_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
URI 10 Years of Pomological Watercolors
dfex wrote 1 hour 31 min ago:
Read this as pornological. Came away disappointed.
winstonrc wrote 3 hours 8 min ago:
Thanks to your collection, I had an absolute blast going down a silly
rabbit hole of compression.
URI [1]: https://www.winstoncooke.com/blog/rotation-based-compression/
anothernewdude wrote 3 hours 24 min ago:
What on earth is Pornological about these?
Cerium wrote 2 hours 12 min ago:
Bad keming joke?
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomology
snug wrote 4 hours 4 min ago:
I was scrolling the page looking for links so I could see them all,
until i realized the links were just slightly in bold, rather than a
different color and underlined. Would be good to highlight the links a
little more on your site.
Awesome work either way!
thisisparker wrote 3 hours 48 min ago:
good shout, I think some recent typography changes made the bolding
more subtle on mobile. I've pushed an update underlining them and it
should be live momentarily!
snug wrote 2 hours 14 min ago:
Ahh yes, much better
__mharrison__ wrote 5 hours 10 min ago:
I think I'm going to print a few of these for my office. Thanks
thisisparker
biker142541 wrote 7 hours 49 min ago:
Oh wow, it's been a decade! I remember this, and was excited to see
these released. Nice work!
This actually inspired me to go out and start (slowly) cataloging
mostly historic 100+ yr old landscapes that were locked behind mostly
non-US pay-to-access (cough British museums cough), and write a flurry
of emails to institutions encouraging uploading high res versions. I'm
contemplating a project to put historic paintings "on the map",
depicting their geographically represented locations (when applicable),
giving a window into the past. Maybe I should circle back on this
effort to get more paintings released...
CodeLikeHell wrote 2 hours 8 min ago:
I would absolutely love to see that project come to fruition.
interroboink wrote 8 hours 1 min ago:
If anybody just wants to download the hi-res images, Internet Archive
is your friend: [1] You can have fun with 'em since they're public
domain (:
Note 1: The metadata, such as title, author, etc. seem to be missing.
If anyone knows of a collection with all that included, let me know
(it's not in the EXIF either, I spot-checked).
EDIT: aha! Here is metadata, which you can correlate to the image
files: [2] Note 2: I saw this in the MARC catalog record:
Use of the images in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Pomological
Watercolor Collection is not restricted, but a statement of
attribution is
required. Please use the following attribution statement: "U.S.
Department
of Agriculture Pomological Watercolor Collection. Rare and Special
Collections, National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, MD 20705"
URI [1]: https://archive.org/details/usda-pomological-watercolor-collec...
URI [2]: https://github.com/Wumms/pomological
msla wrote 7 hours 7 min ago:
I wonder how the USDA can demand anything regarding images created
well before the copyright cutoff of 1929. I strongly suspect that's
boilerplate text with no actual force.
biker142541 wrote 2 hours 2 min ago:
Oh definitely no force behind it, but just annoying to see. These
kinds of issues don't exactly block usage, but can plant a lot of
confusion or hesitation for potential users.
I wish agencies proactively embraced "please go use this awesome
stuff" mentality vs gatekeeping by default.
biker142541 wrote 7 hours 22 min ago:
I'm also noticing there is no explicit license on the official page.
If it's public domain, attribution is not required. If it is not
public domain, they should clarify the license (pretty sure this is
indeed public domain).
Ambiguity like this is way too common...
interroboink wrote 7 hours 16 min ago:
Yeah, agreed it's weird.
For another data point, this catalog.data.gov site[1] lists the
license as "us-pd" (ie public domain in the USA). But then yeah,
like you said the attribution demand is invalid.
URI [1]: https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/u-s-department-of-agricul...
thisisparker wrote 8 hours 50 min ago:
Blog post author here! Always happy to see people looking at and
reading about these paintings. Happy to answer any questions or job
offers people here may have!
schoen wrote 1 hour 43 min ago:
Hey Parker, congratulations on your NYT daily crossword publications!
I solve the Daily every day and have been impressed to see your work
there a number of times now.
parkerhiggins wrote 6 hours 56 min ago:
incredible, impactful, and authentic read!
thisisparker wrote 6 hours 50 min ago:
lol thank you other Parker Higgins, always a pleasure to run into
you here
biker142541 wrote 7 hours 21 min ago:
Echoing the same thanks! I have used as well personally as technique
references and in several projects directly.
ksherlock wrote 7 hours 36 min ago:
Thanks for your work. I used one of the pomo pictures in a project a
few years back.
namanyayg wrote 9 hours 10 min ago:
Became friends with Parker during my time at the Recurse Center. He's
even more obsessed (in a good way) and funny in person! Glad to see his
post on the top of HN.
esquivalience wrote 9 hours 43 min ago:
> " This was my first ever project in Python, and in many ways, the
start of my life as a programmer. The domino effect here is a little
mind-boggling for me."
I can certainly relate to this. I started scripting for very obtuse
reasons, and quickly started seeing things everywhere which I could
apply a little code to and improve my life.
smidgeon wrote 9 hours 50 min ago:
Nice apples.
DrillShopper wrote 9 hours 50 min ago:
There's a related story from the USDA about these:
URI [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44287019
sorokod wrote 10 hours 1 min ago:
Thank you Parker Higgins, these are quite lovely.
DIR <- back to front page