7
points
pwg
Joined 16,183 karma
- As far as creating a click bait title, yep, the editor knows what they are doing, and most likely picked the word for the click bait factor.
But I'd also bet the editors technical knowledge of how this "revelation" of the hidden material really works is low enough that it also appears to be magic to them as well. So they likely think it is a 'hack' as well.
- No, it is not. But given the abysmal lack of technical knowledge of the "typical computer user" they don't see the redacted PDF's as "having black stick-it notes stuck on top of the text". They see the PDF as having had a "black marker pen" applied that has obliterated the text from view.
When someone then shows them how to copy/paste out the original text, because the PDF was simply black stick-it notes above the text, it appears to them as if that someone is a magical wizard of infinite intelligence.
- The journalist writing the story has the same level of technical knowledge about how to "redact" properly in the digital realm as the individuals doing the redaction. To the journalist, with zero knowledge of the technical aspects, viewing the "redacted" document, it appears to be "redacted", so when someone "unredacts" it, the action of revealing the otherwise hidden material appears to be "magical" to them (in the vein of the Arthur C Clarke quote of: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic").
To the journalist, it looks like "hackers at work" because the result looks like magic. Therefore their editor attaching "hacks" to the title for additional clickbait as well.
To us technical people, who understand the concept of layers in digital editing, it is no big deal at all (and is not surprising that some percentage of the PDF's have been processed this way).
- > Why would anyone want to buy a new computer now unless the old one is worn out? There is no price/performance improvement.
Which is exactly why MS is pivoting to begging you to buy a new computer by harassing you with an apparently undismissable "upgrade" dialog.
They have to keep the upgrade treadmill running, and lacking "better performance" as the bait, they have resorted to outright harassment.
- The reality is that the ratio of "total websites" to "websites with an API" is likely on the order of 1M:1 (a guess). From the scraper's perspective, the chances of even finding a website with an API is so low that they don't bother. Retrieving the HTML gets them 99% of what they want, and works with 100% of the websites they scrape.
Investing the effort to 1) recognize, without programmer intervention, that some random website has an API and then 2) automatically, without further programmer intervention, retrieve the website data from that API and make intelligent use of it, is just not worth it to them when retrieving the HTML just works every time.
edit: corrected inverted ratio
- This sounds much like a post hoc justification for having not bothered to go to the effort to implement the ability to allow anyone (power users or otherwise) the freedom to customize the "app" to their liking.
- > if anyone knows anyone over at Google, could you ask them to please stop doing this
It will do no good. "DoubleClick"'s (what Google is now, after the ad company it bought took it over) sole purpose is to push more ads into your view, so asking them not to push ads is like asking water to not be wet.
- It's related to "Enshittification" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification) but that term does cover more than just making something they would prefer you not do a confusing labyrinth to deter you from actually doing it.
- > But it'd be awful if my best shopping option was 15mi away.
In much of the rural US, 15mi away is having your good shopping close by. A lot of areas make due with their "best shopping option" being well more than 15mi away.
- The stores get away with it because even when ignoring the fact that tax is added after, few of the shoppers in these stores will remember the shelf price for a basket of 20+ items from the store. They might remember one or two, but they won't remember (and therefore will not notice) enough of the shelf prices to notice the systematic overcharge at the register. In reality, a good number of the shoppers likely don't remember any of the prices from the shelf tags, and will not be mentally summing up what the final price should be, so those shoppers won't notice the discrepancy at all.
- > then why do poor people shop there?
While the typical viewpoint is that "poor people" shop there, that's actually somewhat of a misnomer.
Most dollar stores in the US are located in rural locations, and in part because a lot of rural population is also "lower income" they get the appearance of "only the poor shop there". But the part the folks who label the stores as "for the poor" often overlook is the "ruralness" aspect. That dollar store might only be a five to ten minute drive away to grab something, meanwhile the Walmart or Target or other, that likely has the better deal (the 128oz of Tide for 9.99 vs the 8oz of Tide for $1.50) is a forty-five minute drive away one way. So couple 1.5 hours round trip commute, plus fuel costs for that 1.5 hours, and you start to see why folks would more likely shop at the dollar store vs. the store that actually gives them the better deal overall.
That's partly the "magic" of the dollar stores for corporate. They sprout up like weeds in rural areas much like Starbucks sprout up on every corner in cities. And they capture sales largely because by sprouting up like weeds, they are a shorter round-trip drive to grab sometime (esp. to grab those one or two things you forgot last weekend when you /did/ make the 1.5 hour round trip drive to go to the nearest Walmart for the better deals). These store's sales largely come from the 7-11/Starbucks method in the city: convenience.
And couple the above with the fact that in rural USA, there is effectively zero public transportation and very little in the form of uber/cab companies, and so if one does not have a car, one may be stuck shopping at the dollar store 5-10 minutes away even if one knows the stores are gouging.
- > That still doesn't give any context that would support the action.
That's because if the true context in support was given, it would be: "because seed sharing reduces our rate of sales, and our resulting profits".
- It (LEA) does all the work of a memory access (the address computation part) without actually performing the memory access.
Instead of reading from memory at "computed address value" it returns "computed address value" to you to use elsewhere.
The intent was likely to compute the address values for MOVS/MOVSB/MOVSW/MOVSD/MOVSQ when setting up a REP MOVS (or other repeated string operation). But it turned out they were useful for doing three operand adds as well.
- Register renaming allows the CPU to execute in parallel instructions it might otherwise need to serialize.
But it does nothing to help you, the programmer, when your algorithm really needs to have 9 registers worth of data in registers and your CPU only has 8 architectural registers available to you. At that point, you either spill manually, or you take the performance hit from keeping the ninth value in memory instead of a register.
- The DEC Alpha chip was the same. It also had a hardwired zero register (although IIRC the zero register was r31 instead of r0) and about half the addressing modes and a whole bunch of "assembly instructions" were created by interesting uses of that zero register.
- > the CPU could do the exact same thing for "mov eax, 0", couldn't it?
Yes, it could, but mov eax, 0 is still going to also be six bytes of instruction in cache, and fetched, and decoded, so optimizing on the shorter version is marginally better.
- > Only because watching a video earlier, I heard "MOV" pronounced "MAUV" not "MOVE"
Was it someone from an electronics background? Because MOV is also the acronym for Metal Oxide Varistor [1] from electronics and in the electronics world the acronym it is often pronounced "MAUV".
- The best advice you will get is: "find an attorney and ask these questions of that attorney".
Their job is to write coherent articles that gather views, not truly understand what it is they are writing about. That's why the Gell-Mann Amnesia [1] aspect so often crops up for any technical article (hint, it also crops up for every article, but we don't recognize the mistakes the journalist makes in the articles where we don't have the underlying knowledge to recognize the mistakes).
[1] https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/