>>4483751 (lb)

Taking an idea from spitballing to substance often needs the contribution of several anons with complementary skillsets. When there's more noise, it's harder to get the right combination with eyes on. It's harder to make the quantum leap to a conclusion ready for notes.

In practice, I've sometimes had to toss out the same question on different nights, no response once or twice before someone chimes in with what's needed to take it somewhere. I tend to be reluctant to repost a spitball or question because silence can also mean that it's not worth responding to, and I don't want to splatter "but why won't anyone listen to me?" about what could very well be trash. I figure anons will reply to what's worth replying to. But sometimes the right anon just isn't there at the time, and with more noise in the atmosphere, trying more times can be what's needed.

I guess with the quantum leap becoming harder from spitball to substance, maybe what's needed is some way of good questions sticking around and getting more attention. I'm not thinking of anything like notes, but maybe like people second someone else's post as Notable for the baker, there could be a flag like Interesting or Research that would help other anons skim an earlier bread and find stuff to chew on. It would be great to pull up a bread I missed and ctrl-F for stuff seconded as dig potentials but not all the way yet. Especially if there's an expectation that a Research flag come with a question (like I was trying to do in the lb with the cipher wheel stuff), or call on some particular expertise (like when I was asking for input from someone familiar with military law.)

Could easily get dumped on by shills, of course. So this is at the spitball stage. Planning for how shills will react to something still feels like anticipating what it will be like to wrestle with a jellyfish. You know it's going to be slimy and confusing.

I'm relatively new to all this (came here due to Q, had visited the chans on occasion over the years but not a regular lurker) and feel it's out of my scope to start suggesting ideas for how the boards might work – it's a neat organism with complex evolved structures, not the place to go running around with a ruler and redesigning the street network. But it is interesting and something I think about.

>>4483931

A possible place to look for ciphertext is in the fiilenames of Q's attached images. For example, filenames that look like this:

3694F308-70BE-438F-B39D-47C40BD53ACD.jpeg

We don't know where the filenames come from. Some are clearly hand edited, like FAKENEWS.jpeg. Some are likely whatever filename comes right out of a camera, or a unique ID created by some upload utility. But it's quite possible that Q could have selected some filenames to convey info. And unlike the text of messages, where encoded info might need to be interlaced into normal text (games like the 3rd letter of each line of text) , there's more freeform there for putting whatever sequence of characters you need to pass along the ciphertext.

Also, images - there could be embedding of ciphertext into EXIF fields, or the binary values of color pixels.

I'm thinking "if I want to easily put arbitrary values into material that looks like what Q provides, where can it go?" and that's what I come up with (neglecting things like stringers, which I take as flat out military codes)

>>4483977

I see I wasn't clear … so to clarify …

Adding extra layers for bakers to manage, Notables breeding like Tribbles, for this purpose seems terrible. I'm not suggesting that.

My idea would involve zero baker attention, I was taking that as a prerequisite.

The idea is for anons to flag messages they second as research topics with a standard keyphrase. There's an analogy to stage 1 of notable nominations, but without stage 2 of baker review. Stage 1 is where it stops.

After that , it's up to other anons to ctrl-F for the keyword mixed into the breads, if they want to use it. There would be no gathered list of research questions, no baker review. The goal is to keep it as organic and effortless as possible, making it easier to find stuff that seems worth digging on further.

But I think it might not work because shills would tag anything shilly as worth digging. Any keyword that we could ctrl-F withoiut baker review would turn up in every Toots post and the like.

(There's always a skip/next option when searching, I don't mind pushing that a lot, same as ignoring shills in the breads)

>>4484036

I know what a UUID is, and I know about hex.

Not everything that looks like a UUID (by how it's formatted) necessarily is a UUID. I can type my own hexadecimal digits in the same format.

How about this?

32303138-2049-5320-474C-4F52494f5553.jpeg

It looks the same as the Q filenames, same format, but it's probably obvious that it's a series of ASCII characters. Apply an XOR mask to that, and it won't be so obviously ASCII. That could hide in plain sight.

I'm NOT saying Q's filenames do this. I was looking to help another anon by suggesting where ciphertext could be embedded. I don't see any reason this is impossible, or even the slightest bit difficult (if Q wanted to do it.) This is no harder than giving a file the name FAKENEWS.jpeg.

>>4484133

Agreed. And that soul is a beautiful property of the board.

o7