Certainly it will depend on who you bank with, but JPMorganChase has 250,000 employees[1]. If even 1% of them are customer service representatives, bank tellers, or in other positions with direct access to your account (which I hope we can agree is an underestimate), that's 2,500 people right there.
Maybe back in the 1960s it was like that. Doesn't matter which branch I open an account at. I can walk into any branch and the teller should be able to pull up my info.
Does it matter? There are also millions of people who could murder you or burn down your house or kidnap you and force you to withdraw your money from the bank. But just like a bank worker stealing money, these are all serious crimes and easy to get caught so we're pretty safe.
I believe the plan behind the Chinese characters in Unicode was always that different hanzi-using languages had different renderings of certain characters, and that rendering it properly would be up to the font.
Yes, but that was botched from the start. Latin alphabets include various "font variants" in unicode, you can write C, ℂ, ℭ, 𝒞, ⠉, 𝐂, Ⅽ, 𝙲 and maybe a few more…
I guess the accusations of Unicode being somewhat centered on western languages do have a point.
Was. Whoever thought it a good idea to merge letters with similar shapes to same code points must’ve been drinking way too much ancient Chinese civilization kool-aid.
IIRC, ISO-10646 initially preserved each of the 16-bit national codings for Han characters (including three separate Chinese encodings). I don't know if that has been retained at all in later versions of the standard and a cursory reading of the relevant wikipedia pages is not informative.
The original motivation for the efforts that resulted in Han unification was to help with library and bibliography management (some of these efforts were by non-CJK speakers). One of the original design goals of Unicode was to be able to represent all of the characters in existing character sets uniquely (so two distinct characters in some charset requires two distinct characters in Unicode), and another design goal was to be able to facilitate conversion between different character sets representing the same script. This dovetailed nicely with the existing efforts to unify CJK scripts for bibliographies, hence Han unification.
The phrase is "we've always been at war with Eastasia", and it is known because it resumes the core theme of the book. 1984 was written in 1948. There's a reason why it is in the school curricula, but sadly to be forced to read a book obviously creates a bad predisposition.
Good books that philosophically shed light on human nature are timeless.
maybe you're interested in hearing about X tech, or you can tell your "Agent" that you want to buy Y thing, or travel to Z.
That's where ads and reviews get thru.
FYI, there is a project for that [0] of which Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter are a part of. It's not forced and is still in development but it's something.
Consider that Facebook has 3 different messaging apps, and Google has an unknown number of messaging apps. Both companies have strong internal incentives to consolidate their own messaging apps and yet these efforts have never succeeded. I'm not sure if having a single universal protocol is the best idea.
I believe the idea is that, if those companies can't do it, even though they want to, then it may be hard to do (or at least to do well/cleanly). Requiring it to be done may therefore be a bad idea.