3 ms·

The question isn't whether it was OK to turn the gun emoji into a water pistol in the first place. It doesn't matter if it wasn't. It was done, and it was done

The question isn't whether it was OK to turn the gun emoji into a water pistol in the first place. It doesn't matter if it wasn't. It was done, and it was done at a time when there was political will for everyone to follow suit and be consistent. The question is whether it's OK to turn it back. Because there ISN'T the same political will. And other emoji providers will NOT follow X in this. Having X "go back" because the original change was "unjust" doesn't fix the underlying problem. It creates a new one. Literally perfect application of the concept of "two wrongs don't make a right"

llm_trw 2y ago
A bunch of busy bodies decided to change the meaning of a unicode character: https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1f52b/index.htm https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1f52b/index.ht... This is a problem since unicode characters are meant to be unchanging and rendered to the same glyph forever.
- xg15 2y ago
  Exactly, so then it would be wise not to add to the damage already done by changing it again.
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    The unicode spec has always, and will always, have it as a pistol. Stop destroying standards because they hurt your feelings.
  - Gormo 2y ago
    It's a potential deterrent to future attempts to change the meaning/rendering of existing characters.
  - Gormo 2y ago
    I'm not sure that's necessarily wise, since the underlying takeaway is that it's fine to attempt to change the meaning or rendering of pre-existing symbols as long as you get away with it. The threat of having the change you are attempting to force be contested over a long period of time should, hopefully, act as a deterrent to such behavior.
nebula8804 2y ago
You have to stand for something and Musk is someone who continually shoots his foot for his beliefs. Probably does not matter to him if no one follows (although now that I know the history, everyone should have pushed back in 2016 but the second best time is to push back now)

llm_trw 2y ago

A bunch of busy bodies decided to change the meaning of a unicode character: https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1f52b/index.htm https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1f52b/index.ht... This is a problem since unicode characters are meant to be unchanging and rendered to the same glyph forever.

xg15 2y ago
Exactly, so then it would be wise not to add to the damage already done by changing it again.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  The unicode spec has always, and will always, have it as a pistol. Stop destroying standards because they hurt your feelings.
- Gormo 2y ago
  It's a potential deterrent to future attempts to change the meaning/rendering of existing characters.
- Gormo 2y ago
  I'm not sure that's necessarily wise, since the underlying takeaway is that it's fine to attempt to change the meaning or rendering of pre-existing symbols as long as you get away with it. The threat of having the change you are attempting to force be contested over a long period of time should, hopefully, act as a deterrent to such behavior.

nebula8804 2y ago

You have to stand for something and Musk is someone who continually shoots his foot for his beliefs. Probably does not matter to him if no one follows (although now that I know the history, everyone should have pushed back in 2016 but the second best time is to push back now)