Nuclear weapons discussion (formerly: Unicode 8.0 silliness)


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    You'll also be able to (ab)use zero-width joiners to create composite "family" emojis: man+woman+girl+boy, for example.



  • @FrostCat said:

    You'll also be able to (ab)use zero-width joiners to create composite "family" emojis: man+woman+girl+boy, for example.

    That's a much better idea than "emoji of man with man" and "emoji of man with woman" taking up two unique codepoints.


  • SockDev





  • U+1F9C0 🧀 🧀 CHEESE WEDGE

    We're ahead of the game: :cheese:



  • Do we know yet if the zwj codes can be used to make a family of :man: :woman: :eight_pointed_black_star:?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @ben_lubar said:

    That's a much better idea than "emoji of man with man" and "emoji of man with woman" taking up two unique codepoints.

    That's true, I guess, if you're willing to accept a single "emoji[1]" might take up to 28 bytes or so (depending on what the individual codepoints were, and whether or not the skin-shade codepoints are allowable there, which I am not going to go back to look.)

    Clearly the Unicode people were wary of criticism because they made a point of showing man kissing woman, man kissing man, and woman kissing woman composite[1] "emoji", a man+woman+2 kids and woman+woman+2 kids, and man+man+2 kids (three versions of each) and so on, just so you wouldn't think they were racist by not giving a complete enumeration. Seriously, the table shows 15 variations, plus three KISS and three COUPLE WITH HEART composites.

    WHATS THE EMOJI FOR A GENDERLESS COUPLE!

    [1] CBA to go back and look what, if anything, is the correct term. Also, please don't bother to enlighten me, as I'll just have to forget it.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @RaceProUK said:

    The full list

    I knew when I deliberately didn't put that link in someone would do it for me. :smile:


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @hungrier said:

    Do we know yet if the zwj codes can be used to make a family of ?

    @hungrier said:

    Do we know yet if the zwj codes can be used to make a family of :man: :woman: :eight_pointed_black_star:?

    ^--- the "quote full reply" button recovers emoji!

    The page says that documents existing behavior on Apple devices. Surely someone here has one who can try.



  • Unicode is killing one by one all the assumptions (and thus, advantages) of plain text. Variable-width (as in bytes) characters, invisible characters every-fucking-where, different characters that look identical, characters that can be encoded in 25 different ways, characters that alter the flow of the following text, VERTICAL FUCKING CHARACTERS THAT ESCAPE THE BOX THEY ARE DISPLAYED IN.

    I feel like at this point they should just go ahead and make it a binary or xml-encoded format, and it will be simpler.


  • SockDev

    Damn those pesky creators of writing systems! They should have known that their systems would have been used by the Internet 2000 years in the future!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @RaceProUK said:

    Damn those pesky creators of writing systems! They should have known that their systems would have been used by the Internet 2000 years in the future!

    That's not the problem, and you know it. The problem came in when someone decided to put ALL THE CHARACTERS in one set.

    Instead, everyone else should just learn English. That would be much simpler! :passport_control:



  • 'murican, UKian or aussie?


  • SockDev

    British English, of course! :trolleybus:


  • SockDev

    obviously it should be the queen's English.

    because duh.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @accalia said:

    obviously it should be the queen's English.

    because duh.

    I assume "duh" was shorthand for "[i am a] doofus".

    It goes without saying it should be American English because we invented[1] and popularized computers.

    [1] :passport_control:


  • SockDev

    @FrostCat said:

    It goes without saying it should be American English because we invented[1] and popularized computers.

    -_-

    but the Queen's English is more posh



  • Well, I mean, is it that necessary to be able to write in cuneiform or hieroglyphics here? 𒄒𓀆

    And yet, no pause symbol ( :fa_pause:). Look it up, there is none.


  • SockDev

    So basically you're saying 'screw Arabic, screw Hebrew, etc', just so you can maintain some bollocks sense of 'purity'?



  • he's saying "screw assyrians"



  • It won't help "emoji of man with transgendered woman" though. I think this group is underrepresented.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @accalia said:

    but the Queen's English is more posharchaic

    FTFY. Pip pip cheerio and all that rot.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @xaade said:

    It won't help "emoji of man with transgendered woman" though. I think this group is underrepresented.

    I didn't bother to look if the page gave rules about how many codepoints can be combined in that way.




  • SockDev




  • BINNED

    @FrostCat said:

    It goes without saying it should be American English



  • @FrostCat said:

    You'll also be able to (ab)use zero-width joiners to create composite "family" emojis: man+woman+girl+boy, for example.

    It should also keep Rachel Dolezal happy as well:

    Unicode 8.0 also includes the skin tone modifiers for emoji that we first reported on last year. Unicode implementers should now make all human characters (including faces and arm/hand emoji) a "non-human" color by default but include five different skin tone modifiers that can be used based on the color the user wants those emoji to be.


  • BINNED

    Ok, what in the fuck is this shit? Since when did we star encoding colours into our codepoints?

    In that case, where is my RED LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A character?


  • SockDev

    @Onyx said:

    Since when did we star encoding colours into our codepoints?

    Since someone decided that emoji should have skin tones instead of looking like Simpsons characters, after which someone else got sand in their vagina


  • BINNED

    So... characters that were invented to be shown on old mobile phones in text messages, which were invariably shown as monochrome, even on colour screens, got coloured by Apple on the iPhone, because purrrrty, then Unicode consortium decided they should add those characters to the standard...

    And now there's cries of racism.
    In text characters.
    The ones we used to change the colour of using this:

    Oh, BTW, I found a racist monitor, too:

    It shows ASCII smiley face in green only!



  • @accalia said:

    but the Queen's English is more posh

    Ah, the scourge of oikophobia strikes again.

    @RaceProUK said:

    So basically you're saying 'screw Arabic, screw Hebrew, etc', just so you can maintain some bollocks sense of 'purity'?

    No. It would simplify and improve and simplify communication. If we wanted purity we'd go with @ben_lubar's tojam thingy.


  • SockDev

    @boomzilla said:

    oikophobia

    TIL a new word :smile:
    @boomzilla said:
    It would simplify and improve and simplify communication

    And presumably reduce and minimise and reduce redundancy :stuck_out_tongue:


  • SockDev

    @boomzilla said:

    Ah, the scourge of oikophobia strikes again.

    ... if i had that i wouldn't still be living here.

    and besides it's not a phobia if you have real, logical, reasons for being terrified out of your skull at the incredibly poor decision making skills of absolutely every politician and lobbyist in the D.C. Area!


  • SockDev

    @accalia said:

    besides it's not a phobia if you have real, logical, reasons for being terrified out of your skull at the incredibly poor decision making skills of absolutely every politician and lobbyist in the D.C. Area!

    Westminster isn't any better...



  • @accalia said:

    and besides it's not a phobia if you have real, logical, reasons for being terrified out of your skull at the incredibly poor decision making skills of absolutely every politician and lobbyist in the D.C. Area!

    That's not oikophobia.


  • SockDev

    @RaceProUK said:

    Westminster isn't any better...

    yes, but they have access to fewer nukes.


  • SockDev

    @accalia said:

    yes, but they have access to fewer nukes.

    True, but ours are mounted on subs:
    We also have some of yours stashed away somewhere


  • SockDev

    @RaceProUK said:

    True, but ours are mounted on subs:

    some of ours are too.... but not most of them...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @accalia said:

    the incredibly poor decision making skills of absolutely every politician and lobbyist in the D.C. Area!

    You say that like any other country is much better, no intention to bash any other country intended.


  • SockDev

    @FrostCat said:

    You say that like any other country is much better,

    they aren't. It's just, as i said before, with the exception of Russia they have fewer nukes.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @accalia said:

    some of ours are too.... but not most of them...

    Yeah, and we've used none of 'em in anger since the first two; by contrast 30K people in the US die each year due to cars, but nobody[1] freaks out about that. (BTW, the last time I looked, that seemed to be, when converted into a "n deaths per 100,000 miles" (or population or whatever) a roughly middle-of-the-road rate; IIRC India had a very similar rate, resulting in a number of deaths that was roughly proportionate to ours).

    [1] except, essentially, cranks.


  • SockDev

    @FrostCat said:

    Yeah, and we've used none of 'em in anger since the first two

    And yet we're still the only country that has used them in anger, and against civilian targets to boot.



  • @accalia said:

    And yet we're still the only country that has used them in anger, and against civilian targets to boot.

    It was a good use. And no worse than the normal practice of fire bombing.


  • SockDev

    @boomzilla said:

    @accalia said:
    And yet we're still the only country that has used them in anger, and against civilian targets to boot.

    It was a good use. And no worse than the normal practice of fire bombing.

    I fail to see how killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is a good use of anything



  • @RaceProUK said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @accalia said:
    And yet we're still the only country that has used them in anger, and against civilian targets to boot.

    It was a good use. And no worse than the normal practice of fire bombing.

    I fail to see how killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is a good use of anything

    Sounds like you're ignorant about history. There was a big war on at the time. The alternatives were worse.


  • SockDev

    @boomzilla said:

    It was a good use.

    no, not it wasn't..... it ended one war, started another, and left us with repercussions that plague us to this day...

    @boomzilla said:

    And no worse than the normal practice of fire bombing.

    That at least we can agree on.



  • @accalia said:

    no, not it wasn't..... it ended one war, started another, and left us with repercussions that plague us to this day.

    That didn't start another war. That shit would have happened regardless. Probably with a lot more violence. What do you think would have been a better way to finish that war?


  • SockDev

    @boomzilla said:

    The alternatives were worse.

    Negotiating a peace accord is a worse alternative to killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and giving many of the survivors severe radiation sickness?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @accalia said:

    And yet we're still the only country that has used them in anger, and against civilian targets to boot.

    OMFG. Yeah, sure, because the alternative was estimated to be 6-figure American deaths and 7-figure Japanese.

    The nukes ended the war with far fewer dead. Pragmatically, no matter how abhorrent they were, they were the better choice. You should look into how many Japanese cities were firebombed up to that point.

    BTW, now that everyone's clear on what the use of them means, approximately nobody who's not insane or messianic, and I mean people like ISIS or the Kim Crime Family, wants to see them used. Certainly not anyone in the US government. So other than for ostentatious self-flagellation, there's no point in thinking the US is especially bad.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.