←back to thread

Paper cuttings made by 17th-century schoolgirls discovered beneath floorboards

(www.smithsonianmag.com)
210 points benbreen | 5 comments | 23 Jul 24 04:33 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lholden ◴[27 Jul 24 06:04 UTC] No.41084741[source]▶
My mom lived in a historical house when she was a kid in the 60s. Since then, the house has become a museum. There are a lot of "artifacts" on display that "came from the 1800s" that are actually just toys my moms brothers made. My mom got a good laugh about it when she took me to visit the place.

I'm sure these finds must have dated in some way to verify the authenticity, but I always think back to seeing my uncles toys on display as if they were historical artifacts when I see stuff like this.

replies(3): >>41084811 #>>41084973 #>>41085586 #
bdjsiqoocwk ◴[27 Jul 24 06:31 UTC] No.41084811[source]▶
Has your mom got in touch with the museum to tell them that, so they can improve? If not why not?
replies(2): >>41085135 #>>41119839 #
hsbauauvhabzb ◴[27 Jul 24 08:02 UTC] No.41085135[source]▶
It’s not their mothers responsibility to correct their incompetence, or (imo) more likely negligence and information falsification.
replies(2): >>41085229 #>>41085585 #
bdjsiqoocwk ◴[27 Jul 24 10:19 UTC] No.41085585[source]▶
A) I didn't say it was their responsibility

B) I don't wanna assume malice where incompetence will do

replies(1): >>41086382 #
hsbauauvhabzb ◴[27 Jul 24 13:16 UTC] No.41086382[source]▶
If you walked into a old house and found a random toy, would you automatically assume the toy is as old as the house?
replies(1): >>41086534 #
bdjsiqoocwk ◴[27 Jul 24 13:40 UTC] No.41086534[source]▶
If you saw something broken that's not your responsibility would you fix it?

I know the answer in your case, but believe me that a lot of people would.

replies(2): >>41089609 #>>41091148 #
1. EnigmaFlare ◴[27 Jul 24 21:56 UTC] No.41089609[source]▶
With his rhetorical question, he's saying it must be malice because no museum operator would be that incompetent. They're actively making a false claim to their customers. They could have just not said anything about the age of the toys since they know they didn't verify it. I think you can see this must be the case since you didn't answer his question.

In my country, if a business makes a factual claim about its products, it has to have already verified the correctness of it to some reasonable level and have the documentation so show that. There's no room for this "oh, I just assumed it was true because I'm incompetent" excuse.

replies(1): >>41090031 #
2. bdjsiqoocwk ◴[27 Jul 24 23:12 UTC] No.41090031[source]▶
> you can see this must be the case

What I can see is the case is that you're both way too confident in your inferences for a bunch of mind readers. Why not just call them up and find out? Oh right "not my job".

And btw "no X could be that Y" last time I heard that line was in a sitcom.

replies(1): >>41091150 #
3. hsbauauvhabzb ◴[28 Jul 24 04:05 UTC] No.41091150[source]▶
If you care so much, why don’t you call them?
replies(1): >>41094449 #
4. bdjsiqoocwk ◴[28 Jul 24 17:08 UTC] No.41094449{3}[source]▶
Because I don't have their contact.
replies(1): >>41099433 #
5. hsbauauvhabzb ◴[29 Jul 24 10:53 UTC] No.41099433{4}[source]▶
Is that another way of saying “not my job”?