I had downloaded the final Aldus TIFF specifications document, hoping to find the author’s name. However, the name is seemingly written in white text on white paper - making it invisible. What?
Is there an explanation for this that I missed? Was it an Easter Egg left by the author?
Just as a side note, there are two versions of tiff6.pdf (titled “TIFF, Revision 6.0, Final — June 3, 1992”) on the ’net: one[1] that mentions Aldus on the title page and one[2] that mentions Adobe. Only the Aldus one has the invisitext. (Curiously, the metadata says it’s newer.)
[2] SHA256: 8cb1e1a2226e423ba8b88f57366a30ef1b7ad6109443ebdda072b952739a8d76, modify date 1995-09-14, created by Acrobat Distiller 2.1 for Power Macintosh, e.g. https://download.osgeo.org/libtiff/doc/TIFF6.pdf
I've found a number of hidden items in PDFs masked in the same way. The one that comes to mind immediately are Dell product code names hiding in official spec PDFs. (The PowerConnect 6200-series switches are "Kinnick", for example.) I always assumed it was a lazy redaction method and people weren't necessarily aware the text wasn't actually redacted.
TLDR: a user of ChatGPT and weed became convinced they had chanced upon earth shattering discoveries while interacting with the chatbot over weeks/months.
- 'Mysterious': there's very little of substance in the article to advance the position that it is mysterious at all.
- 'Sacred': OK, I guess!
- 'Pyramid': "A fourth explanation — one for which there is no evidence — is that Cerro El Cono sits on the ruins of a pyramid built by ancient Indigenous tribes". So... no evidence then :)
- 'Hidden': "It rises steeply from the relatively flat jungle landscape of eastern Peru, making it visible from as far west as the Andes — 250 miles (400 kilometers) away — on a clear day."
I'm no expert, but it seems like the bottom of the pyramid has what looks like natural rock formation, seems like that wouldn't be possible if it was man made ?
No cred gained here :) I was just surprised by the low quality of the article and there were no other comments by the time I got here so I thought I'd write this short critique to warn others, but I think it came across as a shallow dismissal so it didn't add much.
Meh, most of those aren’t all that helpful. Multiplying the last digit by -17 and adding that to the rest of the number to do a divisibility test for 19? I’d be more inclined to do the right-side reduction which isn’t appreciably different and, if you’re good at keeping some side numbers in working memory can give you the actual quotient if it is divisible which these rules won’t give you.
reply