[ddingus]

Your quick trip through the etymology triggered an opsec thought:

It may be worth a suggestive talk to expand how people take words.

A pop culture reference would be Daniel Jackson from the series, "SG-1"

We may often be constrained in our ability to understand and assess by our own preconceptions relating to language.

"Ultrasonic" was interpreted very differently by any number of us having this watermarking discussion. How often do we make assumptions about the possible field of play based on language basics?

How often do those fail to be sufficiently inclusive?

I bet it happens more than we realize.

Seems like a good basis for a DEFCON talk. "Where is Daniel Jackson when your team needs him?"

[GavinMcG]

I was focused on the etymology; the actual usage of "ultrasonic" is generally confined to high pitches, not low.

Worthwhile point still, though I wouldn't have responded had the commenter not stated a specific incorrect definition. How does this connect to OPSEC though?

[ddingus]

Indeed you were.

The relation goes right to threat and solution scopes. In this case, someone working from an incomplete definition may well also work within an incomplete set of greater assumptions.

There is what it could mean, what we take it to mean, and what it does mean.

Where those overlap or not could have a significant impact on behavior.