Re:Unicode uses elephants as baseline comparison of cultural...
by latexr on Friday October 18, 2024 @06:15AM
(#41877915)
The head shape is also quite different, as are the ears and eyes. I’m struggling to understand how someone could mix them up.
Re:Unicode uses elephants as baseline comparison of cultural...
by IncreasePosts on Friday October 18, 2024 @01:23PM
(#41881535)
My implication was "at the resolution of an emoji" - you can clearly tell the difference in real life, but what about when you only have 18x18 pixels to work with?
Re:Unicode uses elephants as baseline comparison of cultural...
by Freak_NL on Friday October 18, 2024 @03:07PM
(#41882472)
If you can't tell the difference between a capybara and a guinea pig, you won't be able to tell the difference between a cat and a dog either. The former pair differs more in terms of their silhouette than the latter. 18×18 probably means you won't be able to tell quite a lot of emoji apart, but don't blame these rodents for that.
Re:Unicode uses elephants as baseline comparison of cultural...
by pxc on Saturday October 19, 2024 @09:16AM
(#41887589)
They also feel extremely different to the touch. Capybaras have really rough coats! They're not soft at all.
You could tell a guinea-pig-sized capybara apart from a guinea pig, or a capybara-sized guinea pig apart from a capybara, blindfolded. Probably anyone who expects guinea pigs to be soft but has never met a capybara would get it right on the first try.
Cavies on the other hand look like adorable furry idiots with a much less angular — in fact, rotund — outline.
Aside from both being rodents and (apparently) delicious, these are quite different animals.