4 ms·

Apparently, this is because of a standard they're required to conform to, not database software in specific: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40265929 http

by msla 2y ago

Apparently, this is because of a standard they're required to conform to, not database software in specific: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40265929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40265929 > As far as I can tell, this isn't an issue with the specific database itself, but the standard they are required to record geographic data in, which the end of the article mentions as "BS 7666". On the other hand, you’re naïve if you think English hasn’t already been simplified to fit on machinery such as typewriters and cheap printing presses. This process began long before computers.

eesmith 2y ago
The Linotype machine supported ﬂ, ﬀ, ﬃ, ℔, œ, and æ. See https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Linotype_keyboard_with_Star_Quadder_attachment.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Linotype... linked to from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linotype_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linotype_machine. Or see https://archive.org/details/LinotypeKeyboardPractice/page/n9/mode/2up?q=linotype+keyboard&view=theater https://archive.org/details/LinotypeKeyboardPractice/page/n9... . Even cheap printing presses could handle more than you think. Here's a type case layout from 1846, again with æ, œ, ﬂ, ﬀ, and ﬃ, ﬁ and ﬄ. https://archive.org/details/printingapparatu00holtrich/page/18/mode/2up?q=%22type+case%22&view=theater https://archive.org/details/printingapparatu00holtrich/page/... . That book is for the "Parlour printing press [which] was invented by Mr. Cowper for the amusement and education of youth, by enabling them to print any little subject they had previously written, provided the printing did not exceed in size the dimensions of an ordinary duodecimo page, which measures about 5 inches by 3 inches."
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  Did it support þ? That would be the best-known example of written English being changed to accommodate a printing press rather than the other way around.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    No. But that doesn't really fit since þ had mostly died out by the 1300s, with only few remaining uses by Caxton's printing - long before the 1800s. I also wouldn't call those typewriters or cheap printing presses.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      Is there something relevant about the 1800s? I said þ was an example of the written language changing to accommodate the printing press, not changing to accommodate the 1800s.
      - eesmith 2y ago
        I had responded to msla's comment about "typewriters and cheap printing presses". Those didn't exist in the 1500s. þ's disappearance from English is not due to either, though the lack of þ in available type faces was certainly an issue.
        thaumasiotes 2y ago
        But the reference to "cheap printing presses" has to be interpreted as actually being a reference to type, as you have already done with your archive.org link. The press itself cannot either support or fail to support any graphical forms; there's no difference in the press whether you're using type or block printing. Press quality issues are things like "are the surfaces flat" / "how much pressure can the press apply" / "how many pages can we press before running into a mechanical issue".
        eesmith 2y ago
        I disagree. It does not have to be that. I pointed to a printing press designed for kids. That should be much cheaper than one used to print larger sizes or many copies, much less the quality of the Bible in the 1500s. I do get your point, but I think it's still wrong to use "cheap" to refer to the typefaces available for the Caxton and KJV Bibles. I suspect they were quite expensive. The physical press is only part of the printing cost. The Linotype typesetting machine made it possible to set an entire line of type, drawing from a 90 or so characters. While the press itself didn't care, adding new symbols required manual effort, making it more expensive.
calibas 2y ago
With the printing press it makes sense, there's physical constraints that make things very difficult if you want to support a huge number of different characters. Those limitations don't exist anymore though. On one hand we have systems supporting Unicode and just about every character imaginable, it's an example of using technology to go beyond the limitations of the past. You could have a system that supports emojis on street signs, but instead we're going the opposite direction and introducing artificial limitations that are even more restrictive than 500 year-old technology.

by msla 2y ago

eesmith 2y ago

The Linotype machine supported ﬂ, ﬀ, ﬃ, ℔, œ, and æ. See https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Linotype_keyboard_with_Star_Quadder_attachment.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Linotype... linked to from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linotype_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linotype_machine. Or see https://archive.org/details/LinotypeKeyboardPractice/page/n9/mode/2up?q=linotype+keyboard&view=theater https://archive.org/details/LinotypeKeyboardPractice/page/n9... . Even cheap printing presses could handle more than you think. Here's a type case layout from 1846, again with æ, œ, ﬂ, ﬀ, and ﬃ, ﬁ and ﬄ. https://archive.org/details/printingapparatu00holtrich/page/18/mode/2up?q=%22type+case%22&view=theater https://archive.org/details/printingapparatu00holtrich/page/... . That book is for the "Parlour printing press [which] was invented by Mr. Cowper for the amusement and education of youth, by enabling them to print any little subject they had previously written, provided the printing did not exceed in size the dimensions of an ordinary duodecimo page, which measures about 5 inches by 3 inches."

thaumasiotes 2y ago
Did it support þ? That would be the best-known example of written English being changed to accommodate a printing press rather than the other way around.
- eesmith 2y ago
  No. But that doesn't really fit since þ had mostly died out by the 1300s, with only few remaining uses by Caxton's printing - long before the 1800s. I also wouldn't call those typewriters or cheap printing presses.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    Is there something relevant about the 1800s? I said þ was an example of the written language changing to accommodate the printing press, not changing to accommodate the 1800s.
    - eesmith 2y ago
      I had responded to msla's comment about "typewriters and cheap printing presses". Those didn't exist in the 1500s. þ's disappearance from English is not due to either, though the lack of þ in available type faces was certainly an issue.
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
        But the reference to "cheap printing presses" has to be interpreted as actually being a reference to type, as you have already done with your archive.org link. The press itself cannot either support or fail to support any graphical forms; there's no difference in the press whether you're using type or block printing. Press quality issues are things like "are the surfaces flat" / "how much pressure can the press apply" / "how many pages can we press before running into a mechanical issue".
        eesmith 2y ago
        I disagree. It does not have to be that. I pointed to a printing press designed for kids. That should be much cheaper than one used to print larger sizes or many copies, much less the quality of the Bible in the 1500s. I do get your point, but I think it's still wrong to use "cheap" to refer to the typefaces available for the Caxton and KJV Bibles. I suspect they were quite expensive. The physical press is only part of the printing cost. The Linotype typesetting machine made it possible to set an entire line of type, drawing from a 90 or so characters. While the press itself didn't care, adding new symbols required manual effort, making it more expensive.

calibas 2y ago

With the printing press it makes sense, there's physical constraints that make things very difficult if you want to support a huge number of different characters. Those limitations don't exist anymore though. On one hand we have systems supporting Unicode and just about every character imaginable, it's an example of using technology to go beyond the limitations of the past. You could have a system that supports emojis on street signs, but instead we're going the opposite direction and introducing artificial limitations that are even more restrictive than 500 year-old technology.