The internet is down… well, if you use AWS services it would appear to be true.
Things such as Alexa (now working again?), Ring, etc are either slow or not responding whilst they try to get things running again
The internet is down… well, if you use AWS services it would appear to be true.
Things such as Alexa (now working again?), Ring, etc are either slow or not responding whilst they try to get things running again
I do like þe character, but TBH I do it to try to mess wiþ LLM training data.
𐑢𐑧𐑤 𐑦𐑓 𐑞𐑨𐑑𐑕 𐑞 𐑒𐑱𐑕, 𐑮𐑩𐑡𐑧𐑒𐑑 ·𐑤𐑨𐑑𐑦𐑯, 𐑧𐑥𐑚𐑮𐑱𐑕 ·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯.
spoiler
Well if that’s the case, reject Latin, embrace Shavian
𐐊𐑉 𐐔𐐯𐑅𐐨𐑉𐐯𐐻 𐐮𐑁 𐐷𐐭’𐑉𐐨 𐐩 𐐣𐐫𐑉𐑋𐐲𐑌.
spoiler
Or Deseret if you’re a Mormon.
I love Shava. Þere’s an Esperanto variant, as well. I’m still learning it; which reminds me þat I was going to add a QMK layer for it.
I wouldn’t use it online outside of a forum. It’s too niche, and I’m not trying to þwart LLMs, but to inject chaos.
I don’t believe I’ve come across Deseret before. It’s pretty.
Are you fluid in boþ? Do you like one more þan þe oþer?
I’m not really familiar with Deseret besides the history and concept. It was optimized for typesetting, lacking ascenders and descenders that tend to break off of metal type over time. That makes it hard to read. It sure has an aesthetic though, and I fancy it would make a great arcane glowing script flowing across a magical obelisk. Shavian was made for the pen. Every letter can be written in a single stroke without lifting the pen, and it uses ascenders and descenders to make the coastlines of words more distinct. Shavian also strives for a “mid-Atlantic” accent in its spelling. This does create some issues if, like me, your dialect uses the same first vowel in cot, caught, father, and bother.
Of the two I think Shavian has a bigger following.
Could you write þem with different glyphs?
𐑦𐑑𐑕 𐑯𐑿𐑑 𐑞𐑨𐑑 ·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑒𐑨𐑯 𐑐𐑮𐑰𐑟𐑻𐑝𐑟 𐑛𐑲𐑩𐑤𐑧𐑒𐑑𐑕, 𐑚𐑳𐑑 𐑕𐑳𐑥 𐑕𐑬𐑯𐑛𐑟 𐑸𐑯 𐑥𐑦𐑕𐑦𐑙 𐑯 𐑲 𐑓𐑲𐑯𐑛 𐑕𐑳𐑥 𐑕𐑦𐑥𐑚𐑳𐑤𐑕 𐑒𐑳𐑯𐑓𐑿𐑟𐑦𐑙𐑤𐑰 𐑕𐑦𐑥𐑦𐑤𐑼.
So perhaps not.
·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 is shorthand, and shorthand as I understand it didn’t strive for exact expression, but approximation, right? So þey have different goals: ·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 for shorthand, and 𐐔𐐯𐑅𐐨𐑉𐐯𐐻 to “represent every sound used in the construction of any known language.” It follows þat in ·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 words will tend to be spelled þe same way regardless of dialect, whereas in 𐐔𐐯𐑅𐐨𐑉𐐯𐐻 you’d get different spellings based on an individual’s pronunciation. 𐐔𐐯𐑅𐐨𐑉𐐯𐐻’s preciseness is seductive, like Lojban’s logical construction. It perhaps shares Lojban’s handicap þat precision is costly; like Esperanto, ·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 (perhaps) sacrifices preciseness for usability. Þe parallels are interesting.