Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sleepychu 3594 days ago
I'm not sure if you're sincere but I don't think emoji would be easier to compare. +Might be less friendly to screen reader users?
2 comments

> I'm not sure if you're sincere but I don't think emoji would be easier to compare.

The point is to leverage human pattern matching so you want short-ish figures with large differences.

Each hex digits is 4 bits, but each emoji is 10 bits, a 128 bits key is 13 emoji which is significantly more eyeballable than 32 hex digits, and chances are you'll notice EGGPLANT being replaced by CAMERA in 13 pictures easier than you'd notice B being replaced by 8 in 32 characters.

> Each hex digits is 4 bits, but each emoji is 10 bits, a 128 bits key is 13 emoji which is significantly more eyeballable than 32 hex digits, and chances are you'll notice EGGPLANT being replaced by CAMERA in 13 pictures easier than you'd notice B being replaced by 8 in 32 characters.

Compare like with like - what are the two most similar emoji from that set of 2^10 ?

I hate to say it, but comparing two, long hash values via a screen reader doesn't seem viable for humans, regardless of emoji.

Maybe an auralizer to turn the hash into a short piece of music?

See my above example from urbit. They are something a screen reader would clearly read differently for different values, if not comprehensibly.