Here I was hoping that if you took the UTF-8 representation in bytes and decoded it as ASCII, you would get something interesting. But no, just Unicode characters. Almost interesting is that none of the bytes are valid ASCII characters (< 128), which you might expect for the first byte of every UTF-8 codepoint due to backwards compatibility for ASCII encoding, but perhaps not for the subsequent bytes that comprise the rest of the grapheme.
I’m finally starting to understand the appeal of numerology.
Here I was hoping that if you took the UTF-8 representation in bytes and decoded it as ASCII, you would get something interesting. But no, just Unicode characters. Almost interesting is that none of the bytes are valid ASCII characters (< 128), which you might expect for the first byte of every UTF-8 codepoint due to backwards compatibility for ASCII encoding, but perhaps not for the subsequent bytes that comprise the rest of the grapheme.
I’m finally starting to understand the appeal of numerology.