3 ms·
I'm not sure if you're sincere but I don't think emoji would be easier to compare. +Might be less friendly to screen reader users?
by sleepychu 10y ago
I'm not sure if you're sincere but I don't think emoji would be easier to compare. +Might be less friendly to screen reader users?
- avisser 10y agoI hate to say it, but comparing two, long hash values via a screen reader doesn't seem viable for humans, regardless of emoji. Maybe an auralizer to turn the hash into a short piece of music?
- JulianMorrison 10y agoSee my above example from urbit. They are something a screen reader would clearly read differently for different values, if not comprehensibly.
- masklinn 10y ago> I'm not sure if you're sincere but I don't think emoji would be easier to compare. The point is to leverage human pattern matching so you want short-ish figures with large differences. Each hex digits is 4 bits, but each emoji is 10 bits, a 128 bits key is 13 emoji which is significantly more eyeballable than 32 hex digits, and chances are you'll notice EGGPLANT being replaced by CAMERA in 13 pictures easier than you'd notice B being replaced by 8 in 32 characters.
- lmm 10y ago> Each hex digits is 4 bits, but each emoji is 10 bits, a 128 bits key is 13 emoji which is significantly more eyeballable than 32 hex digits, and chances are you'll notice EGGPLANT being replaced by CAMERA in 13 pictures easier than you'd notice B being replaced by 8 in 32 characters. Compare like with like - what are the two most similar emoji from that set of 2^10 ?