Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should read the article...
Is the article about HN stripping emojis (and some other Unicode code points) from the title of another HN submission?
Yes, it is.
It’s not wrong that (for HN) “[facepalm emoji]”.length == 36
11–20 of 62 posts
Re: It’s not wrong that (for HN) “[facepalm emoji]”.length == 36
#12Perhaps the title should be changed to: It’s Not Wrong that (for HN) “[facepalm emoji]”.length == 36 Or some alternative if the above is too long, like: “[facepalm emoji]”.length == 36 Both seem more accurate than the current: It’s Not Wrong that (for HN) “ ”.length == 36
"[man with blue shirt facepalm emoji]".length == 36
Checks out.
Re: It’s not wrong that (for HN) “[facepalm emoji]”.length == 36
#13I don’t want emojis in the headlines please. It makes it difficult to read and becomes an arms race for attention. Also I’m not even sure it was a good idea to put them in text. Emojis are a special case that breaks a lot. Now you have to worry about multiple colors, etc.
It pisses me off that Unicode retroactively changed the meaning of existing text by turning some symbols into emoji. So much for stability guarantees.
Re: It’s not wrong that (for HN) “[facepalm emoji]”.length == 36
#14I don’t want emojis in the headlines please. It makes it difficult to read and becomes an arms race for attention. Also I’m not even sure it was a good idea to put them in text. Emojis are a special case that breaks a lot. Now you have to worry about multiple colors, etc.
A huge and growing percent of all realtime communication is happening via text.
It is reasonable and worthwhile to encode some nonverbal information in it, and emojis have won the day.
Re: It’s not wrong that (for HN) “[facepalm emoji]”.length == 36
#15I don’t want emojis in the headlines please. It makes it difficult to read and becomes an arms race for attention. Also I’m not even sure it was a good idea to put them in text. Emojis are a special case that breaks a lot. Now you have to worry about multiple colors, etc.
I emailed the site to see what the policy is.
Generally I agree with you, but in rare cases like the article that this one is meta-commentary to it might perhaps have been justifiable to allow it? I see the "slippery slope" risk though.
Re: It’s not wrong that (for HN) “[facepalm emoji]”.length == 36
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the article about HN stripping emojis (and some other Unicode code points) from the title of another HN submission?
Yes, it is.
Amazing! So if I ever were to write a blog post e.g. "Why ' ' != ' '", I guess I better title it "Why '\u2744\ufe0f' != '\x20'" to avoid confusion on HN.
Edit: as demonstrated by this very comment.
Re: It’s not wrong that (for HN) “[facepalm emoji]”.length == 36
#17I don’t want emojis in the headlines please. It makes it difficult to read and becomes an arms race for attention. Also I’m not even sure it was a good idea to put them in text. Emojis are a special case that breaks a lot. Now you have to worry about multiple colors, etc.
These articles are about emojis and how they work, I don't see how having one in the title is a problem.
Re: It’s not wrong that (for HN) “[facepalm emoji]”.length == 36
#18I don’t want emojis in the headlines please. It makes it difficult to read and becomes an arms race for attention. Also I’m not even sure it was a good idea to put them in text. Emojis are a special case that breaks a lot. Now you have to worry about multiple colors, etc.
It definitely wasn't a good idea. Emojis aren't text, they don't belong in Unicode at all. It would be one thing to encode, say, Egyptian hieroglyphics. That would be legitimate. But putting emojis into Unicode was against the purpose of the standard and a huge mistake.
Re: It’s not wrong that (for HN) “[facepalm emoji]”.length == 36
#19I don’t want emojis in the headlines please. It makes it difficult to read and becomes an arms race for attention. Also I’m not even sure it was a good idea to put them in text. Emojis are a special case that breaks a lot. Now you have to worry about multiple colors, etc.
It definitely wasn't a good idea. Emojis aren't text , they don't belong in Unicode at all. It would be one thing to encode, say, Egyptian hieroglyphics. That would be legitimate. But putting emojis into Unicode was against the purpose of the standard and a huge mistake.
> Emojis aren't text
Neither are digits, or control characters, strictly speaking. We really shouldn't have been able to have CR and LF explicitly embedded in the text files.
Re: It’s not wrong that (for HN) “[facepalm emoji]”.length == 36
#20Example YouTube videos that have "no title":
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K93zcgFsynk&ab_channel=Vsauc...
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrHTI04i9yk&ab_channel=%E2%8...
This is done by using invisible characters such as ZWNJ to get around the title filter.