Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2017 July 3

Computing desk
< July 2	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 3

Has Reuters been hacked ?

[1]

The 28th pic has the caption: "Brazil's President Michel Temer speaks during the ceremony of launching the Agricultural and Livestock Plan 2017/2018, at the Planalto Palace in Brasilia, Brazil June 7, 2017. REUTERS/Ueslei Marcelino"

The pic, however, is of a man wearing lipstick (probably photoshopped). So, were they hacked and the real pic replaced by this ? StuRat (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Source is here. Blooteuth (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That NY Daily News uses a Reuters feed. But neither seems to have noticed that the pic was hacked. The text seems unaffected, in both cases. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably not. The Reuters photo is all over the place for several weeks. It's also on the photographers Instagram page [2]. I think there is some brief mention of the weirdness of it on the comments there but I can't understand them well enough via machine translation. Surprisingly there's little discussion elsewhere of the photo that I could find. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

So either the hacker got to the photographer's pics and altered them there, before they were passed on to Reuters, and from them, everyone else, or the photographer himself is the culprit. It still seems odd that Reuters and the subsequent news agencies didn't notice the problem. But, these days, there may be fewer humans involved than we think, with much of this content automatically generated and uploaded with no human reviewing it. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like an original photo, judged to be good because it's so bad. The redness is not a bad attempt to photoshop lipstick, but seems to be related to the black thing which is out of focus in the foreground. Possibly it's a microphone with a red light on it. See this picture at the same event. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that is one bad photo, and hard to believe the photographer didn't do that on purpose. StuRat (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Your link doesn't seem to work for me. From some searching I think it's on [3] but the photo also doesn't work there although I did see a snapshot on Google Images and that combined with the agency (AFP) and photographer suggests to me it's [4]. I did earlier find [5] when trying to work out what's up with the photo. When searching for that again I also found [6] (also [7] but that's the same as the AFP one). You're probably right about the mic. I didn't think the lip thing was edited in but couldn't figure out what was up with the photo. I'm surprised how difficult it is to find commentary on the photo despite how widely it seems to be used. Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

When I open the first link posted (the one to reuters) I see the proper photo as described below it. When I open the one from instagram, I see the weird photo. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

In my link you must scroll right, to the 28th pic. StuRat (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

On my browser, the Reuter photo and the Instagram photo are identical. 79.73.134.123 (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW some of the variants you can find are less cropped e.g. [8]. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not think the photograph was doctored or significantly modified by a digital artist; it's just an unflattering combination of optical and digital image artifacts largely caused by the blurred microphone in the foreground. For the aspiring photographers who want to buy expensive lenses, this kind of artifact is caused by the combination of a very shallow depth of field and a very long focal length - in so many words, a "very extraordinarily expensive" camera lens. The photographer, Ueslei Marcelino, shoots through Canon gear, and if I had to guess, I'd say it's one of the more ridiculous contraptions like the EF 300mm f/2.8. More money, more problems...

Nimur (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all. I suspect the photographer chose that effect, like a double exposure, intentionally, but we may never know his motivations. StuRat (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

MATLAB GUI

Hi, I am looking for some function in MATLAB that given a GUI component (e.g a panel), it returns the components that are located "onto" (=in front of) it. 212.179.21.194 (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Google Privacy Settings Alert

How do I stop the privacy settings alert showing up in Chrome? I've done the privacy check as requested, believing that would make it go away, but it hasn't, and it's irritating me. Any help greatly received. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Google it?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

lol. This is Paul (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Sign in or enable cookies. Of course, that would mean giving up privacy.

A better suggestion is to use AdBlock or Stylish, as suggested on Shantavira's link, or switch to DuckDuckGo. 93.136.60.225 (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)