Did they give a reason why it was declined? Was it some bureaucratic "form not filled in correct" thing, or are they actually against the concept of it?
To elaborate: it should be plain obvious that not every Emoji proposal can be accepted even though all of them are correctly filed, as there would be too many Emojis there then. So there has to be some threshold, and that threshold is mostly stipulated by vendors' willingness to process new Emoji characters for designing fonts and updating softwares in time.
That list only includes suggestions that were seriously considered and voted on.
Since it's a vote, there is no single official 'reason' for rejection. If I had to guess: it would be confusing to anyone who didn't grow up with American TV shows.
They were grandfathered in, not voted on. Or rather there was a vote that resulted in adopting the character sets developed by Japanese telecoms en masse.
Weirdly this is in line with Unicode in general. Widespread (and not even widespread) historic use in say print results in characters getting included.
what's the connection to american TV shows? i'm only aware of the tinfoil hat through cultural osmosis i guess, something about shielding from radio waves
it's a popular image/byword/archetype for conspiracy theorists, idk if it's a common enough symbol to justify emoji inclusion. the submitted proposals probably have analyses of that though :p
Generally Unicode is for encoding all existing encodings/writing.
So you generally can’t add something because it would be cool or fun or useful, but only because it is currently in use and cannot be encoded by Unicode.
That's not at all the case. Unicode began as a standard for making things like string(':)') in to a single character.
Consider all of the languages it supports. Consider: ﷽ (which isn't an emoji, but the point stands) which is an entire sentence. It was already in use in certain places and unicode decided they wanted to support it, so now they do. Previously, one would have to type out the entire sentence in the original characters, but now it is a single unicode, just like u+263a () used to be alt+1 (). The emoji was already in use long before unicode existed, and in seeing it in common use, they decided to support it.
I'm not sure if this [1] is still relevant, but it appears that Vivaldi makes money by promoting search engines and bookmarks to their users via their closed source, secret, Chromium fork.
If my usage of their Chromium clone is being used to sell search engines/website bookmarks, then I am indeed the product.
There does also seem to be a VPN option on their site that I'm assuming I can pay for, which seems it could be an actually buyable product rather than selling my usage of their browser.
"Being the product" refers to recording user behavior and processing it for gains. Displaying non-personalized ads (which are trivial to completely avoid in Vivaldi) is not that.
That's not really what "being the product" is commonly recognised as.
Vivaldi go out to their customers (that's not you) and say "We have 1000 suckers who have downloaded and use our closed source, Chromium cloned, browser. We can serve your website as a bookmark to them, or add you to their search engine list if you give us $x."
Since you are not their "customer" (that's the people paying them to appear in your settings) what are you? You are the "product", you are what Vivaldi is selling.
That's actually NOT what this phrase implies. It is really about targeted ads and the drive for more ads and more precise targeting based on user data. Look up attention economy.
Vivaldi is not that. The only place where it shows anything remotely like ads is its default start page with prepopulated links and that can be hidden by flipping a single setting. I haven't seen this page for at least a couple of months now o my Vivaldi instances.
You have a different definition of "being the product" than I do. A business that takes money from advertisers in exchange for your attention is selling your attention. You are the product is shorthand for your attention is the product, short of slavery.
But in order to fit the phrase the business has to actively fight for user attention to get the space for ads. This is specifically the search engine and social media model. Vivaldi is not fighting this fight. At all.
I'm building yet another terminal [1][2] for macOS and Linux. I've been unsatisfied with the window management of iterm2 and other terminals, my one acts a bit more like Chrome with projects at the top level.
It also allows remote control. I don't like AI harnesses (Claude / OpenAI) having remote control inside, it feels like it should be at the terminal level, not the cli.
It also allows commands at the terminal level. So if you use multiple ai cli's you don't only need to write the command once, then use cmd+l to inject into any cli.
I've put macros in too, that again can automate doing the same thing in a terminal.
Anyway I'm sure this will just end up another terminal in a sea of already existing ones.
Absolutely. Thing is, I'd actually rather take a worse model than Anthropic, so long as it's consistent. Like, a model that can successfully do well for 80% of tasks is much better than Anthropic that some days will be 90% other 60%.
When you have a consistent model, you can incorporate fixes/prompts into your workflow to make it behave better. But this, always having to guess if Anthropic has quantised the model today, wastes so much time and effort.
There really are only two dials you can turn to increase the security of a password, and that's length of the character set (the characters that the user can use in their password) and length of the password itself.
People should be using a password manager, then they can set that to 100/200 characters. Even if all lower case, it will be unbreakable (assuming a modern/secure one way hashing algorithm, and the password manager is truly random.).
If they are not using a password manager and use something like `waterfall!X` (because you enforce a special character and capital letter) you haven't actually increased entropy by that much, compared to a longer password. Them making up a 100 character password will almost guarantee more entropy than a short password they make up like `waterfall!X`
Yes, I did read up a lot about password security the last few years. But still, I'm worried a very secure policy restricts people from registering at all, see case above. What would you say is a good compromise?
Another thought I have discussed a lot is, this app is not something critical. It's not online banking, it saves very little about you (as little as possible), etc. - so what does this say about the compromise? If an account was to be compromised, an attacker would only have access to the todos, music, notes of a user. Now, todos and notes could be very telling, but I'm unsure about how much of a responsiblity I have as an admin to save users from this? Do you know what I mean?
Yeah I understand. I think my point is don’t add any other friction to the password strength other than length. If you want more security increase the min length, if you’re happy with less, lower it.
I’d personally have a 12 length password enforcement, a password strength meter and nothing else. Possibly less if you introduce 2fa.
What a waste of tokens. No wonder Anthropic can't serve their customers. It's not just a lack of compute, it's a ridiculous waste of the limited compute they have. I think (hope?) we look back at the insanity of all this theatre, the same way we do about GPT-2 [1].
Yeah it's much better, another plus is you can use it with OpenCode (or other 3rd party tools) so you can easily switch between Codex and most other models by alright companies (not Anthropic or Google).
I believe Centrica did some research before the Iran war and found that if we were able to get gas for free, energy bills wouldn't fall and would actually rise over the next few years (because of the mix towards structurally high cost supply).
It says something that the people running the monopoly cash machine are asking questions about bankrupting their customers/ability to pay but politicians are shutting their eyes and pounding onto the accelerator. What a world.
I switched a year ago and have been absolutely loving them. Not just because we can support a EU based CDN, but their Magic Containers are amazing. I can have global instantly scalable API's that cost me barely $1 a month until used.
Yes, Magic Containers is excellent. I don't know if it scales up to huge loads well -- that might be expensive -- but it scales down really well. For a very lightly loaded hobby project it's almost free.
A few people here are complaining about the lack of a free tier, but Magic Containers can cover a lot of the same ground as Cloudflare's Durable Objects, which IIRC cost a minimum of $5/month.
