>>3302082 (lb)
cleaned it a bit - does this scan better?
>>3302082 (lb)
cleaned it a bit - does this scan better?
followup:
>>3302909 has 406 bit in length
>>3301854 (llb) provided by anon has 404 bit in length
both cannot be right - it should be divisible by 8 to do any meaningful decoding.
so the question is - if this indeed is a barcode - invert and leading or tailing zeros? anons?