Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Base24 binary-to-text encoding for humans

kuon.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: Show HN: Base24 binary-to-text encoding for humans

#51

Post by kortex »

anonsivalley652 wrote: post #41
directionless wrote: post #2

I'm fond us using a base100, made of up 2 letter syllables. It results in a vaguely pronounceable string. For syllables, I use: syllables: %w[ ba be bi bo bu ca ce ci co cu da de di do du fa fe fi fo fu ga ge gi go gu ha he hi ho hu ja je ji jo ju ka ke ki ko ku la le li lo lu ma me mi mo mu na ne ni no nu pa pe pi po pu ra re ri ro ru sa se si so su ta te ti to tu va ve vi vo vu wa we wi wo wu xa xe xi xo xu ya ye y…

That's not "base-100" in terms of symbols or storage, it's functionally-identical to base-10! Be honest about how terrible it is.

What are you talking about? The symbol table has 100 symbols. A phoneme is a symbol, not a letter. Just because a symbol comprises 2 ascii letters does not make it base10. That's like saying 1 and 0 are symbols in Manchester code.

You could (almost) easily replace every symbol with a single unicode rune from an abugida like katakana/hiragana (you'd need to pull from several langs as japanese famously lacks distinction between La-li-lu-le-lo and Ra-ri-ru-re-ro (らりるれろ) but there's no reason why you couldn't encode one-rune-per-phoneme.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_code

https://metalgear.fandom.com/wiki/The_Patriots

Re: Show HN: Base24 binary-to-text encoding for humans

#53

Post by kortex »

jcims wrote: post #15
thelazydogsback wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And pipe them into TTS for all kinds of fun...

It is - https://cloud.google.com/text-to-speech Try different languages. ra re ri ro ru is my favorite little run of most of them.

The postalveolar approximant (r in "red" in General American) is so weird linguistically.

Also it's always amused me how dog noises are onomonopoeitized in GA English as "bark" or "woof", when dogs lack lips to make a labial plosive, and their tongues can't really form proper postalveolar approximants or velar stops. I think it has to do with how we hear the third formant.

I guess I'd transcribe it like...

/ɚa◌˞'/

It's almost like "rorch" but more glottal less velar.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_alveolar_and_postalve...

Re: Show HN: Base24 binary-to-text encoding for humans

#55

Post by davidcollantes »

kortex wrote: post #14

Nice! I'd like to implement this in a key-recovery tool I have been working on, Passcrux [1]. I actually started fleshing out a base24 encoding of my own, but the padding/bit shuffling proved to be somewhat cumbersome, and I shifted focus to abc16, which is like hex, but purely alphabetic. [1] https://github.com/xkortex/passcrux

Related; how to get Passcrux to compile? I couldn't find instructions on the repository, and would love to try it out. Thanks!

Re: Show HN: Base24 binary-to-text encoding for humans

#56

Post by garganzol »

wp381640 wrote: post #4

Microsoft product keys were base-24 with the following alphabet: > B C D F G H J K M P Q R T V W X Y 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 they were 115 bits encoded in 24 characters see also human-oriented base32 encoding: https://philzimmermann.com/docs/human-oriented-base-32-encod... which includes this nice trick: > We have permuted the alphabet to make the more commonly occuring characters also be those that we think are easier to read…

Microsoft's Base24 has a much saner alphabet as it avoids ambiguities between 5 and S, 7 and Z symbols while the alphabet suggested by the OP falls into pitfall.

Re: Show HN: Base24 binary-to-text encoding for humans

#57

Post by ratboy666 »

strags wrote: post #16
thelazydogsback wrote: post #5

> decimal: 49894920630459842177293598641814316632 This 128-bits can also be represented in, let's say base-50K, by using five words chosen from a 50,000 word dictionary. If you also make "this", "This" and "THIS" separate, then you can get away with a 17K word dictionary. Depending on the language, if you use roots and then vary morphology based number, tense, etc., then the number of root words (and the choice you h…

I recently needed to encode a 32-bit value into something easy for QA folks to remember and report. I opted for 3 words out of an 11-bit (2048 entry) dictionary of commonly used words. How to build the dictionary? Well, in order to determine the most commonly used English words, I downloaded a bunch of free texts from Project Gutenberg, and did some simple filtering - nothing less than 5 letters, no duplication of si…

I like this. Hacked together a quick implementation in javascript (using quickjs as the interpreter):

https://github.com/ratboy666/qjs-3word

Re: Show HN: Base24 binary-to-text encoding for humans

#59

Post by klingonopera »

yongjik wrote: post #20
directionless wrote: post #2

I'm fond us using a base100, made of up 2 letter syllables. It results in a vaguely pronounceable string. For syllables, I use: syllables: %w[ ba be bi bo bu ca ce ci co cu da de di do du fa fe fi fo fu ga ge gi go gu ha he hi ho hu ja je ji jo ju ka ke ki ko ku la le li lo lu ma me mi mo mu na ne ni no nu pa pe pi po pu ra re ri ro ru sa se si so su ta te ti to tu va ve vi vo vu wa we wi wo wu xa xe xi xo xu ya ye y…

Be careful, wiser(??) people have tried the path, and their tale is told in... https://thedailywtf.com/articles/The-Automated-Curse-Generat...

Vuluva, fuca, fucu and in my second language, German, also fiki, pipi, kaka, and countless more.

Not OP, but me, personally, I don't care about accidental obscenity. It is accidental, after all.

Then again, I live in Germany, and we don't censor swear words on TV either, so this is likely a cultural thing.

Re: Show HN: Base24 binary-to-text encoding for humans

#60

Post by tjchear »

I think proquints [0] are pretty good at encoding for humans as well. For example, when used to encode IP addresses, they result in pronouncible identifiers like this:

  127.0.0.1       lusab-babad
  63.84.220.193   gutih-tugad
  63.118.7.35     gutuk-bisog
[0] https://arxiv.org/html/0901.4016
Post reply on HN