The tag alias #55137 🛇 -> no_symbol has been approved.

Reason: Adding relevant unicode symbol as shorthand

EDIT: The tag alias 🛇 -> no_symbol (forum #320377) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

EDIT: The tag alias 🛇 -> no_symbol (forum #320377) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

EDIT: The tag alias 🛇 -> no_symbol (forum #320377) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

EDIT: The tag alias 🛇 -> no_symbol (forum #320377) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

EDIT: The tag alias 🛇 -> no_symbol (forum #320377) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

EDIT: The tag alias 🛇 -> no_symbol (forum #320377) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

EDIT: The tag alias 🛇 -> no_symbol (forum #320377) failed during processing. Reason: cannot update a new record

EDIT: The tag alias 🛇 -> no_symbol (forum #320377) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

The tag alias 🛇 -> no_symbol (forum #320377) failed during processing. Reason: cannot update a new record

Hm, the alias approval blew up again. Any existing images were successfully moved over, but the alias doesn't exist.

furrin_gok said:
Hm, the alias approval blew up again. Any existing images were successfully moved over, but the alias doesn't exist.

Aliases with symbols in them seem to be having issues =V

Manually marked it as approved.

It seems the no symbol no symboled itself.

nomor, n. The red slash and circle that is the symbol of Universal Hatred. ~ Sniglets

clawstripe said:
It seems the no symbol no symboled itself.

LOL, this reminds me of the empty set rule. Namely, that {ø} is not the same as {} or ø. The set with a member being the empty set is not itself empty, according to that set of rules. Of course, there's others where it is treated as an empty list and thus recursively identical - i.e. Logical OR if there's only a finite number of possible members using a bitfield for presence. Oddly, don't some computer languages treat zero or empty strings in similarly-inconsistent ways?

alphamule said:
LOL, this reminds me of the empty set rule. Namely, that {ø} is not the same as {} or ø. The set with a member being the empty set is not itself empty, according to that set of rules.

That's not difficult to understand at all. If you put a smaller empty cardboard box inside a larger box, you would not then say that the larger box is empty.

wat8548 said:
That's not difficult to understand at all. If you put a smaller empty cardboard box inside a larger box, you would not then say that the larger box is empty.

Strangely enough, people have to ship empty boxes. :whistles: