirt shirts" that are infused with strongly colored soil. The reddish orange color is undoubtedly iron oxide, and they will fade with every washing, because there is no binder to keep the pigment attached to the fiber.
PS: I think I’ll call him up tomorrow
YInMin blue is stupid expensive. A typical oil paint sells for between 13 and $60. One company trialed YInMn, and asked for $200 per tube to use up their samples, as I recall.
Take a look at their review.
No, that's far more than people can DISTINGUISH, but we can certainly see them all, and printers can reproduce them. In fact, monitors (even the new higher-gamut monitors) can't cover the full range of human vision, so there are plenty of hues we can see that monitors can't make.
As a bonus or most famous sausage is called "Falukorv", it's also red.
I'm not really qualified to quantify the toxicity of metals, but the chemists I've known are usually very careful when they have to work with manganese.
Ultimately, what typically matters is how a molecule interacts with the body, not necessarily how each component interacts. By that measure, Cyanide (which is just carbon + nitrogen) ought to have no ill effect, while cuprous oxide ought to be poisonous.
Water purification tablets often contain potassium permangante. And that's safe to drink!
> Raised in Chennai, on the southeastern coast of India
> After getting his doctorate in chemistry at the Indian Institute of Technology at Madras
Madras is just the colonial name for Chennai, which is currently the name of the city and the capital of the sate - Tamilnadu.
Wonderful article, we've taken the colors for granted; Subramanian didn't and I'm glad that it has rewarded him.
"Madras" above is part of the institute's name and it would take an amendment of the IIT act to rename it but I don't think it will happen.
Supposedly Crayola's "Bluetiful" color was inspired by YInMn but it's not made with the material.
Because if that's all there is to it, then what's to stop me from experimenting to find the best proportions and personally violating any patents, for my own DIY projects?
It's amazing what random facts you pick up wherever.
Not quite true. The colour gamut of most (in not all) displays is much smaller than the gamut we can see.
The easiest example I usually give is with blacks-- computer monitors just can't reproduce the absence of light well.
> Red 254, aka Ferrari red, for example, is safe and popular, but it’s also carbon-based, leaving it susceptible to fading in the rain or the heat.