Unicode went woke
-
@dfdub said in Unicode went woke:
Once you try to define and delineate different cultures and tell people what they're allowed to do based on factors outside their control (heritage), you're entering dangerous territory, because you're legitimizing the arguments of nationalists, xenophobes and racists.
One of these things is not like the others, and at its root there is nothing wrong with nationalists and nationalism. It's just patriotism and being in favor of a nation's independence and ability to make their own decisions.
Add on a modifier and things can certainly change. No argument there:
- Ethno-nationalists
- White-nationalists
- Nationalist Socialists
But you're going to have to convince me that there is anything wrong with being nationalist or nationalistic. I will even grant that excess nationalism or nationalistic pride can be bad, chauvinism and jingoism. But just being nationalist is not. On the contrary it is quite healthy.
-
@Gurth I wouldn't be surprised if the skin tone variants were the trigger for certain key platforms to implement glyph-based colouring, and before that the emoji were font-colour-on-background-colour on those platforms.
I recall them having been yellow for ages, but that was usually based on images rather than unicode glyphs.
-
@Grunnen said in Unicode went woke:
@Gurth I also don't remember it, and it might also have depended on the vendor.
But my GF, who has an iPhone, insists that she doesn't use the 'default yellow' emoji's because the default before the modifiers was white-with-black-hair (Japanese?) according to her. Makes sense somehow, since emoji originally contained unproportionally many Japanese things.
"Smiley" type emojis like you would find on forums were yellow by default, but "human" ones did indeed seem to have
by default, on Apple as well as other platforms. Emojipedia can show you every version, past and present, of every emote:
-
This thread was garage bait from the start. I have no interest in
. I'm going to bail on this thread.
-
I would've been interested in more font symbols but the identity politics of emojis is ridiculous.
-
@dfdub said in Unicode went woke:
Now you just have to find a font that actually supports that.
Most do. Most software, on the other hand, treat emoji as Speshul and have Speshul Parsing for them. Twitter, for example, replaces all emoji they recognize with their own images, which breaks emoji they don't recognize (such as used-to-not-be-emoji with a text presentation selector).
-
@bobjanova said in Unicode went woke:
precisely because that's nobody's real skin tone so it's race agnostic.
That's precisely the problem.
-
@hungrier said in Unicode went woke:
"Smiley" type emojis like you would find on forums were yellow by default,
-
@Watson I had mentioned the hippie smiley in one of the drafts for that post, but it got lost when I reworded it.
-
@hungrier said in Unicode went woke:
Just why did TouchWiz have to go with the Grimace of Purest Nightmare?!
-
@dkf Probably the same reason they had the "jizz donut"
-
Also, TIL the Android maple leaf emote used to look like an orange pot leaf:
And LG and Softbank's still do:
-
@Polygeekery said in Unicode went woke:
But you're going to have to convince me that there is anything wrong with being nationalist or nationalistic.
I'd love to, but not in this thread. Open a new one if you're actually interested, once the salon re-opens.
To sum up my view on the topic: The only form of nationalism/patriotism I can actually support is constitutional patriotism. I consider all other forms of patriotism and nationalism to be somewhere between ethically questionable and indefensible.
-
@Gurth said in Unicode went woke:
@GOG said in Unicode went woke:
@error said in Unicode went woke:
Looks more "dirty hippie" than "woman with a beard."
long hair ≠ woman
Yeah, based on such criteria: I have long hair and no beard ('coz I shave), ergo I am a woman.
There’s a joke about that in one of the Leisure Suit Larry games. I can’t find a screenshot of it, though.
-
@PleegWat said in Unicode went woke:
I recall them having been yellow for ages, but that was usually based on images rather than unicode glyphs.
The original (non-computer) smileys began to appear on things like T-shirts and stickers in the 1960s, as I recall (though not from being there). Those were almost invariably yellow with black eyes and mouth, if I’m not mistaken. Aha:
I certainly remember from my youth in the 1980s that smileys were yellow, simple as that. I suspect when people began to replace ASCII smileys
:)by image smileys
on web forums about twenty years ago, “smiley is yellow” was a very common consideration.
-
@dkf said in Unicode went woke:
@hungrier said in Unicode went woke:
Just why did TouchWiz have to go with the Grimace of Purest Nightmare?!
Ah, the origin of our
custom emoji, I wager?
-
@Zecc It is an amazing emoji. The best emoji. You'd be stupid if you don't use it.
-
@dkf said in Unicode went woke:
Just why did TouchWiz have to go with the Grimace of Purest Nightmare?!
Reason 1: because it's Samsung.
Reason 2: maybe it's closer to some Korean convention? Like
, the "bubble-out-of-the-nose = sleepy" is not common in Western culture, maybe the grimacing face similarly talks better to Koreans?See e.g. also that one (
to find its name), the old Samsung version very much looks like something from a mangamanhwa whereas newer versions are closer to Western graphic design standards:
-
@GOG said in Unicode went woke:
Is the Bengali thing still an issue, I wonder?
Maybe I'm missing something, but to me it seems that is not actually a problem with Unicode at all. As far as I understand, they are somehow angry that some Bengali letters are encoded as several code points instead of just one. But why does that matter? If they have to hit several keys on the keyboard to write those letters, that's not a problem with Unicode at all, but with the input method used. It's like me complaining if hitting the "ä" key on my keyboard inserts the decomposed form rather than the composed form. Why should I care, as long as that results in the correct glyph being rendered?
-
@ixvedeusi said in Unicode went woke:
Why should I care, as long as that results in the correct glyph being rendered?
Imagine, if you will, a world where people go looking for reasons to get upset about things. And then get upset anyway even if they don't find one.
-
@ixvedeusi said in Unicode went woke:
As far as I understand, they are somehow angry that some Bengali letters are encoded as several code points instead of just one.
From what I recall, someone was upset because apparently they couldn't write their own name in their native language. But since it's a language that's presumably spoken, read and written by living people today, that didn't make much sense so I assume the reality is closer to what you described.
-
@hungrier said in Unicode went woke:
@ixvedeusi said in Unicode went woke:
As far as I understand, they are somehow angry that some Bengali letters are encoded as several code points instead of just one.
From what I recall, someone was upset because apparently they couldn't write their own name in their native language. But since it's a language that's presumably spoken, read and written by living people today, that didn't make much sense so I assume the reality is closer to what you described.
My bet is on "dialect that is not officially recognized" and cannot be properly written by the official Bengali alphabet. Nothing unusual, anyone in Europe can find such a dialect (except that there are probably 7-17 millions using that dialect as mother tongue, while in Europe it's hardly 7-17).
Except for English: no dialect of English in last 500 years can be properly written by English alphabet.
-
@loopback0 said in Unicode went woke:
Imagine, if you will, a world where people go looking for reasons to get upset about things. And then get upset anyway even if they don't find one.
I'm triggered by this post.
-
@hungrier said in Unicode went woke:
...because apparently they couldn't write their own name in their native language...
Sounds like an opportunity.
<receives official letter from g*vernment, with name misspelled>
"That must be someone with a similar name, not me."
</r>
-
@Bim-Zively said in Unicode went woke:
@hungrier said in Unicode went woke:
...because apparently they couldn't write their own name in their native language...
Sounds like an opportunity.
<receives official letter from g*vernment, with name misspelled>
"That must be someone with a similar name, not me."
</r>Good grief, that's essentially the weird s*v*r*gn c*t*z*n argument, isn't it?
-
@Bim-Zively said in Unicode went woke:
@hungrier said in Unicode went woke:
...because apparently they couldn't write their own name in their native language...
Sounds like an opportunity.
<receives official letter from g*vernment, with name misspelled>
"That must be someone with a similar name, not me."
</r>Slap on a post-it "RETOUR: Addressee not known at this address", cross out your own address, and toss it back in the mailbox.
Opening a letter which is not addressed to you is illegal.
-
@uschwarz-0 said in Unicode went woke:
@Bim-Zively said in Unicode went woke:
@hungrier said in Unicode went woke:
...because apparently they couldn't write their own name in their native language...
Sounds like an opportunity.
<receives official letter from g*vernment, with name misspelled>
"That must be someone with a similar name, not me."
</r>Good grief, that's essentially the weird s*v*r*gn c*t*z*n argument, isn't it?
I th*nk that depends on whether you mean the "person" Misspelled Name, the "entity" Misspelled Name, or the "organization" Misspelled Name, doesn't it? Watching those folks in court is fun, even if it does give me a bit of headache.
@PleegWat Exactly!
-
@PleegWat said in Unicode went woke:
Opening a letter which is not addressed to you is illegal.
It is for you and me, but more generally, it depends on where you are in the world.
-
@Bim-Zively said in Unicode went woke:
Watching those folks in court is fun, even if it does give me a bit of headache.
Almost as much fun as watching them in police traffic stop videos, trying to persuade the officers that the stop is against their rights because they are exercising their right to travel in a conveyance, and they are not driving a car. (Dunno, sure looked like they were driving, and that thing they're in sure does look like a car, but what do I know.)
Or the one who claimed that even though there's a law against it, speeding is not a crime(1), and therefore the officer couldn't stop him for it.
(1) There's some fussy nonsense about felonies versus misdemeanors, but laws are often written to talk about committing offenses rather than crimes, and the police can, indeed, stop people who commit traffic-rule-violation offenses, whether or not they are crimes.
EDIT: it's worth remembering that in all cases, these nutjobs in the videos are declared to be the winners of a nice pair of silver-coloured bracelets, linked by a chain.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Unicode went woke:
Or the one who claimed that even though there's a law against it, speeding is not a crime(1), and therefore the officer couldn't stop him for it.
(1) There's some fussy nonsense about felonies versus misdemeanors, but laws are often written to talk about committing offenses rather than crimes, and the police can, indeed, stop people who commit traffic-rule-violation offenses, whether or not they are crimes.Uh actually
It's "not a crime" because there's no "injured party", therefore enforcement of the crime is "invalid".
It's decently logical until you realize it's entirely not how it works and believing it is absolutely nutcase ridiculous...
And, of course, even if it wasn't ridiculous it wouldn't matter because the only people who actually matter, the police, judges, and, well, basically everyone, think it is, so being "smarter" than everyone just won't work.
-
@Polygeekery said in Unicode went woke:
@dfdub said in Unicode went woke:
Once you try to define and delineate different cultures and tell people what they're allowed to do based on factors outside their control (heritage), you're entering dangerous territory, because you're legitimizing the arguments of nationalists, xenophobes and racists.
One of these things is not like the others, and at its root there is nothing wrong with nationalists and nationalism. It's just patriotism and being in favor of a nation's independence and ability to make their own decisions.
You forgot the part about "thinking your country is better than the others".
What's really funny is, though, that Popper defined nationalism as a way to shift personal responsibility to collective responsibility. Sounds like socialism to me.
-
@sloosecannon said in Unicode went woke:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Unicode went woke:
Or the one who claimed that even though there's a law against it, speeding is not a crime(1), and therefore the officer couldn't stop him for it.
(1) There's some fussy nonsense about felonies versus misdemeanors, but laws are often written to talk about committing offenses rather than crimes, and the police can, indeed, stop people who commit traffic-rule-violation offenses, whether or not they are crimes.Uh actually
It's "not a crime" because there's no "injured party", therefore enforcement of the crime is "invalid".
Last time I looked, you can also be locked up for trying to hire an assassin. There are probably plenty of other examples where there are no actual victims but you'll land in jail nonetheless.
-
@Rhywden said in Unicode went woke:
@sloosecannon said in Unicode went woke:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Unicode went woke:
Or the one who claimed that even though there's a law against it, speeding is not a crime(1), and therefore the officer couldn't stop him for it.
(1) There's some fussy nonsense about felonies versus misdemeanors, but laws are often written to talk about committing offenses rather than crimes, and the police can, indeed, stop people who commit traffic-rule-violation offenses, whether or not they are crimes.Uh actually
It's "not a crime" because there's no "injured party", therefore enforcement of the crime is "invalid".
Last time I looked, you can also be locked up for trying to hire an assassin. There are probably plenty of other examples where there are no actual victims but you'll land in jail nonetheless.
Oh I know. It's a ridiculous, stupid argument to make. But it's the one sovcits make, so..
-
@sloosecannon said in Unicode went woke:
It's "not a crime" because there's no "injured party", therefore enforcement of the crime is "invalid".
It's decently logical until you realize it's entirely not how it works and believing it is absolutely nutcase ridiculous...There's not an injured party and it also doesn't require mens rea. At least in my jurisdiction, believing it isn't quite ridiculous... speeding isn't a crime. It's neither a misdemeanor nor a felony, it's a traffic offense. It won't show up on a criminal record check but on a driving record check. A different court handles it than the criminal court.
What is ridiculous is when you take this to mean you don't have to cooperate with the nice man with the gun. Police have the power to enforce traffic offenses. It's not like the legislature came up with traffic offenses then forgot to designate someone to enforce them for hundreds of years. A loophole like that, big enough to drive a car through snerk, would not have survived for hundreds of years - - and believing you and your friends are the only ones smart enough to find such a loophole is absolutely ridiculous on the sovcits' part.
-
@Rhywden said in Unicode went woke:
You forgot the part about "thinking your country is better than the others".
But that's just objectively true.......when you are an American.
-
@Polygeekery said in Unicode went woke:
@Rhywden said in Unicode went woke:
You forgot the part about "thinking your country is better than the others".
But that's just objectively true.......when you are an American.
qed, I think.
-
@heterodox said in Unicode went woke:
@sloosecannon said in Unicode went woke:
It's "not a crime" because there's no "injured party", therefore enforcement of the crime is "invalid".
It's decently logical until you realize it's entirely not how it works and believing it is absolutely nutcase ridiculous...There's not an injured party and it also doesn't require mens rea. At least in my jurisdiction, believing it isn't quite ridiculous... speeding isn't a crime. It's neither a misdemeanor nor a felony, it's a traffic offense. It won't show up on a criminal record check but on a driving record check. A different court handles it than the criminal court.
Better don't speed in Switzerland, then. If you speed fast enough you'll not only land in jail, you'll also lose your car.
-
@Rhywden said in Unicode went woke:
Better don't speed in Switzerland, then. If you speed fast enough you'll not only land in jail, you'll also lose your car.
Here, that's Virginia.
-
@Rhywden said in Unicode went woke:
Better don't speed in Switzerland, then. If you speed fast enough you'll not only land in jail, you'll also lose your car.
Speeding a certain amount over the speed limit here is reckless driving, which is a crime (misdemeanor) and can land you in jail for a year IIRC.
That being said, five over is not a crime but obviously you can still legally be pulled over for it and get a ticket.
-
@Rhywden said in Unicode went woke:
@Polygeekery said in Unicode went woke:
@dfdub said in Unicode went woke:
Once you try to define and delineate different cultures and tell people what they're allowed to do based on factors outside their control (heritage), you're entering dangerous territory, because you're legitimizing the arguments of nationalists, xenophobes and racists.
One of these things is not like the others, and at its root there is nothing wrong with nationalists and nationalism. It's just patriotism and being in favor of a nation's independence and ability to make their own decisions.
You forgot the part about "thinking your country is better than the others".
Country, or nation? I see nothing wrong with saying that one country is better than another. As someone whose national identity is centuries of country government being at odds with the people (and not just during occupation), I find this distinction very important.
-
@Gąska said in Unicode went woke:
@Rhywden said in Unicode went woke:
@Polygeekery said in Unicode went woke:
@dfdub said in Unicode went woke:
Once you try to define and delineate different cultures and tell people what they're allowed to do based on factors outside their control (heritage), you're entering dangerous territory, because you're legitimizing the arguments of nationalists, xenophobes and racists.
One of these things is not like the others, and at its root there is nothing wrong with nationalists and nationalism. It's just patriotism and being in favor of a nation's independence and ability to make their own decisions.
You forgot the part about "thinking your country is better than the others".
Country, or nation? I see nothing wrong with saying that one country is better than another. As someone whose national identity is centuries of country government being at odds with the people (and not just during occupation), I find this distinction very important.
Yeah, the country you live in does not define how you identify.
Obviously, the only correct approach is to be loyal subject or vassal to your Lord. Some lords are better than others, but at least there is a convenient sorting property ("Duke < King < Emperor < King-Emperor < God Emperor").
-
@Gąska said in Unicode went woke:
@Rhywden said in Unicode went woke:
@Polygeekery said in Unicode went woke:
@dfdub said in Unicode went woke:
Once you try to define and delineate different cultures and tell people what they're allowed to do based on factors outside their control (heritage), you're entering dangerous territory, because you're legitimizing the arguments of nationalists, xenophobes and racists.
One of these things is not like the others, and at its root there is nothing wrong with nationalists and nationalism. It's just patriotism and being in favor of a nation's independence and ability to make their own decisions.
You forgot the part about "thinking your country is better than the others".
Country, or nation? I see nothing wrong with saying that one country is better than another. As someone whose national identity is centuries of country government being at odds with the people (and not just during occupation), I find this distinction very important.
It's usually meant as "Better in every regard" and feeds a superiority complex. It usually comes with "ignoring the bad sides or straight out denying them".
-
@heterodox said in Unicode went woke:
@sloosecannon said in Unicode went woke:
It's "not a crime" because there's no "injured party", therefore enforcement of the crime is "invalid".
It's decently logical until you realize it's entirely not how it works and believing it is absolutely nutcase ridiculous...There's not an injured party and it also doesn't require mens rea. At least in my jurisdiction, believing it isn't quite ridiculous... speeding isn't a crime. It's neither a misdemeanor nor a felony, it's a traffic offense. It won't show up on a criminal record check but on a driving record check. A different court handles it than the criminal court.
What is ridiculous is when you take this to mean you don't have to cooperate with the nice man with the gun. Police have the power to enforce traffic offenses. It's not like the legislature came up with traffic offenses then forgot to designate someone to enforce them for hundreds of years. A loophole like that, big enough to drive a car through snerk, would not have survived for hundreds of years - - and believing you and your friends are the only ones smart enough to find such a loophole is absolutely ridiculous on the sovcits' part.
That's fair. Precise language is important. It may not be a crime, depending on how you define it, but it is definitely illegal and as you said, arguing with the nice man with the gun that you found the loophole in all the laws is a good way to end up having a very bad day
-
@sloosecannon said in Unicode went woke:
arguing with the nice man with the gun that you found the loophole in all the laws is a good way to end up having a very bad day
Don't worry, if the man with the gun ruins your day, you can tell the man in the robes all about it, and he can ruin your next several years.
-
@sloosecannon said in Unicode went woke:
It may not be a crime, depending on how you define it, but it is definitely illegal and as you said, arguing with the nice man with the gun that you found the loophole in all the laws is a good way to end up having a very bad day
I like watching reality shows (not the kind with celebrities, but the kind that follows cops, ambulance staff, etc.), and it still surprises me how much some people argue with police officers who already gave them a ticket. Your best option is to just take it and fight it later, certainly not there on the street. Trying to talk the cop out of writing the ticket in the first place, sure, that might work (if you’re lucky). But afterward? Why bother?
-
@Gurth said in Unicode went woke:
Trying to talk the cop out of writing the ticket in the first place, sure, that might work (if you’re lucky). But afterward? Why bother?
I went to the store the other day, and I was in there for only about 5 minutes. When I came out there was a motorcycle cop writing a parking ticket. So I went up to him and said, "Come on, buddy, how about giving a guy a break?" He ignored me and continued writing the ticket. So I called him a pencil-necked geek. He glared at me and started writing another ticket for worn tires! So I called him a piece of garbage. He finished the second ticket and put it on the windshield with the first. Then he started writing a third ticket! This went on for about 20 minutes... the more I abused him, the more tickets he wrote. I didn't care. My car was parked around the corner. I try to have a little fun each day. It's important.
-
@error said in Unicode went woke:
you can tell the man in the robes all about it
Be sure to mention the fringe on his flag, for extra fun.
-
@heterodox said in Unicode went woke:
@sloosecannon said in Unicode went woke:
It's "not a crime" because there's no "injured party", therefore enforcement of the crime is "invalid".
It's decently logical until you realize it's entirely not how it works and believing it is absolutely nutcase ridiculous...There's not an injured party and it also doesn't require mens rea. At least in my jurisdiction, believing it isn't quite ridiculous... speeding isn't a crime. It's neither a misdemeanor nor a felony, it's a traffic offense. It won't show up on a criminal record check but on a driving record check. A different court handles it than the criminal court.
In Virginia if you're good enough at speeding it can be a crime.
I guess the
answer to that is that the charge is reckless driving, not speeding.
-
@boomzilla said in Unicode went woke:
@heterodox said in Unicode went woke:
@sloosecannon said in Unicode went woke:
It's "not a crime" because there's no "injured party", therefore enforcement of the crime is "invalid".
It's decently logical until you realize it's entirely not how it works and believing it is absolutely nutcase ridiculous...There's not an injured party and it also doesn't require mens rea. At least in my jurisdiction, believing it isn't quite ridiculous... speeding isn't a crime. It's neither a misdemeanor nor a felony, it's a traffic offense. It won't show up on a criminal record check but on a driving record check. A different court handles it than the criminal court.
In Virginia if you're good enough at speeding it can be a crime.
I guess the
answer to that is that the charge is reckless driving, not speeding.We've had decision here by the highest court not too long ago that it can be murder, if you kill someone in a street race (doing 150kph in the city limits, driving next to each other on a two-lane street and running red lights), because under the right circumstances, it is basically premeditated.
Since it's not the job of that court to decide specific cases, I'm not sure what the outcome of that one was. I only know it got sent back to lower courts with the decision that they can charge murder.
-
@topspin said in Unicode went woke:
@boomzilla said in Unicode went woke:
@heterodox said in Unicode went woke:
@sloosecannon said in Unicode went woke:
It's "not a crime" because there's no "injured party", therefore enforcement of the crime is "invalid".
It's decently logical until you realize it's entirely not how it works and believing it is absolutely nutcase ridiculous...There's not an injured party and it also doesn't require mens rea. At least in my jurisdiction, believing it isn't quite ridiculous... speeding isn't a crime. It's neither a misdemeanor nor a felony, it's a traffic offense. It won't show up on a criminal record check but on a driving record check. A different court handles it than the criminal court.
In Virginia if you're good enough at speeding it can be a crime.
I guess the
answer to that is that the charge is reckless driving, not speeding.We've had decision here by the highest court not too long ago that it can be murder, if you kill someone in a street race (doing 150kph in the city limits, driving next to each other on a two-lane street and running red lights), because under the right circumstances, it is basically premeditated.
Since it's not the job of that court to decide specific cases, I'm not sure what the outcome of that one was. I only know it got sent back to lower courts with the decision that they can charge murder.It's possible at least in California. There could be other places, too, especially when you get into the "depraved heart" sorts of charges.
https://www.findlaw.com/dui/charges/dui-manslaughter-and-dui-murder.html
Groovy History
Endangerment - Wikipedia
