Tootfinder

from my link log —
JavaScript got better while I wasn't looking.
https://eev.ee/blog/2017/10/07/javascript-got-better-while-i-wasnt-looking/
saved 2020-02-02

JavaScript got better while I wasn’t looking
IndustrialRobot has generously donated in order to inquire: In the last few years there seems to have been a lot of activity with adding emojis to Unicode. Has there been an equal effort to add ‘real’ languages/glyph systems/etc? And as always, if you don’t have anything to say on that topic, feel free to choose your own. :p Yes. I mean, each release of Unicode lists major new a

@… "Can emojis be removed from Unicode? Or are they there forever once they are in?" - As of now, once they're in, they're in. The code point in Unicode is then reserved for this symbol. This can be a problem because emojis are kind of open-ended (other than alphabets and many other symbol lists). And it's possible that some emojis turn out to be rarely used. I could imagine that eventually some platforms just stop supporting a certain emoji - but it's really useful to have an international encoding standard which is fully supported by most technology (as anyone who has programmed or written online text in the early 2000s can attest). That's why getting a new emoji approved has become so hard - we're basically creating a kind of tech debt for a potentially long time.
Funny story - you could try creating a post now with a Unicode character from an "empty" code point in the emoji range, in the hope that it will get assigned in a later round. I've seen such a post on the old Twitter, which later was filled with all kinds of random emojis, when you look at it in a few years. #linguistics #emojis #WorldEmojiDay

from my link log —
Unicode technical note 27: known anomalies in Unicode character names.
http://unicode.org/notes/tn27/
saved 2020-04-22 https://dotat.a…

"what about double meanings like in 🍆🥦 and 🍑?" - Ah yes, these ambiguities are very famous. In order to get a new emoji approved nowadays, it's even helpful to be able to point out additional meanings and usages that are metaphorical in this way. The Unicode consortium is wary of introducing too many new emojis, and so those that can "carry more weight" and fill many needs at once are preferred.
In internet corpora the vegetable-related uses of these emojis are probably quite rare (but I must admit I haven't checked yet) - and the metaphorical meanings probably dominate. Though there are also many insider uses of emojis that aren't super widely known outside of their circle. This is comparable to other kinds of linguistic codes or innovations (e.g. in youth language) and not limited to only emojis. #WorldEmojiDay #emojis #linguistics

from my link log —
Unicode's transliteration rules are Turing complete.
https://seriot.ch/computation/uts35/
saved 2026-07-08 https://dotat.at/…

unicodelang: Languages spoken by country (2015)
A bipartite network of languages and the countries in which they are spoken, as estimated by Unicode. Edges are weighted by the proportion of the given country's population that is literate in a particular language.
This network has 868 nodes and 1255 edges.
Tags: Informational, Relatedness, Weighted

How do I get in touch with the Unicode consortium? I’d like to propose the new codepoints COMBINING SNOT DRIBBLE and MODIFIER FACIAL FEATURE BURNING EYES

unicodelang: Languages spoken by country (2015)
A bipartite network of languages and the countries in which they are spoken, as estimated by Unicode. Edges are weighted by the proportion of the given country's population that is literate in a particular language.
This network has 868 nodes and 1255 edges.
Tags: Informational, Relatedness, Weighted

unicodelang: Languages spoken by country (2015)
A bipartite network of languages and the countries in which they are spoken, as estimated by Unicode. Edges are weighted by the proportion of the given country's population that is literate in a particular language.
This network has 868 nodes and 1255 edges.
Tags: Informational, Relatedness, Weighted

unicodelang: Languages spoken by country (2015)
A bipartite network of languages and the countries in which they are spoken, as estimated by Unicode. Edges are weighted by the proportion of the given country's population that is literate in a particular language.
This network has 868 nodes and 1255 edges.
Tags: Informational, Relatedness, Weighted

unicodelang: Languages spoken by country (2015)
A bipartite network of languages and the countries in which they are spoken, as estimated by Unicode. Edges are weighted by the proportion of the given country's population that is literate in a particular language.
This network has 868 nodes and 1255 edges.
Tags: Informational, Relatedness, Weighted

unicodelang: Languages spoken by country (2015)
A bipartite network of languages and the countries in which they are spoken, as estimated by Unicode. Edges are weighted by the proportion of the given country's population that is literate in a particular language.
This network has 868 nodes and 1255 edges.
Tags: Informational, Relatedness, Weighted

unicodelang: Languages spoken by country (2015)
A bipartite network of languages and the countries in which they are spoken, as estimated by Unicode. Edges are weighted by the proportion of the given country's population that is literate in a particular language.
This network has 868 nodes and 1255 edges.
Tags: Informational, Relatedness, Weighted

unicodelang: Languages spoken by country (2015)
A bipartite network of languages and the countries in which they are spoken, as estimated by Unicode. Edges are weighted by the proportion of the given country's population that is literate in a particular language.
This network has 868 nodes and 1255 edges.
Tags: Informational, Relatedness, Weighted

unicodelang: Languages spoken by country (2015)
A bipartite network of languages and the countries in which they are spoken, as estimated by Unicode. Edges are weighted by the proportion of the given country's population that is literate in a particular language.
This network has 868 nodes and 1255 edges.
Tags: Informational, Relatedness, Weighted