This is a sleight of hand. The crypto challenges, for instance, have a business function (albeit not one we originally intended), but are not in fact literally ads, no matter how quickly you wave your hands; what they are in fact is a sequence of 56 3-paragraph descriptions of cryptographic flaws and how to demonstrate them.
Similarly, a downloadable e-book does not transmogrify from "useful technical information" to "disguised advertisement" simply by living in an undated PDF document behind a paywall.
> Similarly, a downloadable e-book does not transmogrify from "useful technical information" to "disguised advertisement" simply by living in an undated PDF document behind a paywall.
Well, if its a behind a paywall, its probably not a very good advertisement. But I was discussing, at any rate, the difference between factors impacting the utility of a particular piece of writing as useful technical information for the reader vs. those affecting its utility as a advertising for the creator/publisher -- those two roles can coexist in the same piece of writing at the same time (they don't require anything to "transmogrify" from one thing to another to change between them), they are utilities related to different interests that different parties have with regard to the material, not to inherent differences in what the material is.
Concealing the date can simultaneously make the piece of writing more useful to you as an ad, while making it less useful to the reader as technical information.
I read that paragraph 3 times and I think all it says is "readers have interests that are not (necessarily) identical to those of authors". In which case: I agree.
Meanwhile, you continue to refer to technical writing that lacks a dateline as an "ad", which is self-evidently false; technical writing does not become an advertisement merely by dint of lacking a dateline.
> I read that paragraph 3 times and I think all it says is "readers have interests that are not (necessarily) identical to those of authors".
Well, specifically, its that "readers interest in gathering technical information is distinct and often at odds with the promotional purpose that publishing information serves for authors/publishers" -- there are other (also potentially conflicting, in some cases) interests each might have, but I was specifically focussing on one interest of readers and one interest of authors/publishers.
> Meanwhile, you continue to refer to technical writing that lacks a dateline as an "ad"
No, I don't. I refer to advertising for the author as a role which technical writing may have for which omitting the date may be useful even when it is counterproductive to the utility of the piece in its role as a source of technical information for the reader.
> technical writing does not become an advertisement merely by dint of lacking a dateline.
Nor have I, even once, said that it did. So I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep denying this claim that was never advanced.
Similarly, a downloadable e-book does not transmogrify from "useful technical information" to "disguised advertisement" simply by living in an undated PDF document behind a paywall.