> It's less pronounced with diacritics, but enter Unicode normal forms: you can represent š either as š, or s followed by a diacritic. When you want to compare two strings, you have to normalize them to ensure you are comparing apples to apples. I can guarantee most software is broken in that regard. For Cyrillic, it just works.
It's the same with Unicode encoding of Cyrillic letters - й (U+0439) can be written as й (и U+0438 + ◌̆ U+0306)
> Interestingly — and not many know this — Unicode includes separate codepoints for all of the digraphs too. While well-intentioned, it only makes the problem worse.
Based on your description it seems that the root cause of the issues is using two letters to represent the digraph - for example N (U+004E) J (U+004A) instead of NJ (U+01CA) - and the sorting issues would be identical if people typed Н (U+041D) Ь (U+042C)instead of Њ (U+040A).
What's the reason for the digraph being substituted by 2 letters in the first case more often than in the second case?
> it really is also a tool to best codify spoken language of the Slavs (in a sense, it is trivially provable that Cyrillic script is better adapted even to languages which do not use it today, but have to resort to digraphs or glyphs with diacritics — some are thus not using it to distance from a particular influence instead
I've heard this claim many times but never the reasoning behind it - by what metric is "ш" superior to "š" and so on?
If a search engine (be it Ecosia, Qwant, DDG or Google) is used by someone who is running uBlock Origin, does it benefit the company running the engine or does the cost of queries with no chance of displaying an add to the user outweigh the benefit from the meager amount of data collected (IP address? Interest in given keywords? Some more data for tuning the search results?)?
> For example, the German "Ich sehe die Frau mit dem Fernglas" (I see the woman with the binoculars) is _unambiguous_ because "die Frau" and "mit dem Fernglas" match in both gender and case. If this weren't the case, it could be either "I see (the woman with the binoculars)" or "I see (the woman) with [using] the binoculars".
My German is pretty rusty, why exactly is it unambiguous?
I don't see how changing the noun would make a difference. "Ich sehe" followed by any of these: "den Mann mit dem Fernglas", "die Frau mit dem Fernglas", "das Mädchen mit dem Fernglas" sounds equally ambiguous to me.
The noun is not the issue but rather the scope of uniqueness:
>Now, given two log files (log file from day 1 and log file from day 2) we want to generate a list of ‘loyal customers’ that meet the criteria of: (a) they came on both days, and (b) they visited at least two unique pages.
It appears to me that the requirement could be interpreted as either:
"(visit on day 1) AND (visit on day 2) AND (total unique pages count > 2)"
a clearer way to put it would be "visited at least two unique pages in total"
or
"(visit at least two unique pages on day 1) AND (visit at least two unique pages on day 2)"
a clearer way to put it would be "visited at least two unique pages on each day"
Does visiting pages A and B on day 1 and visiting page A on day 2 also make the sentence true? I think that's the source of ambiguity (or maybe it's ambiguous to me only because English is not my native language).
Yup, it's also very useful for doing stuff like checking archive integrity after upload (got bitten by it once when uploading some archives via FTP) and syncing with cloud - I've had a dedicated client remove files from my PC instead of the cloud after desync, rclone makes it easy to check what will be done and works with pretty much every service available.
I specifically mentioned mounting (https://rclone.org/commands/rclone_mount/ which may use some additional storage space depending on the caching configuration) whereas you seem to be talking about mirroring the data in the cloud and on other devices.
It's the same with Unicode encoding of Cyrillic letters - й (U+0439) can be written as й (и U+0438 + ◌̆ U+0306)
> Interestingly — and not many know this — Unicode includes separate codepoints for all of the digraphs too. While well-intentioned, it only makes the problem worse.
Based on your description it seems that the root cause of the issues is using two letters to represent the digraph - for example N (U+004E) J (U+004A) instead of NJ (U+01CA) - and the sorting issues would be identical if people typed Н (U+041D) Ь (U+042C)instead of Њ (U+040A).
What's the reason for the digraph being substituted by 2 letters in the first case more often than in the second case?