[HN Gopher] A woman bought a vintage dress. It had a secret pock...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       A woman bought a vintage dress. It had a secret pocket with a
       mysterious note
        
       Author : rmason
       Score  : 135 points
       Date   : 2024-01-15 19:06 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.cnn.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.cnn.com)
        
       | rappatic wrote:
       | The article hints at, but doesn't really discuss, the concept of
       | information entropy [1]. Each word in that message has a very
       | high entropy because it conveys a lot of information. I read an
       | XKCD What If article [2] a while back that gives a really cool
       | and intuitive introduction to the concept. I don't know all that
       | much about computer science so it was a great way to get learning
       | more.
       | 
       | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
       | 
       | [2] https://what-if.xkcd.com/34/
        
       | neilv wrote:
       | > _As part of Chan's research, the National Oceanic and
       | Atmospheric Administration provided old weather maps that helped
       | him determine the precise date of the weather observations in the
       | coded note: May 27, 1888._
       | 
       | When the article introduced the weather report idea, I was hoping
       | that this note was spy communications made to look like weather
       | reports.
       | 
       | (Maybe the coded note wound up in a pocket because Elizabeth
       | Bennet was joking with her sisters, pretending to be a spy.)
        
       | belltaco wrote:
       | The note seems to have more than two lines? Have they decoded the
       | other ones as well.
        
       | JKCalhoun wrote:
       | Anyone have a link to a document with the codes?
        
         | coldpie wrote:
         | A couple links from the article leads to Chen's paper, which I
         | think contains everything you would want: https://canwin-
         | datahub.ad.umanitoba.ca/data/publication/brea...
        
         | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
         | A previous comment had this link:
         | https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1.cu55719287
         | 
         | I think that's it.
        
       | Symbiote wrote:
       | The code referred to is a "commercial code". There's a scan of a
       | page from a 1910 code on Wikipedia.
       | 
       | Amazing that a phrase like "Confined yesterday, Twins, both dead,
       | Mother not expected to live" was given a single code word
       | ("Annosus").
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_code_(communication...
       | 
       | "Unicode -- The Universal Telegraphic Code Book"
       | https://archive.org/details/unicodeuniversa00unkngoog/mode/2...
        
         | Symbiote wrote:
         | From Unicode, it's interesting but not surprising that so many
         | of the codes are for significant personal and business
         | problems, like the birth of children, missed travel connections
         | etc. "Diota" "Amputation is considered unnecessary". "Annexus"
         | "Confined to-day, Twins, one alive, a girl, Mother not expected
         | to live".
         | 
         | Towards the back of the book is shown a very early 'DNS';
         | abbreviated addresses for businesses. "Supplies, London" meant
         | "Junior Army and Navy Stores Limited", a bit like a generic
         | supplies.co.uk. "Jowoto, London" meant "Johnson, Walker &
         | Tolhurst".
        
           | bombcar wrote:
           | You have to remember that telegrams were expensive, you'd not
           | just send one for anything; it would be for major events
           | (like a birth, or death) and so encoding the variations of
           | that would be worth it.
           | 
           | In fact, it's just bitmapping.
        
         | sorokod wrote:
         | BTW "Confined" has the meaning of being in labour, child birth.
        
           | OJFord wrote:
           | Or almost. They're both euphemistic really - confined to bed;
           | soon to labour.
        
         | kristianp wrote:
         | Man, as a parent this chills me. Before modern medicine the
         | statistics of deaths in childbirth were scary.
        
       | MilStdJunkie wrote:
       | Reminds me of when I first encountered the extraordinarily
       | compressed 12 bit "words" in a ARINC717 data stream, where
       | they're conserving bits that are written as-is, serially. Like
       | three decades of computing passed it by. If something has four
       | distinct values, it gets two bits. Then, right on top of that: is
       | it a syncro response curve? Output the binary for the curve
       | function. On and on, for thousands of "words", all jammed
       | together. I used to imagine being a future researcher, trying to
       | decode these big blocks of undifferentiated binary, the amount of
       | legwork I'd have to accomplish to get just a few layers deep.
        
       | Animats wrote:
       | Ah, yes, telegraphic codes. I once found a large code book for
       | one of those in the stacks of a Stanford library. Every "word"
       | had four syllables, and mapped to a longer phrase.
       | 
       | In the book was a loose piece of paper with a note that the
       | telegraph company was changing their billing rules and that only
       | known words would count as one word for billing purposes.
       | Anything else would be charged at a higher rate for random
       | letters and numbers.
       | 
       | Here's a typical telegraphic code, "The Anglo-American Code to
       | Cheapen Telegraphy and Furnish a Complete Cypher".[1]
       | 
       | [1] https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1.cu55719287
        
         | hinkley wrote:
         | It's easy to judge in retrospect, but shouldn't the slashes
         | have been a clue? Once I saw them my first thought was this was
         | a checklist and someone marked each line off as it was sent.
        
           | mpeg wrote:
           | The CNN article makes it seem like it was a mystery for a
           | long time, but if you look at the original blog, it's clear
           | in the comments that from the very beginning readers of the
           | blog suggested it might be a telegraph code, but they didn't
           | know exactly from which book.
        
       | sombragris wrote:
       | CNN blocks ad-blockers (seemingly):
       | 
       | > Browser Blocked
       | 
       | > We apologize, but your web browser is configured in such a way
       | that it is preventing this site from implementing required
       | components that protect your privacy and allow you to view and
       | change your privacy settings. This functionality is required for
       | privacy legislation in your region.
       | 
       | > We recommend you use a different browser or disable the
       | "EasyList Cookie" filter from your "Content Filtering" settings
       | (found under "Settings" -> "Shields" in the Brave Browser).
       | 
       | UPDATE: The blocking is triggered by the "I don't care about
       | cookies" browser extension (Firefox); disabling the extension on
       | the site gets me past the block. Utterly stupid move on CNN's
       | part.
        
         | adventured wrote:
         | Using uBlock Origin [on Firefox Win10] and didn't have any
         | problems.
        
           | ale42 wrote:
           | Exact same for me... didn't notice anything strange. I also
           | erase cookies when I close the browser, might also perhaps
           | have an impact depending on previous visits to CNN.
        
         | SoftTalker wrote:
         | Maybe try the "lite" version ... substitute "lite" for "www"
         | i.e.:
         | 
         | https://lite.cnn.com/2024/01/15/us/antique-dress-maine-encry...
        
         | bmacho wrote:
         | https://archive.ph/2000/https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/15/us/an...
        
         | bee_rider wrote:
         | I block ads, don't really mind when a site doesn't feel like
         | serving me as a result. I'm intentionally accepting their ads-
         | for-content trade and asking what they'll send for nothing. If
         | that's nothing, fair enough.
         | 
         | I am surprised nowadays, given how bad the trade has gotten,
         | that people are interested in discussing their content.
        
       | INTPenis wrote:
       | Why use Omit instead of t56? Or better yet, write the values in a
       | pre-defined order and just do 56 0.08 32 no 12.
       | 
       | Why did they feel the need to use actual words?
        
         | kevingadd wrote:
         | Can imagine this approach being less error-prone for laymen, in
         | the same way that passphrases (word word word word word) can be
         | friendlier than passwords (word12345678).
        
         | renewiltord wrote:
         | Presumably has built in error-correction. You don't want to go
         | from t56 "Cholera, family dead, stock market crash" to t66 "Buy
         | farmland, rains predicted good" in one typo.
        
           | Mogzol wrote:
           | They meant t56 as in "temperature is 56", not as in every
           | random phrase gets assigned a jumble of numbers and letters.
           | Though I suppose error-correction could still apply.
        
         | Symbiote wrote:
         | Actual words were easier for the telegraph operator to send and
         | receive so they were charged less than a scramble of letters or
         | nonsense. Words were charged individually, but could be up to
         | 10 letters long. It makes sense to avoid the shortest words to
         | get some error correction, "-- ." = "T E" could be misheard as
         | "--." = "N".
         | 
         | The international regulations limited the cheaper rate messages
         | to only certain languages, of which one was Latin, so the
         | codebooks used that to avoid confusion with modern languages.
         | 
         | (See my other comment and read the introduction in the linked
         | book.)
        
           | INTPenis wrote:
           | Oh so words were charged indiviually. That's strange but ok.
           | So that means if you could hypothetically serialize/compress
           | the whole data set into one word you'd be most cost
           | effective.
        
             | ale42 wrote:
             | But as said before, it looks like words were limited to 10
             | letters. So you could encode/compress a bit, but not a long
             | message into a single 243-letters word...
        
         | hashtag-til wrote:
         | Good point to link to what3words.
         | 
         | Have a look, it's a geographic encoding system.
        
         | stevage wrote:
         | Because the telegram company charges more for non words.
        
       | UberFly wrote:
       | Was hoping for secret treasure, but that was still very
       | interesting. Thank you for the post.
        
       | yurytom wrote:
       | Anyone tried it to get access to Satoshi wallet?
        
       | russfink wrote:
       | But why stored in a secret pocket?
        
         | dools wrote:
         | Pockets are for the help, this is a nice dress so a secret
         | pocket is probably the only type of pocket they'd want.
        
       | hashtag-til wrote:
       | It's encoded words for weather forecast.
       | 
       | Save you a click.
        
         | stevage wrote:
         | The story is pretty interesting, and definitely worth the
         | click.
        
         | djur wrote:
         | Why would someone encode words for a weather forecast?
        
           | mkl wrote:
           | As the article explains, it's to save on telegraph fees,
           | which were charged per word.
        
       | amelius wrote:
       | I expected something like:
       | 
       | "I'm a poor worker in an Asian sweatshop. Please get me out of
       | this place."
        
       | mertd wrote:
       | These garments aren't washed with water?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-01-15 23:00 UTC)