It's not about Japanese programmers currently being involved in Unicode, it's that Unicode has to support everything that the programmers of some old Japanese text encodings decided to support, which is where the original emoji come from. And then if it has to support some emoji at all, it may as well do it right.
Unicode has to interconvert with Japanese proprietary text encodings that support emoji (because unicode has to interconvert with every text encoding, that's its entire mission), therefore Unicode has to support emoji.
And if it has to support emoji and people are actually going to use them, it may as well do it right instead of whatever shit a handful of Japanese programmers felt like throwing in there.
Unicode has to support emoji, because the mission of Unicode is to interconvert with every text encoding from everywhere ever, and there are old proprietary Japanese text encodings that support emoji, so Unicode has to too.
And if Unicode has to support some emoji in the first place, and people are actually going to take that legacy support and run with it, then it may as well do it right while it's at it, instead of just whatever haphazard shit a handful of old Japanese coders threw in their proprietary standards for shits and giggles.
Future archaeologists aren't going to be able to tell who was a geek or a goth or a hippy from looking at our bones, because those categories are social constructs.
Gender is a social construct like that. Gender is not sex. Sex is biological. You can tell sex (to some degree) from bones. You cannot tell gender from bones, any more than you can tell social cliques from bones, because those things are entirely made-up social constructs.
Unicode has to support some emoji, because Unicode has to be able to interconvert with text from old proprietary Japanese text encodings that included emoji, because that's what Unicode does, it interconverts with every text encoding from everywhere ever. That's the whole point of it.
And if it's going to be encoding some emoji, it may as well support and fair and neutral selection of races and sexes etc, rather than just whatever random haphazard cross-section of them happened to be included on the whims of the designers of those old proprietary Japanese text encodings.
Your summary of Japanese writing systems is pretty accurate, but that has little to nothing to do with where emoji come from.
Japanese did not have a single unified text encoding scheme used by all technology manufacturers, but because all of them needed the ability to essentially select from a bunch of different pictures in order to write kanji, many of the different proprietary text encodings included code points (and font support) for actual pictures of things too -- emoji.
Then Unicode came along and said we're going to make One Text Encoding To Unite Them All, a single text encoding into which all text could be converted without any loss of data, which meant that they had to be able to encode all of those emoji code points in all of those different proprietary Japanese text encodings.
As you say, Apple included font and input support for this in iOS, mainly intending to service the Japanese market, but then it was discovered by Westerners as well, and exploded in popularity -- yeah, probably due to teenagers who found them cutesy.
All of this gender and race stuff nowadays is not because anyone is pushing some kind of social justice agenda, but because the original emoji were extremely haphazard -- it's just whatever these handful of Japanese companies felt like including in their proprietary text encodings, that then also had to be supported in Unicode. Because of that haphazard origin, things are weirdly non-diverse, for no good reason; it just so happened to end up that way. And then the people overusing these things that were really just legacy support for old proprietary foreign features started asking why is there only e.g. a dancing woman, not a dancing man? "I'm a man and I want to indicate dancing, why is there only a woman dancing, and no man?"
The answer is "haphazard history", but also "sure, why not", and so we get new combining characters to indicate the sex and gender of your dancer or runner or construction worker or whatever, because if we're going to have this crap in there, which we have to to fulfill the basic purpose of Unicode to support all text encodings from everywhere ever, then we may as well be fair and neutral about it all while we're at it.
so i should stop trying to save for retirement or buy a house of any of that and just live like there's no tomorrow because there really isn't, i'm probably going to die before i ever get a chance to retire.
and ironically a large reason why i'm fat is because i sit at a desk all day trying to make the money to actually live my life someday when i'm old, and then stress eat when work makes me hate my life because it's about the only enjoyable thing i can really afford.
carbon and hydrogen oxides are already plentiful in the natural atmosphere and not harmful to humans (imbalances of them maybe to the environment, but that's not an individual transgression). all other emissions (e.g. particulates, i.e. SMOKE) are already highly regulated and rightly so.
someone probably fat-fingered the delete key twice while the cursor was for some reason between the "k" and "s", then looked at the resulting "thas" and guessed that they'd accidentally deleted a "t" and apostrophe, and so reinserted them, without checking context.
the same way "Indiana" somehow became "Indian" for a while in the headline.
thank you. the elites aren't the people in government, they're the people who've bought out the people in government. in trump's case that makes me wonder why he wants to go from being an elite to working for them.
or maybe he just wants to cut out the middle man and instead of trying to buy the right politicians, just be one himself. you know what they about wanting things done right and doing them yourself.
That's a nice summary of Trump's general business history. He could have gotten better returns on the money he started with sticking it into an index fund, but instead he chose to blow it on "investments" that return little more than boosts to his ego, plastering his name all over everything.
the carbon and hydrogen oxides that come out of a complete combustion reaction are not directly harmful to you -- they're already present in the air everywhere. (imbalances of their concentrations have big, slow environmental impacts, but they're not toxic to humans per se). the shit that comes out of incomplete combustion, the particulate matter that makes smoke smoke (and toxic additives like lead) absolutely should be regulated, in most cases already is extremely regulated, and i wouldn't oppose tighter regulations.
and artificial scents on the rest of that stuff? feel free to ban that if you like too. we don't need it, and if it's hurting someone, go ahead ahead and get rid of it.
that looks pretty obvious to me like some kind of careless error. possibly the 'nk' in 'thanks' was accidentally deleted, and then whoever fat-fingered the key saw "thas" and figured he'd accidentally deleted "t" and apostrophe and re-inserted them.
Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. Unless you live in a swing state, a vote for anyone else is just throwing your vote away, as it won't make any difference in whether Hillarump or Donalton gets elected.
if it's just substituting marijuana for tobacco in all the same places and contexts, then yeah it is a bad thing, as bad as the current status quo, which is already inexcusable.
marijuana and tobacco should both be legal in and ONLY IN contexts where OTHER PEOPLE aren't FORCED to take your fucking drugs with you. so away from public places, contained on private property, with consent of the property owner, but even then only where you don't have dependents like children or employees who can't just leave your space. if that means that only childless homeowners can smoke, and only in their own homes, then tough shit.
if keep it out of my fucking air then i don't fucking care, but KEEP IT OUT OF MY FUCKING AIR, and deal with whatever the fuck you have to deal with to accomplish hat.
i dont get how those kinds of idiots don't see that trump IS HIMSELF an elite, a trust fund baby who started out with a "small loan" of a million dollars before inheriting the rest of daddy's fortune and then blowing it on ego-inflating ventures that return more poorly than a simple index fund would have, and then he makes himself out to be some self-made man from humble beginnings? he's the very fucking picture of the spoiled rich fatcat who is completely out of touch with the common man, and i just don't see how so many commoners think he's somehow going to OVERTURN the very system he is the fucking icon of?
keeping other peoples fucking drugs out of my own goddamn lungs is not "big government" that's basic fucking law and order that is a libertarian governments only fucking mandate
shove whatever goddamn needle full of nicotine and tar into your own fucking veins you want, i don't fucking care, so long as I DON'T HAVE TO BREATH IT
No, I keep objective and subjective very clearly separate thanks, you are just false equating them in turn with two words that both belong with only one of them. Facts or truths (same thing) are objective; if they're not objective, then they're not actually facts or truths. "Subjective facts" or "subjective truths" are just beliefs. Those can still coincide with the objective truths or facts, and can even be justified, meaning you hold those beliefs (you "have subjective truths" or whatever contortion of language you'd use there) because they are objectively true facts and you have good reasons informing you of that.
You seem to want to use "fact" to mean "justified belief" and "truth" to mean "unjustified belief", when justification or not, objectivity vs subjectivity, and fact vs truth are three completely different dichotomies that don't line up one to one. Justification or not only applies to subjective states of mind (beliefs), and facts and truths are both about objective states of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about Japanese programmers currently being involved in Unicode, it's that Unicode has to support everything that the programmers of some old Japanese text encodings decided to support, which is where the original emoji come from. And then if it has to support some emoji at all, it may as well do it right.
Unicode has to interconvert with Japanese proprietary text encodings that support emoji (because unicode has to interconvert with every text encoding, that's its entire mission), therefore Unicode has to support emoji.
And if it has to support emoji and people are actually going to use them, it may as well do it right instead of whatever shit a handful of Japanese programmers felt like throwing in there.
Unicode has to support emoji, because the mission of Unicode is to interconvert with every text encoding from everywhere ever, and there are old proprietary Japanese text encodings that support emoji, so Unicode has to too.
And if Unicode has to support some emoji in the first place, and people are actually going to take that legacy support and run with it, then it may as well do it right while it's at it, instead of just whatever haphazard shit a handful of old Japanese coders threw in their proprietary standards for shits and giggles.
Future archaeologists aren't going to be able to tell who was a geek or a goth or a hippy from looking at our bones, because those categories are social constructs.
Gender is a social construct like that. Gender is not sex. Sex is biological. You can tell sex (to some degree) from bones. You cannot tell gender from bones, any more than you can tell social cliques from bones, because those things are entirely made-up social constructs.
Unicode has to support some emoji, because Unicode has to be able to interconvert with text from old proprietary Japanese text encodings that included emoji, because that's what Unicode does, it interconverts with every text encoding from everywhere ever. That's the whole point of it.
And if it's going to be encoding some emoji, it may as well support and fair and neutral selection of races and sexes etc, rather than just whatever random haphazard cross-section of them happened to be included on the whims of the designers of those old proprietary Japanese text encodings.
No.
Your summary of Japanese writing systems is pretty accurate, but that has little to nothing to do with where emoji come from.
Japanese did not have a single unified text encoding scheme used by all technology manufacturers, but because all of them needed the ability to essentially select from a bunch of different pictures in order to write kanji, many of the different proprietary text encodings included code points (and font support) for actual pictures of things too -- emoji.
Then Unicode came along and said we're going to make One Text Encoding To Unite Them All, a single text encoding into which all text could be converted without any loss of data, which meant that they had to be able to encode all of those emoji code points in all of those different proprietary Japanese text encodings.
As you say, Apple included font and input support for this in iOS, mainly intending to service the Japanese market, but then it was discovered by Westerners as well, and exploded in popularity -- yeah, probably due to teenagers who found them cutesy.
All of this gender and race stuff nowadays is not because anyone is pushing some kind of social justice agenda, but because the original emoji were extremely haphazard -- it's just whatever these handful of Japanese companies felt like including in their proprietary text encodings, that then also had to be supported in Unicode. Because of that haphazard origin, things are weirdly non-diverse, for no good reason; it just so happened to end up that way. And then the people overusing these things that were really just legacy support for old proprietary foreign features started asking why is there only e.g. a dancing woman, not a dancing man? "I'm a man and I want to indicate dancing, why is there only a woman dancing, and no man?"
The answer is "haphazard history", but also "sure, why not", and so we get new combining characters to indicate the sex and gender of your dancer or runner or construction worker or whatever, because if we're going to have this crap in there, which we have to to fulfill the basic purpose of Unicode to support all text encodings from everywhere ever, then we may as well be fair and neutral about it all while we're at it.
so i should stop trying to save for retirement or buy a house of any of that and just live like there's no tomorrow because there really isn't, i'm probably going to die before i ever get a chance to retire.
and ironically a large reason why i'm fat is because i sit at a desk all day trying to make the money to actually live my life someday when i'm old, and then stress eat when work makes me hate my life because it's about the only enjoyable thing i can really afford.
and even that 52% is only the marginal rate. Nobody would end up paying 52% of their whole income unless they made literally infinite money.
i fully support any further regulation needed to remove any harmful emissions still remaining in car exhaust, so no hypocrisy here.
carbon and hydrogen oxides are already plentiful in the natural atmosphere and not harmful to humans (imbalances of them maybe to the environment, but that's not an individual transgression). all other emissions (e.g. particulates, i.e. SMOKE) are already highly regulated and rightly so.
someone probably fat-fingered the delete key twice while the cursor was for some reason between the "k" and "s", then looked at the resulting "thas" and guessed that they'd accidentally deleted a "t" and apostrophe, and so reinserted them, without checking context.
the same way "Indiana" somehow became "Indian" for a while in the headline.
thank you. the elites aren't the people in government, they're the people who've bought out the people in government. in trump's case that makes me wonder why he wants to go from being an elite to working for them.
or maybe he just wants to cut out the middle man and instead of trying to buy the right politicians, just be one himself. you know what they about wanting things done right and doing them yourself.
That's a nice summary of Trump's general business history. He could have gotten better returns on the money he started with sticking it into an index fund, but instead he chose to blow it on "investments" that return little more than boosts to his ego, plastering his name all over everything.
the carbon and hydrogen oxides that come out of a complete combustion reaction are not directly harmful to you -- they're already present in the air everywhere. (imbalances of their concentrations have big, slow environmental impacts, but they're not toxic to humans per se). the shit that comes out of incomplete combustion, the particulate matter that makes smoke smoke (and toxic additives like lead) absolutely should be regulated, in most cases already is extremely regulated, and i wouldn't oppose tighter regulations.
and artificial scents on the rest of that stuff? feel free to ban that if you like too. we don't need it, and if it's hurting someone, go ahead ahead and get rid of it.
we kinda have to give people a little leeway on things that come out of their bodies without any choice.
it's not like we could reasonably regulate the carbon emissions from breathing or anything.
of course to the extent that it can be controlled, like pissing and shitting, then yeah, same standards apply.
this is a question more for that article than for you, but i can't ask that author: why start in 1987? what was he before 1987?
its not the site that's pissing me off, it's real life, and this is just an fortuitous opportunity to vent that anger on something that deserves it.
Ok, can do and already do.
that looks pretty obvious to me like some kind of careless error. possibly the 'nk' in 'thanks' was accidentally deleted, and then whoever fat-fingered the key saw "thas" and figured he'd accidentally deleted "t" and apostrophe and re-inserted them.
Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. Unless you live in a swing state, a vote for anyone else is just throwing your vote away, as it won't make any difference in whether Hillarump or Donalton gets elected.
if it's just substituting marijuana for tobacco in all the same places and contexts, then yeah it is a bad thing, as bad as the current status quo, which is already inexcusable.
marijuana and tobacco should both be legal in and ONLY IN contexts where OTHER PEOPLE aren't FORCED to take your fucking drugs with you. so away from public places, contained on private property, with consent of the property owner, but even then only where you don't have dependents like children or employees who can't just leave your space. if that means that only childless homeowners can smoke, and only in their own homes, then tough shit.
if keep it out of my fucking air then i don't fucking care, but KEEP IT OUT OF MY FUCKING AIR, and deal with whatever the fuck you have to deal with to accomplish hat.
i dont get how those kinds of idiots don't see that trump IS HIMSELF an elite, a trust fund baby who started out with a "small loan" of a million dollars before inheriting the rest of daddy's fortune and then blowing it on ego-inflating ventures that return more poorly than a simple index fund would have, and then he makes himself out to be some self-made man from humble beginnings? he's the very fucking picture of the spoiled rich fatcat who is completely out of touch with the common man, and i just don't see how so many commoners think he's somehow going to OVERTURN the very system he is the fucking icon of?
i wish i had seen and upmodded your much more politely phrased comment but i already posted an angry rant to the same effect myself
keeping other peoples fucking drugs out of my own goddamn lungs is not "big government" that's basic fucking law and order that is a libertarian governments only fucking mandate
shove whatever goddamn needle full of nicotine and tar into your own fucking veins you want, i don't fucking care, so long as I DON'T HAVE TO BREATH IT
you smokey goddamn ash-hole
No, I keep objective and subjective very clearly separate thanks, you are just false equating them in turn with two words that both belong with only one of them. Facts or truths (same thing) are objective; if they're not objective, then they're not actually facts or truths. "Subjective facts" or "subjective truths" are just beliefs. Those can still coincide with the objective truths or facts, and can even be justified, meaning you hold those beliefs (you "have subjective truths" or whatever contortion of language you'd use there) because they are objectively true facts and you have good reasons informing you of that.
You seem to want to use "fact" to mean "justified belief" and "truth" to mean "unjustified belief", when justification or not, objectivity vs subjectivity, and fact vs truth are three completely different dichotomies that don't line up one to one. Justification or not only applies to subjective states of mind (beliefs), and facts and truths are both about objective states of the world.