josemanuel @josemanuel@qoto.org

@ignaloidas You obviously missed the rest of the conversation, spongeman. Go soak in it and, of course, feel free to correct me if you still think I'm wrong.

@wolf480pl @arguil

@lore Now seriously, computer stuff is too broad a topic for most people to know everything about it. Most of us are reduced to what we work with everyday. I wouldn't dare to give anyone advice about most other things.

@glitch The Japanese had to invent syllabaries to make Chinese somewhat palatable. That really means nothing. Ideograms are still the inferior writing system.

@arguil @wolf480pl

@lore Sorry, man. We're a bunch of posers.

@wolf480pl @arguil Oh, here's another argument: the use of emoji sets us back some 2500 years, when alphabets (a short list of abstract symbols that could be combined to form meaningful words and sentences) started beating ideograms (a _huge_ list of complicated symbols that vaguely resembled real world objects, each with their own meaning) as the superior form of written communication. Who in their right mind would want to go back to that?

@wolf480pl Being application-specific changes nothing about that. More than one application can assign the same codepoint to the same symbol for compatibility.

As long as all those codepoints are part of a PUA, and not of the official Unicode standard, there'd be nothing wrong with several different implementations agreeing on using the same ones.

@arguil

@wolf480pl There are actually three Private Use Areas (with hundreds of thousands of codepoints available) in Unicode that could have been used for that very purpose, that is, application-specific symbols.

@arguil

@wolf480pl
> I do not claim to have a rational argument for it. @josemanuel seems to have one but I couldn't verify it.

When I said we had almost run out of codepoints, I didn't mean that literally, BUT my point was, and still is, that we were promised to never, in thousands of years, run out of them, and the fact is that, at the current rate of growth, we might even see, in our lifetimes, the need for a new, 64-bit coding system. And all because someone thought it would be a good idea to use a bunch of redundant images as if they were letters and important symbols.

Also, emoji defeated the design principles of Unicode. Why do we have several shades of a hand gesture when Unicode explicitly avoids that kind of thing for letters (i.e., there are no codepoints for the cursive letter a, as opposed to the roman or bold versions. In other words, Unicode separates the symbol from its representation, but with emoji we have the complete opposite)?

@arguil

@arguil Well, for one, 32 bits were supposed to be more than enough to accomodate any past, present and future writing systems, even fictional ones, but, thanks to emoji, we have almost run out of codepoints already.

@wolf480pl

@luisddm No es lo mismo en absoluto. Cualquiera puede modificar el kernel de Linux a su antojo y redistribuir los cambios. Nadie puede controlar eso. De ahí han surgido proyectos como GNU Linux-libre.

Otra cosa es que mucha gente no tenga los conocimientos necesarios para realizar modificaciones y quede a merced de ese “oligopolio de actores” del que hablas, pero eso no implica ni que dicho oligopolio exista como tal, ni que haya nada de malo en ello. Lo que sí es malo es que haya gente que se crea con derecho a cosas gratis sin poner nada a cambio (tiempo y esfuerzo, en este caso). La complejidad no es excusa. También es complejo para quienes lo hacen, pero ellos pusieron tiempo, esfuerzo y conocimientos en intentar comprender el problema y resolverlo.

Alguien debería sacar nuevas ediciones del _Diccionario secreto_ de Cela y ampliarlo con términos como ‘cariñosa’, que entiendo que significa algo más que en España.

I just watched _Battle Royale_ and I thought it was meh. I don't get why some people like it so much.

@enigmatico What's wrong with irssi or even hexchat?

@veer66 Don't you mean Codeberg?

@mangeurdenuage Today I was thinking that there could be a case for invalidating a contract in the case when you've already paid for a product (a phone, a smart TV...), but you can't use it until you accept said contract, or when it changes once you've started using the product and it would be rendered useless if you don't accept the new contract.

The latter happened to me with an LG TV. Until I accept the new contract (which basically would send my data to South Korea), I can't use the TV's Internet connection or the apps I have installed.

@Moon Person?

@sim