> You're comparing demand with supply, which are not the same That's fair, I did get them mixed up. The _supply_ is constrained since they introduced more stri

> You're comparing demand with supply, which are not the same That's fair, I did get them mixed up. The _supply_ is constrained since they introduced more strict rules for adding new emoji, the demand is still much larger than that. > the 2023 additions produce endless varieties of human "representation", and everyone wants to be represented in emoji Most of the 2023 additions are about horizontally flipping actions that have directionality. Only the new family pairings could be considered representation-related, but IMO they're mostly about completing the set of possible combinations. > the new sequences depend on the new codepoints, otherwise they would be preexisting emoji, not 2023 additions It's complicated, because Unicode publishes both the codepoints and also a list of recommended interoperable ZWJ sequences. Newer additions have been to this list. Anyway, ultimately this is a matter of opinion, but arguing that unicode growing to encompass a lot of emoji as time goes by is not something scalable seems weird to me. One of the explicit goals of unicode was the ability to handle CJK ideograms. There are ~90,000 of those, and only ~3000 emoji. Even if they added 100 new emoji per year, which is far more than what they're doing, it would take about 900 years for the emoji set to match the size of the CJK ideograms set. This seems very scalable to me.