[HN Gopher] U+237C [?] Right Angle with Downwards Zigzag Arrow ___________________________________________________________________ U+237C [?] Right Angle with Downwards Zigzag Arrow Author : cbzbc Score : 592 points Date : 2022-04-13 10:01 UTC (12 hours ago) (HTM) web link (ionathan.ch) (TXT) w3m dump (ionathan.ch) | kromem wrote: | It looks like someone asked for a glyph that would look like a | chart with a downward trending zigzag, someone ended up getting | the instructions and drew this thing, and the request proceeded | bunched with other requests through the process with no one | adequately challenging that the glyph really looks like what it's | supposed to look like. | | And yeah, actually a downward zig zag on a x/y plot glyph would | be useful to have. | | Like "chart with downwards trend" added to Unicode 6.0 in 2010, | 25 years after "right angle with downward zig zag" was proposed | and included. | 8ytecoder wrote: | https://xkcd.com/2606/ | | Now we have an XKCD for this. | baruchel wrote: | First thought was about Feynman diagrams :-( | bamboozled wrote: | These unicode characters feel like they were given to us from an | alien species or something. | | How did it we end up with so many characters of unknown origin? | | _I had no idea what it meant or was used for, thus assigned it a | "descriptive name" when collating the symbols for the STIX | project. (I still have no idea, nor can supply an example of the | symbol in use.) [...] it is the case that ISO 9573-13 existed | long before either AFII or the STIX project were formed. [...] I | once asked Charles Goldfarb what the source of these entities | was, but remember that he didn't have a definitive answer._ | JKCalhoun wrote: | I assumed W.A.S.T.E. were behind them. | | (Might need to add this: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crying_of_Lot_49) | somedude895 wrote: | > Notably, it appears that anyone could register a glyph with | the AFII for a fee of 5$ to 50$ (about 8.60$ to 86$, accounting | for inflation). Even if the International Glyph Register can be | found, it likely merely contains another table with the glyph, | the indentifier, and the short description. To know its origins | would require the original registration request that added the | character, but it's unlikely that such old documents from a | now-defunct non-profit organization in the 90s would have been | kept or digitized. | | Could be any random kid who found out about this and wanted the | cool symbol they made up registered. | lifthrasiir wrote: | In some sense, you can still do! The Ideographic Variation | Database [1] essentially allows a definition of new CJK | ideograph [sic] as a glyphic subset of existing characters, | with a possible processing fee. | | [1] https://unicode.org/ivd/ | bryanrasmussen wrote: | >These unicode characters feel like they were given to us from | an alien species or something. | | I worked at a large media company that had lots of differing | icon sets in play across different media. | | These icons were in SVG and they had been optimized pretty | intensely. In some cases due to a bug in one of the optimizing | tools some types of bezier curves got weird, so instead of say | the round headed person with their hand held up to say stop it | was the star headed monstrosity pointing to doom from the | heavens. Because of how the icons were used and not used these | optimized errors were actually sitting around so long that | nobody had examples of the original icons although one could | guess because in some cases we had similar ones in other | projects that had not been optimized. | | So maybe a similar thing would be the source of these weird | alien entities. | HNHatesUsers wrote: | buescher wrote: | >star headed monstrosity pointing to doom from the heavens | | Could someone please feed that to DALL-E? | kingcharles wrote: | Every post and Tweet on the Net now includes this exact | reply by someone. | | What monster hath we unleashed? | [deleted] | tclancy wrote: | >the star headed monstrosity pointing to doom from the | heavens | | That sounds like a useful reaction/ response these days. | HNHatesUsers wrote: | imglorp wrote: | Well, Klingon [edit, was proposed] for Unicode. Maybe someone | imported some 70s scifi orthography, just because. | masklinn wrote: | > Klingon made it into Unicode. | | No it did not. Klingon was originally proposed in 1997 and | rejected in 2001. A second proposal was made in 2016 with | more optimistic noises. But AFAIK it has yet to be | accepted. | | It is also, like Tengwar and Cirth (which AFAIK remain | unincluded even though they are on the BMP roadmap), held | back on IP grounds. To my knowledge, the IP issues remain | fully unresolved. | | Klingon is included in the ConScript registry, but that is | unrelated to unicode itself, it performs ad-hoc and non- | standard allocations in private use areas. | teddyh wrote: | ConScript seems to have been semi-replaced by the Under- | ConScript: | | https://www.kreativekorp.com/ucsur/ | lifthrasiir wrote: | Not yet. Even the 2021 request [1] to remove Klingon from | the Not The Roadmap list [2] is in hiatus. | | [1] https://www.unicode.org/roadmaps/not-the-roadmap/ | | [2] https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21155-klingon-req.pdf | Freak_NL wrote: | Did it? It was proposed a few times; did the last proposal | actually land? | bamboozled wrote: | I would've thought they'd have a table of every icon and a | description or something, maybe at the time it was never | taken very seriously or likely to take off as it did, so | people didn't bother. Like IPv4... | dirtyid wrote: | I remember convincing friend to build unicode pokedex extension | that collected all the unicode symbol he was exposed to via | cansual web browsing. Never followed up but I think it'd be | neat, or something along the lines of rare unicode browser | bingo. | dicytea wrote: | Something similar exists in JIS called You Ling Wen Zi (ghost | characters), which refers to kanji of mysterious origin with no | real-world usage that somehow made its way into the JIS | character set. After some investigation, most of them turns out | to be mistranscriptions of kanji from old historical materials. | DavidVoid wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JIS_X_0208#Kanji_from_unknown_. | .. | | _Due to this thorough investigation, the committee was able | to pare down the number of kanji for which the source cannot | be confidently explained to twelve, shown on the adjacent | table. Of these, it is conjectured that several glyphs came | about due to copying errors. In particular, Shi was probably | created when printers tried to create by cutting and pasting | Shan and Nu together. A shadow from that process was | misinterpreted as a line, resulting in Shi (a picture of | this can be found in the Joyo kanji jiten)._ | rcarmo wrote: | I suspect there's an entire alien alphabet (like Marain, for | instance) in there someplace. There was a proposal to stuff | Klingon into the Private Use Area, at least... | speed_spread wrote: | If you're willing to use a discontinuous subset you could | probably find close enough glyphs to make a full Marain. | Ordering would be messed up and require a lookup table | though. | grandchild wrote: | While I absolutely enjoyed the historical research on such a | miniscule mystery, I also liked how it took me two clicks from | the front page of HN into an occult eBook about "khaos magick". | | The things people write about... | aharris6 wrote: | According to today's xkcd, this symbol means "Larry Potter" | | https://xkcd.com/2606 | paledot wrote: | Evidently Randall Munroe reads HN, to the surprise of no one. | dskloet wrote: | From the title I thought this was about some Uranium isotope. | skykooler wrote: | U-237 exists and has a half-life of about six days; I can't | think of a valid modifier that would add that C on the end, | though. (Unless you're talking about a very specific isotopic | composition of uranium methanide, I guess.) | [deleted] | em-bee wrote: | i guess randall got inspired by this discussion: | https://xkcd.com/2606/ | cheschire wrote: | The name itself sounds like it should be a graph of a downward | trend line on a graph. | | I'm guessing the person who implemented it got this exact | requirement wording in the Unicode definition and nothing else, | didn't make the logical connection, and just implemented it as | close to literally as they could. | throw0101a wrote: | > _The name itself sounds like it should be a graph of a | downward trend line on a graph._ | | Or a lightning bolt through a window (with only the bottom-left | of the window frame being visible). | Jarmsy wrote: | There's already U+1F4C9 for that though. | scbrg wrote: | If by "already" you mean "eight years later" :) | | [?] (U+237C) is in Unicode 3.2 (from 2002), (U+1F4C9) is from | Unicode 6.0 (from 2010). | | [edit]: HN ate my 1F4C9 glyph. Use your imagination :) | mkl wrote: | https://codepoints.net/U+1F4C9 CHART WITH DOWNWARDS TREND | donkeyd wrote: | The update under the article has an explanation of where the | name probably came from: | | > I had no idea what it meant or was used for, thus assigned it | a "descriptive name" when collating the symbols for the STIX | project. | | If I understand this correctly in the context, this person | named the glyph based on what it looked like. So it wasn't the | other way around. | mkl wrote: | It's possible both events happened. The downward trend line | character certainly seems like something people might have | wanted. | MauranKilom wrote: | But if I read the article correctly, this glyph comes from a | set of math symbols. I don't think "stock goes down" was ever | used in any mathematical script. | yreg wrote: | I generally (perhaps naively) think that going forward knowledge | loss won't be much of an issue compared to our history. | | Surely the archeologists of the future won't have to wonder what | some tool from our times was used for or what some symbol we | currently use means... They will have Wikipedia and archive.org | and whatnot! | | But that fantasy is not compatible with reality where we are | already unable to find out what is the purpose of some characters | in Unicode. | chadlavi wrote: | On the contrary: books might survive total societal collapse, | but electronics don't. | mitchdoogle wrote: | Even digital storage is not permanent. Important things will be | copied and preserved, but I imagine at some point so many of | the relics of everyday life will be deleted or deteriorate at | some point in the far future, such as this very comment | tsol wrote: | Electronics become unusuable quickly, though. We can find stone | tablets and clay pottery, but 10k years from now will they be | able to find hard drives and extract useful data? Seems like it | can easily go in the opposite direction | berkes wrote: | That presumes humans can access our (electronic) media and | understand it, in some 8.000 years or further. | | There's no saying that there'll be a society capable of reading | bits and bytes by then. Not just collapsed society -they'll | hardly be interested in reading a random discussion on an | orange forum for a niche group that lived 8000 years ago- but | maybe even societies that are vastly technical superior to our | own but cannot fathom what things meant 8 millenia back. I mean | we have texts from some 600 years ago, that we can read, but | cannot understand (e.g. Rohonc Codex). Eventhough our | technology and knowledge is far superior to when it was | written. | mywittyname wrote: | It will probably be even worse in the future, given that | internet subgroups form their own language dialects as a kind | of shibboleth. | | "Why do people in this group of wall drivers show off their | wedding bands?" | quickthrower2 wrote: | [?] | slowmotiony wrote: | I remember back in the day we used to find publicly exposed | Windows FTP servers, create new folders using some messed up | unicode characters and upload pirated games and movies there to | share with each other. The only way to open those directories was | to specifically type the exact path in unicode, simply double | clicking on the folder in filezilla or windows explorer resulted | in a error. Sometimes the admins themselves couldn't delete them | and just left them there. Good times. | technothrasher wrote: | I remember the days of people beginning to abuse ftp sites, all | us admins shutting down our writable ftp upload folders, and | thinking, "this is why we can't have nice things." It was the | beginning of the end of the early, friendly internet. | bfuller wrote: | i was 13 when my public upload folder started getting messed | with, sad day | vletal wrote: | I do not get it. Did you have to shut it down? Does not make | sense to complain that someone uploaded stuff to a public | unprotected writable storage. Wouldn't securing it with a set | of credentials suffice? | jorvi wrote: | Sometimes people should be able to do nice things without | it getting abused, no? | | In The Netherlands, in the nicer neighborhoods we have | something called a 'buurtbieb' aka a 'neighborhood | libraries', which is a weatherproof cabinet where people | can put surplus books that other people in the neighborhood | can borrow. | | Of course you could take all the books or use the cabinet | to store candy, but why would you? | jumpkick wrote: | We have these throughout many neighborhoods in my city in | central Florida, USA. We're a college town so I just | assumed it was somehow connected to that. Neat that it's | an international thing! | dividedbyzero wrote: | Munich, Germany has them as well | Liquid_Fire wrote: | In the UK these are commonly set up inside old unused | telephone boxes - you can find them in many | villages/towns, e.g.: | https://nothingintherulebook.com/2018/11/03/british- | phone-bo... | neutronicus wrote: | Here in Baltimore, MD, too, although the focus is mostly | on kids books | evandrofisico wrote: | Here in Brazil we have those on bus stops. | phyzome wrote: | Usually called Little Free Libraries in the US. | | (The name is a _little_ weird, because regular libraries | are also free...) | frosted-flakes wrote: | Yeah, but if you take a book from a LFL, you own it. With | a public library, you merely borrowed it. | DocTomoe wrote: | Obligatory "Free as in beer vs. free as in freedom" | comment. I have pulled stuff out of small community | bookshelves that would never have seen their chance in a | "professional-run" public library, both bad and good. | dwighttk wrote: | I always took it to mean "no really this is free, take a | book!" | notreallyserio wrote: | FWIW "Little Free Library" is a trademark and its owners | have been aggressive in its defense. I don't know what | folks should use as a generic name. | Beldin wrote: | Buurtbieb - in English, roughly pronounced as b-eew-rt- | beep. | | It's a literal translation of "neighbourhood library", it | alliterates, and it sounds cute. (Keep the "beep" part | short for that). | bee_rider wrote: | It seems bizarre to me that someone could trademark such | a straightforwardly descriptive name. | hedora wrote: | Just keep using it as a generic name. They've already | lost the generification war. Are they seriously going to | track down and sue neighborhood libraries? | | Good luck getting a jury to enforce the trademark. | samatman wrote: | The word "public" in "public library" is load bearing, | you can't replace it with "regular", hence your | confusion. | | Private libraries (mine for example) are not free, as in | beer or otherwise. | elliekelly wrote: | There are two libraries near me that aren't free - they | charge an annual "membership" fee. One even operates more | like an old blockbuster when it comes to newly released | books. They charge a daily rental fee! It's 25C/ a day, I | believe. | db48x wrote: | True, though to be fair most people never get to use | private libraries. Or they used a library at their | University that was technically private, but that gave | access to the public as well. Public libraries are | ubiquitous and very normal, while private libraries are | the exception. | samatman wrote: | It's a normal elision, yes, we all picture a public | library when we say "library". But "free library" isn't | redundant or weird, because "public" is a modifier of | library, not a trait. | | People tend to call their personal library a "book | collection" or the like, but it's a library, in just the | same way that a Little Free Library is. | | So most people who read have at least a small private | library, whether they think of it in those terms or not. | robonerd wrote: | In America, public schools all have private libraries, | reserved for attending students. (Maybe some operate as | public libraries, but I've never seen nor heard of it.) | | Furthermore, public libraries are not necessarily free. | In America they virtually are all; fees only for late | returns. But this is not globally true; in some parts of | the world, libraries open to the public charge a fee for | checking out books, or even require a fee for entry. | Arubis wrote: | There's actually coordination around these things: | https://littlefreelibrary.org/ | boredumb wrote: | In Puerto Rico there are quite a few of these on the | sidewalk and despite the rains they are generally always | stocked with books. There are bars on everyone's windows | and doors, but books piled up on the street. | yawz wrote: | Great to hear these little neighborhood libraries are | international. We have them here where I live in | Colorado, US. | Kon-Peki wrote: | Indeed. The zoning code for my town specifically calls | them out (as allowed, with no permits necessary). | theandrewbailey wrote: | Can confirm neighborhood libraries are a thing in | Pittsburgh (USA). | sodapopcan wrote: | We have them in Toronto, ON. We call them LLLs or Little | Lending Libraries. There are actually quite a lot of | them. | coldacid wrote: | We have them out in the 905s too. I've seen quite a few | of them here in Durham Region. | chasd00 wrote: | there's one down the street from me but instead of books | it has canned food. It says "little free pantry" on it. | It must have been around for a while because the | neighborhood it's in has long sense been gentrified and | is populated with very well-off residents vs the working | poor that use to live there. | username923409 wrote: | I've also seen many of these at bus stations near | Victoria, BC. | mbeex wrote: | I think, you don't get the full grasp of "early, friendly | internet". Very few people do today. In my bubble - | programming, for example, young people can't even imagine | that there were times when you could focus on _things_ | instead of writing layers of security code around them. | williamscales wrote: | It's like how when I was a kid, nobody in our | neighborhood locked their doors at night. There was no | need. Until there was. | hardware2win wrote: | I think you make it sound as if that was good, but it was | straight naive or irresponsible | ysavir wrote: | The GP is saying "I miss the days where I could easily | exploit people" and the response was "I miss the days | where we respected each other enough to not exploit each | other". It wasn't naive or irresponsible, but reflective | of a time with more trust, cooperation, and good | intentions. | throwawayHN378 wrote: | mbeex wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism | freedomben wrote: | I think this takes the crown as the least-charitable | interpretation of a comment that I've ever seen on HN. | alex3305 wrote: | Reminds me of a few years ago, when I accidentally | exposed my Domoticz install to the internet without | authentication. I've had missed something in my Nginx | config with X-Forwarded-For headers. After about a week | or something apparently a foreign visitor came by my | install and decided to have some good fun. Turning my | lights on/off at random times. It took me about 3 days to | realize what have happened, but in the mean time he | didn't just destroy my install and only mess with me. | Which was really sweet, because nuking the system would | be far easier than opening the webpage every night. | | That was a good and fun security lesson though and now I | always check outside security with a mobile hotspot. | FabHK wrote: | "There are villages on the countryside that are safe and | friendly, everyone knows each other, people don't even | lock their door." | | - "Man, those idiots are naive and irresponsible." | hardware2win wrote: | 1 I didnt call any1 "idiot" | | 2 it s not like other people cant go to those places, | thus it is kinda irresponsible | adrusi wrote: | That's like saying it's naive and irresponsible to | gooutside without locking your front door when you live | in a tiny remote village with 40 other people you've | known for your whole life. | hardware2win wrote: | Not really, in your example theres no way any1 appears | and even if he does, then your friends protect ur stuff | | Meanwhile internet aint remote village | GavinMcG wrote: | Point is it used to be | stirfish wrote: | Do you know of any tiny remote internet villages left? | There has to be a few | fasquoika wrote: | https://tildeverse.org/ | 0des wrote: | It was a different time | beowulfey wrote: | Sure, in today's world. | | That's like saying it would be naive and irresponsible | for me to go outside without a life preserver today | despite an unforeseen catastrophic global flood drowning | the lands 10 years from now. It was a different world, | with different expectations and frameworks. | angrygoat wrote: | It makes me sad to think of all those simple little | services we used to run on *NIX machines, like `finger` | and `whois`. You'd never want to disclose that | information now, but at the time it was quite nice to be | able to see if a friend or colleague was around with a | simple network query. | joquarky wrote: | I remember when I could connect to nearly any server on | the internet on port 25 and manually type the commands to | send an email. | | . | siriussidus wrote: | You can still submit mail to virtually any mail server | using telnet. I just tried it on Gmail for curiosity, and | it did work! | brimble wrote: | I dunno. Everyone fairly-publicly shares their entire | friend network and what they had for lunch, now, usually | under their real name. | p_l wrote: | Some were open for uploads by design, in spirit of sharing | things - essentially use the free space left after maib | purpose to provide friendly mirrors for things like new | projects etc. I recall using Archie to find copies of open | source software at the ending edge of that era. | | Some also were used as submissions for projects, long | before sites like sourceforge started. Especially since | plonking a bigger source dump on newsgroups wasn't exactly | well received. | wanderer_ wrote: | You guys should read The Cuckoo's Egg by Clifford Stoll. It's | a classic. | TameAntelope wrote: | The fact you believed it would last is proof we still can | have nice things. :) | totetsu wrote: | Wearz were very nice things. | egfx wrote: | It's Warez. | throwaway787544 wrote: | "wah-rez" | raydev wrote: | This reminds me, my friend and I were the only people we | knew who'd even used the internet in the late 90s so no | one was around to correct us, and 3 of the apparently | incorrect pronounciations we had agreed on were: | | - war-ehz | | - gee-aw-cit-eez | | - jif | jkhdigital wrote: | Wait what? It's pronounced like the city in Mexico? | AdamH12113 wrote: | I've heard a lot of people pronounce it like that, but | I'm pretty sure that's not correct. It's clearly the | English word "wares"[1] with the S replaced with a Z, | similar to "hackz" and "cheatz", which were also common | in that era. I think the "wah-rez" pronunciation came | from people seeing the l33tspeak and not recognizing the | original word behind it. | | [1] A synonym for "goods" or "products". See | https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wares | jholman wrote: | It's not a synonym for "goods", because only one type of | thing was ever "wares"; software. It's just for dividing | up the sections of your piracy BBS into, like "filez" | (files, multi-kilobyte textfiles full of instructions on | how to make bombs etc), "imagez", "warez", etc. | | Anyway, by 1990, in the piracy circles I distantly | associated with, it was quite common to pronounce it like | "juarez". Sort of semi-ironically, like, it's obviously | the wrong pronunciation, but nonetheless everyone uses | that pronunciation on purpose. So, what could be more | correct than "the thing everyone does"? | | Of course, pronunciation only happens in meatspace (or at | least it did back before MP3s and before YouTube and so | on), and of course I'm talking about clusters of | teenagers separated by thousands of km. We had "meetupz" | or "meetz" in my city, which is how I know how "everyone" | pronounced it... but it's certainly possible that in most | cities/whatever there was some other pronunciation rule. | blowski wrote: | > It's not a synonym for "goods", because only one type | of thing was ever "wares"; software. It's just for | dividing up the sections of your piracy BBS into, like | "filez" (files, multi-kilobyte textfiles full of | instructions on how to make bombs etc), "imagez", | "warez", etc. | | Citation needed there. | | I have always assumed it came from fleamarkets where | people selling pirated VHS films and knock-off Rolexes | would be described as "selling their wares". Changing the | s to a z was an obvious step in 90s internet culture. | jholman wrote: | Okay, so my citation is, I was there, I was a (fringe) | participant in _pre-internet_ piracy culture, starting in | 1990. | | Pirate BBSes would have various "goods" (in the sense you | and GP mean) available for download, including images | (hint: some of them may have involve ladies), text files, | and software. Sometimes there would also be sections for | various art media created by users, such as .mods or | ASCII art or poetry or whatever. Those various "goods" | would never be all slopped together, they'd be divided | into categories. And the category called "warez" would | never, ever, have anything in it other than pirated | software. | | I agree that the s-to-z thing is just classic hacker/leet | culture, though it's not internet culture, because it | predates the people in question having internet access. | I'm saying that the "wares" that becomes "warez" is not | "wares-as-in-goods", it's "wares-as-in-softwares". It's | pluralized even though "software" is a non-count noun, | because then it fits with "files", "images", and so on. | And yes, ultimately the "-ware" in "software" is from the | sense that you and GP are talking about; I'm saying that | the etymology is not directly from there, because | otherwise all the other kinds of pirated stuff would also | be "warez", and it never, ever, was. | AdamH12113 wrote: | I too never seen "warez" used to refer to anything other | than pirated software. You make a good point about the | derivation; it probably is directly from "software". | Adding a superfluous Z to the end of a plural mass noun | was also a characteristic of l33tspeak, as I recall. | mlyle wrote: | > I think the "wah-rez" pronunciation came from people | seeing the l33tspeak and not recognizing the original | word behind it. | | I think it was explicitly luls a lot of the time. I saw | "warez" spelled as "juar3z", etc, a lot. | Doubtme wrote: | oh my god rapidshare was hot garbage | sen wrote: | We did the same thing using the character for a non-breaking | space, I think it was ALT+0160. It would sort last in the list, | and just be an effectively-invisible entry unless you were | really paying attention. Combined with an exploit we had to | change users on the FTP servers behind most dialup ISPs hosting | (the free couple Mb hosting you'd get with your dialup account | that very few people cared about or used), meant we had pretty | much unlimited file hosting, filling random families web | hosting with hidden folders full of mp3s and warez. | moogly wrote: | _vti_cnf | kingcharles wrote: | You too, huh? This was my first foray into the "dark" side of | the Internet as a kid, pre-Web, hanging out with pirates on IRC | and get "hired" to go around the early 'Net and fuck up | people's upload folders by creating hidden directories we could | load with our group's warez. ^H^H^H^H | paskozdilar wrote: | I remember making secret directories on my Windows desktop by | using a transparent icon and ALT+255 as filename. Good times. | ale42 wrote: | I was doing the same on MS-DOS, keeping "secret" files on a | floppy disk with a directory having a name ending with an | invisible Alt+255... it was even impossible to look inside it | with the Windows 3.1 file manager. | vishnugupta wrote: | That exact memory crossed my mind as soon as I saw that U + | <number> in the title :-D. Fun times indeed! | rich_sasha wrote: | Might we run out of Unicode code points, like we (seem to) be | running out of IPv4 addresses? | | As another comment mentions, once you add all these snowmen, | with/without snow, male female and gender-neutral, in a few skin | colour options (plus neutral)... it adds up. Plus, exponential | growth once you consider family of snowmen (different | number/genders/races of "parents", different number/gender/races | of "children" and so on...). | masklinn wrote: | > it adds up. | | It really, _really_ doesn 't. | | According to UTS #51, as of unicode 14 (and its ~140000 | allocated codepoints) there are under 3500 codepoints | classified as emoji. | | And do keep in mind that #, or (r), are classified as emoji. | | And incidentally, U+2654 "white chess king" () was in unicode | 1.0. The moral panic around emoji is really tiring, it's | absolute, utter nonsense, every single time. | xg15 wrote: | I think the current approach is to just invent yet another | "meta layer" of characters and declare that this particular | sequence of bytes/codepoints/surrogate pairs/grapheme | clusters/extended grapheme clusters/zwj sequences/whatever else | you can think of has a special meaning and does not behave like | you think it does. See also Henri Sivonen's essay on unicode | string length [1] | | So in a way, Unicode is already long past the time where you | invent NATs and other hacks to buy you time with the scarcity | problem. | | [1] https://hsivonen.fi/string-length/ | masklinn wrote: | > Might we run out of Unicode code points, like we (seem to) be | running out of IPv4 addresses? | | No. There are currently 144697 codepoints allocated, out of a | possible 1.1 millions. And most updates allocate a few | hundreds. The large allocations (in the thousands at a time) | overwhelmingly concern large additions of CJK unified | ideographs (see: 13.0 with 4969 out of 5930 new codepoints, | 10.0 with 7494 / 8518, 8.0 with 5771/7716). | | There have been large additions of historical scripts (9.0 | added the entire Tangut script, 7.0 added 23 different scripts) | but those occurrences have slowed down a lot. | lifthrasiir wrote: | There is no reason to believe the current rate (about ~35,000 | over the period 2010--2020) to change rapidly, so we are | probably safe for this century. You should be aware that emoji | gender and skin color is encoded in character sequences and | modifiers rather than atomic characters, exactly in order to | avoid that exponential growth. | | And in the unlikely case that Unicode gets so many characters | somehow, you can always extend it: http://ucsx.org/ | secret-noun wrote: | > emoji gender and skin color is encoded in character | sequences | | A good tool to see this broken down is https://unicode-x- | ray.vercel.app/?t=%E2%9C%8C%F0%9F%8F%BC%F0... (edit: fixed | url to use percent encoded emoji) | jancsika wrote: | Ok but what about all the cryptocurrency symbols? Those will | probably accelerate the rate. | | Perhaps not by a significant or even measurable amount. | Nonetheless, it's a great reason to start investigating a | blockchain alternative to Unicode | lifthrasiir wrote: | The successful bitcoin sign proposal [1] explicitly deals | with such a criticism: | | > Will Unicode be flooded with symbols for many crypto- | currencies? | | > Most other crypto-currencies have learned from the | difficulty that a non-Unicode symbol causes for Bitcoin, | and use a symbol already in Unicode. For instance, Dogecoin | uses D, Ethereum uses Ks, Litecoin uses L, Namecoin uses N, | Peercoin uses P and Primecoin uses Ps. Some, like Ripple, | use Roman capital letters (XRP), mimicking ISO 4217 | currency codes. | | > While it is possible another crypto-currency will have a | non-Unicode symbol that is extensively used in text, this | is unlikely. | | I think this section was crucial for the eventual | acceptance, because Unicode people do care (a lot) about | long-term consequences of proposals. | | [1] https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2015/15229-bitcoin-sign.pdf | nybble41 wrote: | It seem to me that this is something best handled with | tag characters, like $?XBT + (U+E007F) = [?] (where the | letters are from the tag block, U+E00xx). This mirrors | one of the two systems for rendering national flags[0], | just with a different starting codepoint, and can easily | accommodate all the ISO 4217 currency codes and common | unofficial extensions. If a system doesn't know how to | render a particular glyph it can just fall back to | showing the Roman capital letters. | | The downside of this approach is size: each tag codepoint | (including the end marker) requires four bytes in UTF-8, | plus two for $?, so the sequence above is 18 bytes long. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tags_(Unicode_block)#Cu | rrent_u... | lifthrasiir wrote: | That sounds interesting, but modern currency symbols are | already fast-tracked anyway---they almost always get | assigned in the next version of Unicode---and more than | one currency symbols for given ISO 4217 code can exist so | I don't think it would work. | Jarmsie wrote: | bayindirh wrote: | Some of the glyphs you mention are combinatorial code points. | i.e. they are multibyte characters combined to a single | character. So you add a gender modifier and skin color modifier | to change the appearance. You don't add multiple code points. | | It's your device rendering these 2-3 byte character sets as | single icons/emojis. | masklinn wrote: | > So you add a gender modifier and skin color modifier to | change the appearance. You don't add multiple code points. | | FWIW that's true for the skin colors (there are 5 fitzpatrick | scale modifiers, U+1F3FB to U+1F3FF), but it's not true for | the gender: the basic gendered characters (e.g. U+1F468 | "MAN", U+1F469 "WOMAN") were part of the original set | "merged" from japanese emoji so the gender-neutral equivalent | (e.g. U+1F9D1 "ADULT") was added as a separate codepoints. | bayindirh wrote: | According to this document [0], there are "Gender | Alternates", which change the gender of an Emoji. Relevant | part is starting near the end of Page 2. | | [0]: https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16181-gender-zwj- | sequences.... | knome wrote: | 1) there's only ~150k unicode values defined. If we assume a | signed int for available space, we have 2,147,333,647 of | 2,147,483,647 remaining. moreso if the int is unsigned. We're | fine. 2) they use values that combine like ligatures to create | the variants of values. there isn't a combinatorial explosion | because color is a modifier value, and sex, and then the | underlying symbol. It's not a unique symbol for each | combination. | | IPv4 ran down because everything needs an IP to be on the net | and there are more humans than available addresses, and more | gear than humans. | | We don't need different characters per human, only to document | existing languages and to account for the slow growth of modern | hieroglyphs. | masklinn wrote: | > If we assume a signed int for available space | | While UTF8 was originally defined as able to encode 31 bits, | because of the limitations of UTF-16 RFC 3629 explicitly | restricted the unicode code-space to 21 bits (or about 1.1 | million codepoints). | monsieurbanana wrote: | > We don't need different characters per human | | Unicode NFTs here we come | cygx wrote: | _If we assume a signed int for available space_ | | Note that as it is currently defined, the Unicode codespace | ranges from U+0000 to U+10FFFF, with some reserved codepoints | (eg to encode surrogate pairs), yielding a total number of | 1,112,064 assignable code points. | throw0101a wrote: | 1,112,064 code points ought to be enough for anybody. -- | Bill Gates | chrismorgan wrote: | > _as it is currently defined_ | | I find it completely implausible that this will ever | change: the current size is baked in too heavily. | | * The abomination UTF-16, which is distressingly popular, | cannot possibly support it. Replacing UTF-16 would be a | massive upheaval in many ecosystems (e.g. JavaScript, Qt, | Windows), and there's no real prospect of most of those | environments moving away from UTF-16, because it's a | massive breaking change for them by now. Rather, if the | code space were running out, they'd devise something along | the lines of second-level surrogate pairs. (And then we'd | curse UTF-16 even more, because it'd have ruined Unicode | for everyone _again_.) | | * All code that performs Unicode validation (which isn't as | much as it should be, but is still probably a majority) | would need to be upgraded. Any systems not upgraded would | either mangle or more commonly _fail_ on new characters. | | * UTF-8 software would also need to be adjusted, since it's | artificially limited to the 21-bit space; and it wouldn't | be just a matter of flipping a few switches here and there | to remove that limit--there will be lots of small places | that bake in the the assumption that representing a scalar | value requires no more than four UTF-8 code units. | nukemaster wrote: | mkl wrote: | We can't assume a signed int, as character encodings limit | the number of codepoints: "Excluding surrogates and | noncharacters leaves 1,111,998 code points available for | use." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode#:~:text=Exclud | ing%20su... | marcosdumay wrote: | Besides the difference between the abstract and unlimited | Unicode and the encodings, our current "modern" encodings, | UTF-8 and the new UTF-16 are artificially restricted and | can be trivially expanded into a huge number of codepoints | just by removing those restrictions. | mkl wrote: | New UTF-16? I'm only aware of the original 1996 one, | which uses all of its 20 surrogate-pair bits for the | codepoint (unlike UTF-8 which can use bits to extend to | more bytes). In my understanding, "just" removing that | restriction would mean completely replacing the encoding, | like UCS-2 being replaced with UTF-16. The new one may | have some overlap, but transitioning to it would still be | a huge undertaking, and far from trivial (quite a few | programs today still use UCS-2, quarter of a century | after UTF-16 was introduced to replace it). | thaumasiotes wrote: | But character encodings _don 't_ limit the number of | codepoints. Unicode is just a big list of correspondences | between an integer and a glyph. There's no limit to how | many integers you can assign. | | Unicode _encodings_ are separate standards that give | correspondences between Unicode code points (integers) and | byte sequences. If Unicode changes in a way that | invalidates an encoding, that just calls for a new | encoding. | mkl wrote: | Yes, it could technically be extended, but the transition | would be a massive undertaking, so in practice the | encodings do limit the number of codepoints. UTF-16, | which creates the limitation, is very widely used and | required by major programming language standards like | ECMAScript. A lot of software still can't cope with | codepoints outside the BMP, and they were established | with UTF-16 in _1996_. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Unicode has been limited to 21-bits for a while so that | UTF8 is guaranteed to encode no more than four bytes per | code point. It can support the full 32-bit code space but | changing now will break a lot of validation code. | moron4hire wrote: | Things like skin tone variations are not defined as individual | code points. They are sequences of code points that combine to | make the full, customized glyph. So you have one code point for | "medical", one for "professional", one for "female", one for | "brown skin", one for "blond hair", and from that you get a | more specific picture of a doctor.. | akvadrako wrote: | We are nowhere close to running out of code points. Unicode as | currently defined has 1.1 million, but even that could be | increased if there was a need. There isn't, since only 114 | thousand are defined. | | There are not separate code points for all combinations of | genders and skin colors; the characters are made as | combinations. | goto11 wrote: | The snowmen are in Unicode because they existed in a character | set before the Unicode standard was created. Unicode was | deliberately created as a superset of all existing character | sets at the time. | ghostoftiber wrote: | (Edited to upload the image to imgur and avoid spammy | advertisements). | | Here I'll date myself: I remember this as "diode with a gate". | Back when we did circuit diagrams with stencils, you had the | diode stencil which looks like a triangle with a line on top, and | then with the electrical stencils you had "decorations". | | The intention was to put down the original symbol on the paper, | move the decorations stencil over top of it and then add the | required decorations. It's why diode symbols look like this: | https://imgur.com/a/0tSLV7O (notice "step recovery diode"). | | The "lightning bolt" isn't a lightning bolt, it's a hint that | this diode is going to have a very sharp "snap off" in the | waveform. See: https://www.electronics- | notes.com/articles/electronic_compon... | | OK so why do we have a seperate decorator for a diode? Can't we | just have a pocket full of stencils for diodes? Space was at a | premium back then. It goes back to daisy wheels and typeballs: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_(computing)#Impact_pri... | You would have one position for "diode" and one position for | "decorator" and the printer would know when it got one ASCII char | it would print the diode, then send whatever the thin space is to | advance the print carriage a small step, then print the | decorator. | | Someone should be able to find a daisy wheel or typeball | dedicated to circuits and bear this out. | esquivalience wrote: | That first link is a redirect spiral through multiple | interstitial ads. Enjoyed the rest of the comment though! | themodelplumber wrote: | > a redirect spiral through multiple interstitial ads | | For a second I was thinking you meant this as the correct | definition of the symbol, and was very surprised :-) | esquivalience wrote: | That is horribly plausible! | ghostoftiber wrote: | Thanks for the heads up - I've edited the post to a copy of | the image I uploaded to imgur. | AnthonBerg wrote: | This symbol should be interpreted literally - it is of unknown | meaning and origin. That's what it means: "Of unknown meaning and | origin". | abakker wrote: | To me, it looks like a symbol you would use to denote electricity | present. I'd say it was meant to say that an electrical box or | some other piece of infrastructure had electricity present. It | could even be a non-standard symbol for a ground. | | edit: the right angle portion of it looks like the symbol for 3 | wire 2 phase electricity used here - | https://www.conceptdraw.com/How-To-Guide/qualifying-symbols | ..Yes, it is just a right angle. but I could see the electricity | symbol being overlaid to indicate that it was an electrical | symbol. | jeffnappi wrote: | The person who appears to have done the work of collecting this | character (and others) for submission into the Unicode process | back in 1997[0] (Barbara Beeton) has actually responded to the | StackExchange question[1]. | | Unfortunately even she is not aware of what the symbol is | actually for. | | [0] https://www.ams.org/STIX/bnbranges.html [1] | https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/640596 | Someone wrote: | I would think something like this: | | | \ | \ | \ /\ | \/ \ | | \ | _\/ | | +------------------------------ | | Could (more or less) fit that description and would make more | sense as a symbol. Something like it even made it into Unicode | (https://emojipedia.org/chart-decreasing/) | standeven wrote: | This was my first thought as well. Either a misdrawn version of | this, or a corrupt SVG, that somehow made it to production. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | It's like the icon in question is a drunk / mirrored version of | this one, from memory, drawn behind the back. | | It's like o7 vs 7o; if you know you know: | http://i.imgur.com/ZjhHU87.jpg | jandrese wrote: | The article makes a decent case for the symbol to be a chart | symbol that means "no right angle". The zig zag arrow | apparently being a shorthand for "no" in that particular | circle. | | It looks like a symbol that someone added for completeness but | isn't particularly useful even in the field. | GavinMcG wrote: | That to me immediately communicates a decreasing chart. I would | have no idea that the right-angle lines represent right angles | generally and not chart axes. | kortex wrote: | Wake up, first thing that pops into my head, "I should check HN" | (normally it's imgur, yeah bad habits). | | Number one post is the Linking Sigil. Neat. | | If you know, you know. | | As for how a chaos magick symbol concocted in the 21st century | ended up in a 1994 font spec, clearly discordians used the power | of fnord to retcon it. | lgl wrote: | Context: https://tme.miraheze.org/wiki/Ellis_(sigil) | firstcommentyo wrote: | Im sorry to be a party pooper but though Linking Sigil is also | mentioned in the article but that's not what the article is | refering/asking about. | bckr wrote: | Hmm, the article links to the Linking Sigil at the bottom, in | the links section. | | But the rest of the article is concerned with how mysterious | the symbol is, and how no one knows where it came from. | | A clue: anyone can register a symbol for a surprisingly small | fee. | | A question: why would the sigil be mentioned in an addendum | but not in the article proper? | | Anyway, it's pretty obvious that GP had a premonition this | morning, with a pay off. | CobrastanJorji wrote: | > A clue: anyone can register a symbol for a surprisingly | small fee. | | A unicode symbol? I want a symbol! How much are we talking | about? | lizardactivist wrote: | This is like the definition of legacy luggage. And somewhere | there's probably someone who will argue that if the symbol is not | present in a typeface, then said typeface is not "compliant". | russellbeattie wrote: | Eventually Unicode will think, "Hey, _maybe_ bold, italic and | underline aren 't just decorative, but _required_ formatting | which _conveys emphasis_ , and other information that needs to be | contained within the text itself!" | | Or, maybe not and we'll continue to lose formatting every time we | copy and paste and be forced to use _plain text_ for the rest of | our lives. Also, we can color our emojis now, but that WARNING | text can 't be in red. Because colors don't matter? | | Which ever person decided basic formatting shouldn't be in the | spec was wrong and we lose important details every day because of | it. | SleekEagle wrote: | Looks like a break in a graph axis | reaperducer wrote: | _no one knows what [?] is meant to represent_ | | Translation: Nothing came up on a Google search, and going to the | library and looking in a book is hard. | | I see this more and more often these days. Bloggers claiming that | there is no known origin for something, or inventing their own | histories based on nothing more than internet searches. | | The internet is vast, but 99.9% of the world's history and | information is not online for free. | adamrezich wrote: | on the contrary, dude seems to have done pretty extensive | research--did you read the article? | [deleted] | pwdisswordfish9 wrote: | Someone show him U+29B0 REVERSED EMPTY SET. | yreg wrote: | Not long ago I found these <= U+2264 LESS- | THAN OR EQUAL TO [?] U+22DC EQUAL TO OR LESS-THAN | >= U+2265 GREATER-THAN OR EQUAL TO [?] U+22DD EQUAL TO | OR GREATER-THAN | | or even [?] U+22DA LESS-THAN EQUAL TO OR | GREATER-THAN [?] U+22DB GREATER-THAN EQUAL TO OR LESS- | THAN | lifthrasiir wrote: | The former is probably for the same reason that both plus- | minus and minus-plus exist. The latter is commonly used for | the "unordered" relation in partially ordered sets. | account42 wrote: | Wouldn't "less than, equal to, or greater than" imply | anything EXCEPT unordered? | lifthrasiir wrote: | Ah, correct. The slashed variant would mean unordered, | while the original character means ordered. | alickz wrote: | > [?] U+22DA LESS-THAN EQUAL TO OR GREATER-THAN | | > [?] U+22DB GREATER-THAN EQUAL TO OR LESS-THAN | | These are very interesting. What would be the use case for | these? | vermarish wrote: | When I was learning statistical hypothesis testing, I once | wrote notes that looked like "H_0: mu [?] a <--> p-value: | P(T(X) [?] T(a))", although I didn't include the equal-to | bar. | mkl wrote: | That sounds like a different symbol: [?] U+2276 | | There are lots of similar symbols: [?][?][?][?][?][?] | Nadya wrote: | https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E2%8B%9A | | > If the function f is differentiable and concave, then | f'(x1)[?]f'(x2) as x1[?]x2. That is f'(x1) and f'(x2) have | the opposite relation as x1 and x2. | bialpio wrote: | This blew my mind: | | "Related terms [?] (synonymous when | used on its own, but antonymous when used jointly)" | a_shovel wrote: | Perhaps "has a comparison relation to"? So for any two | numbers x and y, x [?] y is true, but "square [?] pentagon" | is false. | skykooler wrote: | More concretely, it's true only for real numbers - so -4 | [?] 7 is true, but 3+2i [?] 5 is false. | progbits wrote: | Clearly useful for typesetting reflections of mathematical | proofs. /s | willis936 wrote: | It's how Leonardo Da Vinci would type up proofs. | mkl wrote: | I think he would have typed things left to right. He only | wrote in mirror because it was more ergonomic for him, but | there's no such issue with a keyboard. | leipert wrote: | Seems like Wikipedia has the answer: | | > When writing in languages such as Danish and Norwegian, where | the empty set character may be confused with the alphabetic | letter O (as when using the symbol in linguistics), the Unicode | character U+29B0 REVERSED EMPTY SET may be used instead | bell-cot wrote: | Guess: right-handedness (as in chirality, polarized light, spiral | motion, etc.) | herodotus wrote: | > And the inclusion of "AMS" in the names of the entity | collections likewise remained mysterious. | | Could this be The American Mathematical Society? | anentropic wrote: | Seems plausible, but from the linked stackexchange question: | https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/640588/what-is-%E2%8... | | > It appeared in the entity set ISOAMSA, which, regardless of | the name, had no connection with the American Mathematical | Society. | herodotus wrote: | Thanks. I missed that. | tlb wrote: | Since it looks like a caduceus on a graph, I propose it as a | symbol for ethical statisticians. | saltmeister wrote: | sj4nz wrote: | I'll propose that it could be the glyph to represent "cutting | corners": | | > To skip certain steps in order to do something as easily or | cheaply as possible, usually to the detriment of the finished | product or end result. | timonoko wrote: | It is a proofreaders mark with languages with long words. The | L-shape is "Split the word here" and same with arrow-squiggle on | top is "Do it at the next syllable or not at all". For example | words "YO-KLUBI" and "YOK-LUBI" have different meanings. Source: | I have seen Finnish proofreaders marks. | bombcar wrote: | This sounds plausible but I can't search Finnish enough to find | examples. | timonoko wrote: | You can find German marks "Korrekturlesen Zeichen". The | L-shape is described in DIN 16511, but cannot find the | opposite. | bombcar wrote: | Here's DIN 16511 https://www2.informatik.hu- | berlin.de/sv/lehre/korrekturzeich... for anyone interested. | Perhaps someone in Finland could dig further? It might be a | bit strange to have proofreader marks for proofreading | marks, but maybe something slipped in. | | "oikolukumerkit" found an image with more than just the DIN | referenced marks, but not much more. | JulianMorrison wrote: | That is a chaos magick linking sigil. | rackjack wrote: | That rabbit hole of esotericism was pretty cool. | primer42 wrote: | So Unicode has all these mysterious characters... but I would bet | that it's still true that many people on the planet speaking | common languages can't even type their name... | | This post is from 2015, and I'd love to know if unicode has added | better support for non-English languages since then. | | https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/i-can-text-you-a-pile-of... | | Based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_(Unicode_block), | only 3 more Bengali characters have been added since 2015. | giraffe_lady wrote: | That publication was so good, I was really bummed when they | shut down. Looks like they came back for a minute in 2020? I | had no idea but I know what I'm doing tonight. | goto11 wrote: | The article present it like it purely due to western-centrism | these characters does not have distinct code points in Unicode. | In reality the issue is much more subtle - a discussion whether | a certain glyph is a ligature of two characters or its own | distinct character. | nograpes wrote: | I was very surprised by your comment and by the article you | linked that the name Aditya cannot be represented in Unicode. I | think it can be represented: aadity. | | I am not a Bengali-speaker, but I am familiar with the class of | scripts to which the Bengali script belongs, abugidas. These | scripts assume a vowel following every consonant. When two | consonants occur one after the other in a word (a consonant | cluster), this must be represented specially, because if you | just wrote (consonant, consonant) it would be pronounced | (consonant, inherent vowel, consonant). | | The "ty" in Aditya is one such consonant cluster. The way this | cluster is written is ty. This is represented as three code | points (I think I am messing up the proper terms), one for the | "t", one to "join", and one for "y". | | Some people think of the special shape that the final "y" as a | separate character on its own. In fact, it has it's own name | (ya-phala). I can understand why it would be confusing to see | that the ya-phala can't be typed as its own single character (" | y"), but it really has to do with a difference in how the input | is is implemented and how the person thinks about their own | language. | | In fact, on the unicode.org site, typing this very character is | part of the FAQ for Bengali: | https://unicode.org/faq/bengali.html#6 | andlarry wrote: | There was a lot of discussion [0] of that point when the | Model View Culture article was originally posted 7 years ago. | | It's complicated, but the author of the piece seems to take | issue with how the character set was designed by the language | authorities the UTC delegated to. | | The whole comment thread is an interesting read. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9220147 | kens wrote: | I read that "I Can't Write My Name" article when it came out | and it's remarkably misguided. First, there are solid | linguistic reasons why Unicode handles that character the way | it does. Second, the article completely misunderstands how the | Unicode Consortium works. Finally, the Unicode Consortium is | remarkably open to character proposals from random people. The | author could have written a proposal and fixed the problem in | half the time it took to write the article. Source: I am a | random person who got multiple characters added to Unicode. | cm2187 wrote: | You will soon need a billion usd budget to implement a new font | tgorgolione wrote: | This reminds me of the design used to denote a graph whose y axis | does not start at 0: | | https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/79272 | ezoe wrote: | There are some kanji scripts that has no record of existing usage | in the JIS character encoding which was also incorporated to the | Unicode. It's called "ghost character" in Japanese. | | https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B9%BD%E9%9C%8A%E6%96%87%E5... | kingcharles wrote: | I feel bad for the font designers who have to put all these | inane characters in, have to draw them and hint them, and they | have no purpose except they have to be there or someone will | complain. | lifthrasiir wrote: | Fortunately there are only a handful of such cases. But | unfortunately there are tons of commonly used CJKV | ideographs; typical Chinese or Japanese fonts are of course | not expected to have all Chinese characters (there are almost | 100,000 of them while OpenType fonts can only have 65K | glyphs), but they _are_ expected to have thousands of | commonly used characters. | ezoe wrote: | It must be really nice that even an amateur font designer | can single-handedly create a quality font for English usage | in his spare time. | | For Japanese, it requires a minimal of few thousands of | characters and symbols and it still doesn't cover all the | commonly used characters today. | tarsinge wrote: | And still no external link character, ridiculous. | albrewer wrote: | Hm, now that you mention it, I always thought of the external | link symbol as being a box with an arrow coming from inside it | and protruding out of the upper right hand corner, but I don't | see that symbol anywhere in Unicode, and I'm not sure why I | have that association. | | There is the U+1F517 link symbol but I'm not sure that's | communicating the same thing. | layer8 wrote: | > I'm not sure why I have that association. | | Wikipedia uses it. | teddyh wrote: | I often see a globe symbol used to indicate external links; | i.e. U+1F310, U+1F30D, U+1F30E, or U+1F30F. | jason0597 wrote: | I still don't understand why Unicode has all these obscure | symbols but they _still_ haven 't added all superscript/subscript | numbers and letters | | https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6638471/why-does-the-uni... | | To quote a reply from the above StackOverflow thread: "So, they | added a snowman with snow AND a snowman without snow , so that | the weather forecaster of this world can avoid the dull snowflake | , but we will never get our missing superscript q!?" | blacklion wrote: | I don't understand, why Unicode must (should?) contain | superscript and subscript glyphes at all. Declared goal of | Unicode is to have encoding of all characters used by all | languages, past and modern. Subscript and superscript are not | used by any language as separate characters, it is typesetting | property. It should be solved by other means, not by | character/glyph encoding. Should Unicode include ALL characters | strike-out? Underlined? Double-underlined? Small-caps variant | for all letters for languages where small-caps are used in | typography tradition? | | And, BTW, what do you mean by "all letters"? Should Unicode | contain sub/superscript variants of Hangul or Devanagari or | letters from hundreds other non-latin-alphabae languages? So, | Unicode must be approximately tripled, bar hieroglyphic part | (and why hieroglyphics should not be sub/superscripted?)? | BaRRaKID wrote: | This is probably an edge case, but I work in lab software | that uses chemical symbols and having sub and super | characters saves lots of headaches. I can just store "CO2" in | a database, query it, and display it back as a simple string, | or display values in scientific notation like 1,3x103, | without having to use any formatting. | | But to be honest I'm not sure what the parent comment wants | to see added because at the moment having all the letters | from A-Z, numbers from 0-9, and plus minus and equals signs | as both subscript and superscript seems to be enough. | cygx wrote: | Upper-case subscripts are missing, for one: I'm not allowed | to talk about the normal force F_N in plain text email. | Superscript and subscript Greek letters would also be nice | to have, eg in context of relativity. | blacklion wrote: | Why not Devanagari then? This Europe-centric point of | view bother me. | | Also, I've seen a lot of different symbols as subscripts | in mathematical and physical articles, like squares, | triangles, arrows, etc. | cygx wrote: | _Why not Devanagari then? This Europe-centric point of | view bother me._ | | Sure: As I mentioned in another comment, I'd add markers | to enable arbitrary super and subscripting. | | However, the question I responded to was asking what | specifically people were missing in practice, and the | examples I gave are things I personally would have used | if they had been available. | cygx wrote: | _Should Unicode contain sub /superscript variants of Hangul | or Devanagari or letters from hundreds other non-latin- | alphabae languages?_ | | Nope, you'd use markers similar to U+200E (LEFT-TO-RIGHT | MARK) and U+200F (RIGHT-TO-LEFT MARK) that already exist to | indicate text direction (which is also a typesetting | property). | lifthrasiir wrote: | They are relevant because Unicode _had_ to define the | bidirectional rendering and not every rendering can be | automatically inferred from logical (abstract) characters. | Unicode has no reason to define the general text rendering | including subscripts and superscripts, so there is no | reason for Unicode to define control characters for them. | cygx wrote: | _Unicode had to define the bidirectional rendering_ | | Why? They could have left this for a higher layer to | handle. | lifthrasiir wrote: | Unicode defines characters, their semantics and (very | flexible) guidelines for rendering them. Unlike, say, | bold, italic or super/subscripts, bidirectionality is an | intrinsic property of those characters and can't be | easily refactored. | cygx wrote: | Should a _universal_ text encoding provide a way to | encode the names of mathematical and physical quantities? | | In my opinion, yes. If it can't, it's not fit for | purpose, no matter what is or is not an intrinsic | property of some characters... | thaumasiotes wrote: | > Unicode defines characters, their semantics | | Unicode specifically states that it doesn't define the | semantics of characters. That would seriously interfere | with its purpose of defining characters. | | There are some notable exceptions, and they are | acknowledged to be mistakes. | lifthrasiir wrote: | > Unicode specifically states that it doesn't define the | semantics of characters. | | The Unicode Standard explicitly says otherwise: | | > Characters have well-defined semantics. These semantics | are defined by explicitly assigned character properties, | rather than implied through the character name or the | position of a character in the code tables (see _Section | 3.5, Properties_ ). [1] | | > The Unicode Standard associates a rich set of semantics | with characters and, in some instances, with code points. | The support of character semantics is required for | conformance; see _Section 3.2, Conformance Requirements_. | [2] | | To be fair, it refers to "character" semantics which is | more or less abstracted by character properties. It is | not like that, for example, ^ U+25B2 WHITE UP-POINTING | TRIANGLE UNICODE CHARACTER can only ever be used for | denoting triangles. But it has defined semantics in the | way that the character has properties expected for such | symbols. | | [1] https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode14.0.0/ch02.p | df#page... | | [2] https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode14.0.0/ch04.p | df#page... | mbauman wrote: | Sign onto the proposal: https://github.com/stevengj/subsuper- | proposal | lifthrasiir wrote: | Unicode superscript and subscript is not intended for | mathematical usages [1]. | | [1] https://unicode.org/faq/ligature_digraph.html#Pf8 | IshKebab wrote: | That's a cop out. You could equally say that new emojis | shouldn't be added because you should use inline images for | those. Or RTL markers shouldn't be added because you should | use dedicated text styling for that. | | There are a ton of places that don't support superscript | markup. | [deleted] | tgv wrote: | > You could equally say that new emojis shouldn't be added | because you should use inline images for those. | | Well, that's really a better solution. Or a unicode | character that allows you to set a pixel on a 256x256 grid | and one to compose them. Strike that. Better not give | anyone bad ideas. | DiabloD3 wrote: | Almost sounds like you reinvented DEC Sixel. | lifthrasiir wrote: | > You could equally say that new emojis shouldn't be added | because you should use inline images for those. | | If emojis weren't allocated out of compatibility concern, | this would be exactly my opinion from the day 1. To be | honest I'm not still happy with the current emoji | assignments and semantics. Not even Unicode people are | satisfied either, there are numerous proposals for | replacing emoji with something else (example keyword: QID | emoji). | | > RTL markers shouldn't be added because you should use | dedicated text styling for that. | | > There are a ton of places that don't support superscript | markup. | | Unlike most text attributes, bidirectionality is an | intrinsic property of abstract characters and thus | absolutely within the Unicode's scope. Ideally you can't | and shouldn't make some LTR character to behave like RTL | characters or vice versa. Bidi control characters only | exist to correct automatic rendering, and can be presented | out of band (the Bidi specification is explicitly designed | for this use case in mind [1]). | | [1] | https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/#Markup_And_Formatting | goto11 wrote: | > but they still haven't added all superscript/subscript | numbers and letters | | That would triple the size of Unicode. | hiccuphippo wrote: | They would just need to add one Unicode modifier for | superscript and one for subscript like there is for gender | and skin color. | goto11 wrote: | Fair enough, but general formatting codes would overlap | with what is already supported in rich-text formats like | HTML or LaTeX. Unicode is a standard for encoding | _characters_ , it is not supposed to be a rich-text | document format itself. | IshKebab wrote: | I mean they could at least add q. | c22 wrote: | I've been told we'll never run out of space in Unicode. | vesinisa wrote: | Should we also have slanted, bold, semi-bold, light and | underlined versions of every code point? Versions with/without | serifs? For monospaced text? Those are all presentational | matters. That we have super/subscripts in Unicode in the first | place seems to have been just a hack to help terminal emulator | software deal with obsolete encodings like ISO-8859-1: | https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2000/00159-ucsterminal.txt | account42 wrote: | Should we have bold and/or slanted characters in Unicode? It | seems someone thought so! | mkl wrote: | Those are intended for maths, not for formatted text. | Variables in mathematics are usually a single character, so | there is a great variety of ways to format the characters | to create different symbols. Diacritical marks, underlines, | etc. are also used for this. | jjtheblunt wrote: | AMS = American Mathematical Society last i subscribed. How the | heck would someone surveying mathematicians not have found that? | ectopod wrote: | In a linked post Barbara Beeton says not. She collated these | characters while working for the AMS so she should know. | | https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/640588/what-is-%E2%8... | jjtheblunt wrote: | that's even more wild! thank you for sharing / emphasizing | that curious twist | cold_fact wrote: | I work at AMS currently, this is so interesting! | [deleted] | firstcommentyo wrote: | Dislosure: I'm not directly from the fields of the Sciences Of | Angles And Ambiguously Crossing Lines nor I've every seen or used | this symbol before. However to me it's, pretty evidently, | supposed to be a "no right angle" symbol. | | (A) It's in the math section, (B) it's with angles, (C) the | thunderbolt | is commonly used for "not" or more specifically for | dis-proof in this area and | | (D) at least by my 30 s internet search on a mobile phone I | couldn't find any other "no-angle" or "no-right-angle" symbol. | | Someone could argue that usually you use a simple strike through | as like as in [?] (unequal), [?] (not-element-of) or [?] (empty | set) but I would say it was chosen to avoid confusion in this | case. The angle itself (without the "no/not") consists of only to | orthogonal lines so it would be kinda complicated to "strike it | though" in any direction without ambiguity that would resemble a | triangle, a fork or whatnot. | | # | esperent wrote: | > the thunderbolt | is commonly used for "not" or more | specifically for dis-proof in this area and | | I don't think it's that common. At least, I don't recall seeing | it ever. Maybe it's used in non-English mathematics? | | Wikipedia mentions it's also used in electrolysis so maybe this | new one is related to that somehow? | qiskit wrote: | Same. Never seen that symbol in my life. I've seen !, ~, !, | etc used for not/negation in computer science, math, logic, | etc. | | And some commenters said they used it to mark proof by | contradiction, but why is there a need to mark it when you | are showing it via proof? A canonical example of proof by | contradiction is proving sqrt(2) is not rational. Never have | I seen it marked with that symbol. Where would you even mark | it? At the beginning with the assumption? Or at the end like | QED? | valtism wrote: | I was taught it in extracurricular mathematics in | Australia. We were taught that it goes at the end of a | contradiction proof once the contradiction has been found. | We used to write it extra large, like lightning strike. I | think of it like a proof mic-drop. | AaronFriel wrote: | Math degree holder from Iowa, yeah, I've seen and used it | many times. The symbol is used when you reach the | contradictory statement. Like "1 = 2". | | "By way of contradiction suppose P, then ..., thus ~P |. | Therefore ..." | ratmice wrote: | I believe I have seen it used as a symbol which indicates the | discharge of an assumption, but never for "not". | maze-le wrote: | It's used in german mathematics education (secondary level), | either to mark a contradiction in a proof or more generally | to mark an erroneous statement. | ruuda wrote: | Also in Dutch universities to mark a contradiction, | especially in a proof by contradiction. | ceh123 wrote: | It's the first symbol referenced for symbols used in proof by | contradiction to show contradiction [0]. I know that's not | exactly "not" or "disproof" but I think that might be what | the poster was getting at. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction#Symbolic_repr | ese... | HNHatesUsers wrote: | kens wrote: | I've thought that it would be cool to have a Wiki with an entry | for each character, describing what it is, and its history. | Although that wouldn't help for mystery characters like this | one, there are a lot of characters with stories behind them. | sprayk wrote: | I like this idea. It would serve as a place to put a well- | sourced answer to the question about this character, and the | talk section could be used to discuss further investigation | into the topic, or when new uses inevitably arise. | paledot wrote: | I was just discussing :man-in-business-suit-levitating: with | some friends earlier today. Also an interestingly cryptic | background, albeit not an unsolved one. | | https://emojipedia.org/person-in-suit-levitating/ | | (Edit: Apparently HN automatically removes emoji.) | logbiscuitswave wrote: | The story behind MIBSL is definitely fascinating and some | great trivia there. There's a longer article about it here: | https://www.newsweek.com/2016/05/06/secret-ska-history- | man-b... that covers not just the inspiration for the emoji | itself, but a brief history behind the inspiration behind | the inspiration. Lots of levels of metaness to unpack. | alx__ wrote: | I love this! I've always assumed it was a rude boy emoji. | Was briefly in a high school ska band :D | subroutine wrote: | Wikipedia already does this for many symbols. See for | example... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscellaneous_Technical | | Aside from the table describing each symbol, if you scroll to | the bottom of the page, it links out to full articles related | to each. For a full list see... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unicode_characters | zeteo wrote: | > (C) the thunderbolt | is commonly used for "not" or more | specifically for dis-proof in this area | | Any examples? | contravariant wrote: | I've seen it used for contradiction. Though that's not the | same thing as 'not' and I can't think of why you'd combine | this with orthogonality. | hedora wrote: | If the thunderbolt means not, and the right angle is | displaying the x and y axis, then this symbol could be a pun | for "not a function". | firstcommentyo wrote: | High school physics and math as a major. I could scan you my | scripts and papers if you're interested.....no won't. ;-D | | But maybe "commonly used" was maybe the wrong term. More | appropriately: "sometimes" or "by some". | renewiltord wrote: | Where in the world? I've never used it despite similar | background. Perhaps regional? | IshKebab wrote: | I have never seen it used as not once in maths or physics. | "extremely rarely" perhaps. | mywittyname wrote: | To be fair, there are _lot_ of math symbols out there. | | http://mirrors.dotsrc.org/ctan/info/symbols/comprehensive | /sy... | | There are lots of examples of the lightning bolt in | there. In fact, under ulsy Contradiction symbols, there | are four variants. | | I also noticed the exact symbol being discussed is listed | under "Angles". | HuangYuSan wrote: | I believe in German (possibly also other languages) the | thunderbolt | is commonly used to mean "this is a | contradiction" in a mathematical proof, equivalently to in | English a kind of [?] rotated by 45deg or the symbol *. The | symbol [?] on the other hand means "false" and is used in | particular in formal logic. | tediousdemise wrote: | Right angles have a small box near the vertex which denotes it | is a right angle [0]. | | This symbol doesn't have that box, so I don't think it's a | right angle. | | [0] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_angle#/media/File:Right_... | | Edit: This merely adds to the confusion, since the name of the | glyph contains the words "right angle." | | -\\_(tsu)_/- | mikeryan wrote: | _This merely adds to the confusion, since the name of the | glyph contains the words "right angle."_ | | The article notes that sans a given meaning the glyph was | given a "descriptive name". | | So you're not wrong? :-P | cgriswald wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_angle | | > In Unicode, the symbol for a right angle is U+221F [?] | RIGHT ANGLE (HTML ∟ * ∟). It should not be | confused with the similarly shaped symbol U+231E [?] BOTTOM | LEFT CORNER (HTML ⌞ * ⌞, ⌞). Related | symbols are U+22BE [?] RIGHT ANGLE WITH ARC (HTML ⊾ * | ⊾), U+299C RIGHT ANGLE VARIANT WITH SQUARE (HTML | ⦜ * ⦜), and U+299D MEASURED RIGHT ANGLE WITH | DOT (HTML ⦝ * ⦝).[5] | | > In diagrams, the fact that an angle is a right angle is | usually expressed by adding a small right angle that forms a | square with the angle in the diagram, as seen in the diagram | of a right triangle (in British English, a right-angled | triangle) to the right. The symbol for a measured angle, an | arc, with a dot, is used in some European countries, | including German-speaking countries and Poland, as an | alternative symbol for a right angle.[6] | aaron695 wrote: | danparsonson wrote: | I submit to you that it's clearly not a thunderbolt but an | arrow indicating changing directions; that being overlaid on | top of a pair of axes is obviously useful in the study of non- | Euclidean geometry to indicate the use of wibbly-wobbly | dimensions. | etothepii wrote: | Particularly useful for timey-whimey relativistic analyses. | froh wrote: | Perpendicular + Unicode combining solidus = [?] + / = [?] | mbauman wrote: | That doesn't jive with the history in TFA -- the Unicode name | and location was _inferred_ from the symbol itself without | knowledge of its meaning. | dundarious wrote: | I don't see the contradiction. The only thing they used from | the name is the "right angle" aspect. Given their argument is | this is a composition of thunderbolt + X, for some X (and | derived from their prior knowledge of thunderbolt's | compositional meaning), deciphering the image as "thunderbolt | + right angle" is trivial and consistent with the naming | origin in TFA. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-13 23:00 UTC)