Unusual Google Chrome Download Redirection

When I go to https://www.google.com/chrome/, I get redirected to sign in and then forwarded to some app engine link as can be seen in the continue parameter of the following url:


(Please don’t click the link unless you know what you are doing, as it is potentially suspicious.)

I tried to sign in with a test account to see where it goes, and eventually ends up at the following link:


(Please don’t click the link unless you know what you are doing, as it is potentially suspicious.)

I recommend no one click on the suspicious links, but I am just trying to see if anyone has encountered this issue and / or knows why it happens. (I have removed the hyperlinks so no-one accidentally clicks them.)

I examined it on VirusTotal as well but could not find much more info and it doesn’t trigger any engines:


Clearing my cache on my machine corrects the problem and I am able to get to the correct page when going to https://www.google.com/chrome/. However, I tested some time later and it seemed to happen again. Since it is only happening on this machine on my network and not others I am wondering if the cache on it is somehow getting poisoned, and if so how. It is an M1 Mac mini if it is of any relevance.

I also reset the wifi-gateway and password but was able to reproduce it on that same machine after sometime. This was also after I had completely re-formatted the hard drive and had done a complete re-install of the OS from the recovery partition.The problem seems to reoccur again maybe about 30 minutes after clearing the cache. Also if I try to visit the link multiple times quickly, about 50% of the times I will actually end up on the correct Google Chrome download page, and the rest of the times I will be redirected to:


I would really appreciate if anyone can shed any insight, because I am kind of worried why this is happening and if this machine and / or my network is potentially compromised.

argument patterns – Unusual performace of the Cases function

Recently I was surprised by unusual performance of Cases function. The code

Cases[{{1, a}, {2, b}, {3, c}, {4, e}}, X_ /;X[[1]]==Part[RandomSample[{1, 3}, 1],1]]

may return {1, a}, {3, c}, {{1, a}, {3, c}}, or {}. Try reproduce this by running

Table[Cases[{{1, a}, {2, b}, {3, c}, {4, e}}, X_ /; X[[1]] == Part[RandomSample[{1, 3}, 1],1]], {q,1,200}]

Whereas explicit substitution of pattern like here

Selected = Part[RandomSample[{1, 3}, 1],1];
Cases[{{1, a}, {2, b}, {3, c}, {4, e}}, X_ /; X[[1]] == Selected],

always works properly. As I understand, Mathematica has difficulties with calculation of the pattern in the body of Cases

ordinary differential equations – ODE eigenvalue problem with unusual boundary conditions

I am given:

y”+λy=0, y(0)=0, (1−λ)y(1)+y′(1)=0

As usual we are looking for not trivial solutions.
Looks like a standard eigenvalue problem and yet I am totally stuck.
The case when lambda = 0 is rather obvious. A=B=0. Not much fun.
But when I start trying for lambda greater or smaller than zero, I get to this:

  1. λ < 0, the solution is of the form:
    B((1+ω^2)sinh(ω)+ωcosh(ω))=0 where λ=-ω^2

  2. λ > 0, the solution is of the form:

    B((1-ω^2)sin(ω)+ωcos(ω))=0 where λ=ω^2

The question states:Find the nontrivial stationary paths,
stating clearly the eigenfunctions y. In the case 1) I cant see any non trivial solutions but… well in the second case I cant see either. I know there are solutions.
Any help would be highly appreciated

How unusual would contact-printing be for a portrait studio’s commercial output?

It wasn’t at all unusual for small, local portrait studios to print using the direct contact method during the time in which Disfarmer worked from about 1915 until his death in 1959. Most small studios that concentrated on producing family portraits for the people living in the immediate area around the studio probably did not even have the needed enlarger to do the kinds of exposure manipulation – dodging, burning, unsharpen mask, etc. – that we associate with fine art techniques fully developed in the mid-20th century by photographers such as Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, and William Van Dyke in the western U.S. and by the developers at studios such as Magnum in the eastern U.S.

Another reason the use of enlargers wasn’t popular in the very early days of photography was the lack of a suitable stable light source until proper electric bulbs were invented and the electrification needed to power them had spread across the landscape. Even the sun moves in the sky fast enough that a system of mirrors to constantly adjust for that movement was needed if sunlight was used to produce enlargements on the slow reacting papers of the time. If Heber Springs, Arkansas was like most typical towns in the American South, the rural areas weren’t fully electrified until either just before or just after WWII. Since the negative sits directly over the printing paper for contact prints, the angle of the light used to expose the paper is much less critical.

Retouching certainly did go on at the time Defarmer began, but it was done directly to the negative before printing or sometimes to the finished print. Techniques including scraping with knives, drawing on top of the negative or print with graphite or ink, or even combining more than one negative either by placing one over the other or by cutting and pasting different parts of different negatives and attaching them together for making a contact print. With such techniques, contact prints from the altered negatives were still the main way prints were made.

What was unusual about Disfarmer’s technical method was his use of glass plate negatives long after pretty much the rest of the world had moved to film for the type of work he was doing: taking portraits of the local inhabitants of the area surrounding his modest studio in Heber Springs, Arkansas. Large sheet film was introduced in 1913 and rapidly replaced glass plates for large format portraits, yet Disfarmer didn’t finally switch over until near the very end of his career which lasted until his death in 1959.

When Disfarmer started around 1915, Ansel Adams was 13 years old. Willard Willard van Dyke was 9 years old and four years away from taking up photography. Weston was just beginning to make a name for himself after moving away from the large commercial studios in Los Angeles to open his own ‘Little Studio’ in Tropico, CA in 1910. He had just met Margrethe Mather, who was a major influence on Weston’s style, sometime late in 1913.

Although retouching was already being practiced (that was what Weston was doing for a living in L.A. before he struck out on his own), outside of the major commerce centers of fine art photography in places such as New York, L.A., Chicago, etc. the use of enlargers wasn’t that common.

The local portrait studios scattered in towns across the country were the “descendants” of the self-contained wagon studios that travelled the countryside in the mid to late 19th century. With wet collodion glass plates, the most common form of negative until the 1870s, the emulsion had to be mixed, spread on the glass plate, exposed, and developed within about 10 minutes. The primary skill set a potential photographer needed was the ability to quickly mix chemicals precisely and consistently each time a photo was taken so that the resulting emulsion had a predictable enough sensitivity that the exposure time would be correct.

But what has made prints of Mike Defarmer’s portraits so desirable by collectors has very little if anything to do with his use of glass plates or of direct contact prints. What makes his work desireable is the entire story of how he came to make these photos and the way he made them without trying to pose his subjects the way most portraitists at the time did. As Michael Mattis, who is most responsible for the ‘second revival” of interest in Defarmer’s portraits, said years later:

… in my view, it is this unique insider/outsider mix, so evident in the pictures themselves, that is the essence of his genius, and the reason why – despite three decades of intense searching – no other studio photographer from that era has been uncovered whose accomplishment remotely matches Disfarmer’s.

This is directly related to the entire mystique surrounding his self-instigated name change, the way he would carry his tripod around town while riding his horse wearing a Zorro-like cape (at a time when most people had long since moved from horseback to automobiles for personal transportation), and the way he would take the photo without warning his subjects or allowing them to pose first. It was probably also related to the fact that he was a bachelor, loner, atheist, and photographer in a small rural Arkansas town that had no other photographers, no other (publically acknowledged) atheists, and probably very few bachelors or anyone else that took being an eccentric loner to such extremes.

In an interview for the local newspaper (who printed it in the “Stranger than Fiction” section!) about why he changed his last name from Meyer to Disfarmer, he claimed that he was delivered to his parent’s doorstep by a tornado. He also made it very clear that he changed his name because his surname at birth, Meyer/Meier/Meijer, was German for “dairy farmer” and he didn’t want to be a farmer or associated with farming in any way. This he said in a small town in which just about everyone, including Disfarmer, made their living farming or by providing goods and services to farmers and their families!

Some of his clients described the experience of being photographed by Disfarmer as “very spooky and scary”. He would disappear under the hood of his camera for long lengths of time and then suddenly take the photo without warning. “Instead of telling you to smile he just took the picture. No cheese or anything.”

regex – `find` command unusual behavior for matching glob

I am trying to understand the find command (running on Ubuntu) and encountered a strange situation. I searched for a pattern that I knew to match some file:

$ find /data2/SharonFolder/conda-envs/envs/sparse-conv/lib/python3.8/site-packages/ -name sparseconvnet.egg-link

This worked, and returned /data2/SharonFolder/conda-envs/envs/sparse-conv/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sparseconvnet.egg-link as I would expect. I tried with a wildcard at the end.

find /data2/SharonFolder/conda-envs/envs/sparse-conv/lib/python3.8/site-packages/ -name sparseconvne*

This also worked just fine as it returned the same filename.

However, if I run the wildcard too far from the end, it stops matching!

find /data2/SharonFolder/conda-envs/envs/sparse-conv/lib/python3.8/site-packages/ -name sparseconv*

If I move the wildcard further back (e.g. sparse*), it continues not to match.

RenderPipleinManager.DORenderLoop_Internal() Taking Unusual Amount In profiler

I am developing for WebGL and for optimization purposes I have converted to URP. After converting the tri count has dramatically improved but the problem is my FPS is not improving. I tried to profile and found that RenderPipleinManager.DORenderLoop_Internal() is taking 13%. Is this normal? An initial search brought that it was a bug and fixed in a later unity version. But even after converting to the latest lts 2019.4.20, i am getting the same issue.

enter image description here

enter image description here

Unusual placing of a second impression of a USA visa immigration stamp. Does it mean anything?

My parents traveled to the USA a couple of weeks ago (Caracas – Miami). It wasn’t their first time; they’ve probably come and gone a dozen times by now, and they’ve never had a single issue. This time, the immigration guy was kind of pompous and, once they told him they weren’t staying at a hotel but with some friends, he began looking at them somewhat funny. Finally, he stamped their passports (normally, with entry date and a 6-month term of stay) but he put an additional stamp, one that no one they asked had seen before:

stamp in question, on the upper left corner, nearly identically placed on both passports

It seems to be the same usual entry stamp, but cut in half. What does it mean? Should we be concerned?

Character Jump (AddForce) unusual behavior near objects in unity 2D

so my character object has a single jump mechanics , I just noticed the whenever I press the jump button many times quickly in which the character is near a “Platforms like staircase , boxes or even sometime near the edge of a platform (while also being up in the air and pressing jump many times when colliding)” it starts to fly off beyond my jump force. anyone can teach and help me to fix this physics? thanks

my Jump system code sample is very much like this :

Rigidbody2D mybody;
public float jumpforce;

public bool isGrounded = false;
public Transform feet;
public LayerMask groundlayers;
public float groundradius = 1f;
bool Jumprequest;

    void Start () {
    mybody = GetComponent<Rigidbidy2D>();


    void Update () {



void FixedUpdate() {

    isGrounded = Physics2D.OverlapCircle(feet.position, groundradius, groundlayers);


public void JumpRequest() {
    if (CrossPlatformInputManager.GetButtonDown("Jump") && isGrounded)
        isGrounded = false;
        Jumprequest = true;

void Jump()
    if (Jumprequest)
        mybody.AddForce(new Vector2(0, jumpforce) , ForceMode2D.Impulse);

    Jumprequest = false;

void JumpOptimization() {

    if (mybody.velocity.y < 0)
        mybody.gravityScale = Fallmultiplier;
        mybody.gravityScale = 1;

Here is a sample picture that might help:
The red line shows when character collided with an object while addforce is added upwards and pressing
Jump button repeatedly at the same time, the character flies off beyond my jumpforce.

enter image description here

wp filesystem – Unusual file permissions on WordPress websites

I’ve been asked by a customer of mine, to manage a few hundred WordPress sites.

Doing an initial security assessment, I’ve found that every site (350 sites) has unusual file permissions on every php file (755) that means executable bit on all groups (user, group and other)… Trying to investigate further, I’ve checked umask settings and it seems ok: 0002 (that means 775 for newly created directories and 664 for files) which is the default on Linux systems.

Asking my customer about this unusual permissions, he confirmed that he wasn’t aware of this issue…

Which could be the security implications of such a setting? Can this be exploited somehow by a remote user?

Thanks for any help!

web browser – I found an unusual font in a specific website, Is that has something to do with my device security?

As you can see on the picture, that website was normal before almost two months but lately i found an unusual font on it, it looks normal on the phone but weird on the computer. So i wonder if that has something to do with my security because i’m concerned. Thank you in advance!
enter image description here