> It has been suggested that the thieves knew their art history: the method of the theft was an ironic homage to the 1911 theft of the Mona Lisa from the Louvre.
In both cases, the thieves unscrewed the painting and took it. Feels a bit over the top to call it an homage, let alone an ironic one.
I laughed out loud at this part, perfect Aussie humour:
“Chilean Australian artist Juan Davila painted a work titled Picasso Theft and offered to donate it to the National Gallery of Victoria in place of the stolen painting. Davila wrote that "mine is a real one".[25] Davila's Picasso Theft was exhibited in the Sydney Avago Gallery, and then itself was stolen.”
Being regularly confronted with wretched special screws, there are all kinds of ways to get them out. The usual go-to tool is one designed to unscrew stripped screw heads.
Just the other day, I was confronted with a security screw that instead of having 4 flutes on it (Phillips head), it had 3. I just drilled it out.
It very well could have just been Torx back then. I remember opening my original 128k Mac in '85 or so to do the 512K memory upgrade, and a weird specialized screwdriver (Torx) was required to open the case.
And n64 cartridges and cases. And snes too I think.
Another trick is to melt a plastic pen with a lighter and stick it on the screw and wait for it to cool.
Some more details from the Apollinaire wikipedia page:
> On 7 September 1911, police arrested and jailed Apollinaire on suspicion of aiding and abetting the theft of the Mona Lisa and a number of Egyptian statuettes from the Louvre, but released him a week later. The theft of the statues had been committed in 1907 by a former secretary of Apollinaire, Honoré Joseph Géry Pieret, who had recently returned one of the stolen statues to the French newspaper the Paris-Journal. Apollinaire implicated his friend Picasso, who had bought Iberian statues from Pieret, and who was also brought in for questioning in the theft of the Mona Lisa, but he was also exonerated. In fact, the theft of the Mona Lisa was perpetrated by Vincenzo Peruggia, an Italian house painter who acted alone and was only caught two years later when he tried to sell the painting in Florence.
Only if it's a proper heist. I don't need more guys just walking in and taking something like they're shoplifting a candy bar. I need guys meticulously planning and executing a theft that dodges the very latest in alarm and anti-theft technology.
Taking the discussion seriously, a case study of a well-planned heist that culminated in someone walking in at the right time and just taking the thing could actually be pretty interesting.
Right, all of these amateurs wanting to spend all this money on special glass cutting tools, rappelling equipment, bypassing alarms, or even some Ocean's 11 EMP ridiculousness when you just need a ~$10 tool and a big pair of brass ones to pull it off.
Every now and then, topics on HN are being brigaded by (among others) such accounts. But to do that effectively, you need to build a sizeable amount of accounts with some karma, and I think that's what is tried here with an LLM.
In both cases, the thieves unscrewed the painting and took it. Feels a bit over the top to call it an homage, let alone an ironic one.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/password-louvres-video-...
>2014 cybersecurity audit performed by the French Cybersecurity Agency (ANSSI) at the museum's request
“Chilean Australian artist Juan Davila painted a work titled Picasso Theft and offered to donate it to the National Gallery of Victoria in place of the stolen painting. Davila wrote that "mine is a real one".[25] Davila's Picasso Theft was exhibited in the Sydney Avago Gallery, and then itself was stolen.”
Why bother with measures such as alarms and security cameras when you have the Super Secret Screws!
Just the other day, I was confronted with a security screw that instead of having 4 flutes on it (Phillips head), it had 3. I just drilled it out.
https://www.ifixit.com/products/mako-driver-kit-64-precision...
Kinda pricey, but well worth it.
> In 1911, Picasso and his contemporary Guillaume Apollinaire were both suspects in the Mona Lisa theft
> but were cleared of any association with the crime
being dead is quite a good alibi
Maybe I'm misreading either TFA or your comment, but both Picasso and Apollinaire were alive in 1911?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Picasso https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Apollinaire
Some more details from the Apollinaire wikipedia page:
> On 7 September 1911, police arrested and jailed Apollinaire on suspicion of aiding and abetting the theft of the Mona Lisa and a number of Egyptian statuettes from the Louvre, but released him a week later. The theft of the statues had been committed in 1907 by a former secretary of Apollinaire, Honoré Joseph Géry Pieret, who had recently returned one of the stolen statues to the French newspaper the Paris-Journal. Apollinaire implicated his friend Picasso, who had bought Iberian statues from Pieret, and who was also brought in for questioning in the theft of the Mona Lisa, but he was also exonerated. In fact, the theft of the Mona Lisa was perpetrated by Vincenzo Peruggia, an Italian house painter who acted alone and was only caught two years later when he tried to sell the painting in Florence.
Given the circumstances, it probably should have been...
But then again, this has a happy ending. The painting was returned undamaged, nobody's hurt. Cool read.
Also artworks can still be enjoyed post-theft through replicas etc.
And if the artwork is returned, as in this case, it's just a big win all round. Creating a new performance artwork in the process.
Compared to growing psychedelic mushrooms, I don't think so.
Although you could argue the law is not the best arbiter of mortality.
Functioning societies need every rule and law tested, and retested continually for suitability.
Last time I was very suspicious about the discussion, was here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45809866 Lots of comments from new-ish accounts.
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=alan-jordan13 This one has been shadowbanned, for another example.
But to have an account that just automatically replies with obvious LLM answers? I don't see a point to that is what I'm saying.