Emoji Kitchen
Comments
danuker
kkarakk
i was wondering why they look like google's ugly emoji
asicsp
See also: "Emoji Kitchen" (but different URL https://emoji.supply/kitchen/) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32232546 (850 points | 10 months ago | 190 comments)
cloudripper
The emojis are cool, the UI is nice - but I really like this[0] as a small-scale example of a project built within the Github ecosystem - deployment (Github Actions) and hosting (Github Pages).
alden5
looking more into this i guess it's called emoji kitchen by google and there's over 20,000 combinations, its crazy using this tool and seeing how specific they can get, they're not lazily copy pasted either, need a hedgehog wearing headphones? google got you covered i guess
marssaxman
Kiwi grin? Beetle hearts? My goodness. This is pretty strange, and I kinda love it. What was it made for, I wonder?
dgellow
It seems to be a visualizer of Google Emoji Kitchen feature: https://emojipedia.org/emoji-kitchen/
cubefox
You can also combine the same emoji with itself, getting an exaggerated version.
Exuma
LMAO You're right https://i.imgur.com/PVhWci3.png
Good lord, I wonder how long this took to create.
Some of these are insanely hilarious with the more exaggerated version. Like the salute emoji uses both hands
cubefox
Yeah, it's amazing that Google paid a bunch of designers to do this for over 30.000(!!) combinations. The feature isn't even advertised in the Google software keyboard, it's easy to miss.
ishi
This is brilliant! Some of these combinations are very creative. Try shark + cheese or shark + clown...
codetrotter
Nothing beats crying + sunglasses
https://www.gstatic.com/android/keyboard/emojikitchen/202010...
For when you are sad, upset or otherwise in pain, but don’t want to admit it
thih9
Thanks, these are cool! I also like shark + hotdog, and even more shark + bee.
josephcsible
My favorite is Unamused Face + Face with Party Horn and Party Hat.
omoikane
I like how you can put almost anything in a hole (U+1F573)
srcreigh
I like wooden log + <animal> ex bunny
leonbeon
Oh man, I was looking for high quality pngs of these combinations earlier. My hacky solution was to post to a private Twitter account from mobile, since Twitter serves these as pngs with alpha channel (and not as "stickers" or jpgs), copy them, and then remove the tweet. Never occured to me that these are just hosted on gstatic.com, insane.
SergeAx
Interestingly, there are no eggplant and water drips emojis. They are used in online communication mostly as sexual innuendos.
dontupvoteme
They seem to be there just not selectable as the base, there's an eggplant version of the pumpkin, devilish purple face, etc.
ta8903
Yet they have the loudly crying emoji.
mock-possum
And the bottom emoji
Lornedon
As far as I know this is mostly the work of [Jennifer Daniel](https://jenniferdaniel.substack.com/p/introducing-emoji-kitc...), who is the chair of the Unicode Emoji Subcommittee and works at Google. She's great!
She did create all of the emoji mashups for the first version of emoji kitchen by herself. I don't know if she had help for the current version, which features many more emoji combinations.
victorp13
No eggplant, and no peach. What happened to the internet?
indrora
Don't worry: hairpick + mouse trap has you covered: https://furry.engineer/@indrora/110521268976812984
ehPReth
What does... that mean?
cloudripper
There is a cucumber though, with some ...interesting.. mashups.
msoad
I wonder if we can fine tune a language model using this and then get infinite emoji mixes… Could be a fun weekend project. If SVG of those icons exists somewhere it’s possible to find tune GPT with it too
dontupvoteme
Why a language model instead of stable diffusion? My brain went to "LoRA for Emojis + Img2Img existing emoji into new one" run in a massive loop, with some logic for "most useful combinations" put first.
GaggiX
It's probably better to finetune a text-to-image model for that, at least they have a lot of knowledge about the visual world.
xnx
With such a large set of base and mashup emojis, it should be possible for an image generator to fill in the missing combinations.
MrPatan
Talking about kitchens, what happened to the data Uri kitchen at hixie's?
mns06
Would be cool if you could get this as a plugin for signal/WhatsApp/etc
ygra
On Android using Gboard (Google's default keyboard) you can insert those as images into many IM apps.
petepete
I love this feature. I just wish there was a way to browse more of them from the UI.
FractalHQ
How in earth did they manage to make so many combinations..?
skrebbel
Google paid an illustrator
cubefox
At over 30.000 combinations probably not just one.
MagicMoonlight
I don’t know why Koala Moon is a thing but it’s glorious
number6
Spider Moon!
sureglymop
They should just add all of these to Unicode!
6031769
The sarcasm is strong with this one.
seri4l
The ones with fish are great.
toastal
[flagged]
arcanemachiner
Of all things to worry about when designing a website, the basically-zero percentage of people who voluntarily disable JS doesn't even make the list.
I view the noscript tag more along the lines of "Hey, your browser isn't working" than "Here's a sales pitch for my site for you and the 2 other people who disabled Javascript".
toastal
As time has gone on, more and more folks recommend disabling JavaScript as the default behavior and opting in on a per-site basis. This is easy to do with uBlock Origin. This isn’t a broken browser behavior but a conscious decision for the security and privacy of many users. Leaving one or two sentences isn’t much, and the “sales pitch” will help with SEO for web crawlers that don’t execute scripts.
arcanemachiner
In retrospect, you're definitely right and I will make note of that in the future.
speedgoose
Aren’t web crawlers of all search engines executing JavaScript nowadays ?
toastal
Nope. You can see it in Brave search results. It’s also a massive barrier for a small start-up to index the web if it has to expend resourses to download and execute JavaScript. More generally, there’s also web scrapers (the good kind), TUI browsers, old hardware that shouldn’t be obsolesced just because of “browser target = current browsers only” (with this being more important for informational type websites rather than web applications which could just have a small blurb about what the site is/does tagged with its “Enable JS for X-App”).
speedgoose
I understand your point about supporting old hardware but the economics or the mental health don’t allow to support any kind of hardware forever.
I had to support obsolete computers running internet explorer too many times in my life and I am glad that I don’t have to right now.
We also eventually stopped the Minitel, even though it was still used by a few people.
toastal
IE7 was the oldest version I ever had to support--I understand it being a pain and there is always a cut-off point. This said, not JavaScript is often an option too for entire categories of the web ...and I say this as someone whose career has mostly been built on CSS & JavaScript. There’s a lot of old machines that should and could be able to read the sites we have today if wasn’t for that pesky scripting language being used where it didn’t need to (looking at you blogs and news sites that blocked your image loading behind JavaScript even though native loading="lazy" exists and would be a progressive enhancement).
lostlogin
> why don’t devs put in the minimal effort
You can build what you want. Xavier says this on his site:
My name is Xavier Salazar (he/him), and I love emoji. I currently work full-time at @slackhq and work remotely from Portland, OR I spend more time than my manager knows creating and perfecting the silliest little ideas for the internet. I've been able to cover the costs of these projects by myself, but, at the end of the day, they are not free. Supporting me, even only for a couple dollars, goes a long way in making sure I can continue to create and support these projects.
toastal
> > why don’t devs put in the minimal effort
You left out the noscript part. I’m not implying the project as a whole is minimal effort.
It would be nice to at least see a small explanation of what I as a user am missing out (one or two sentences), or the bare minimum is to at least name the application in the noscript instead of leaving the default text of create-react-app (or similar project generator). It could be as minimal as adding the name and repeating the meta description.
<noscript>
<h1>Emoji Kitchen requires enabling JavaScript to run</h1>
<p>Unique illustrations of combined emoji, cooked up in Google’s Emoji Kitchen, and comprehensively available on the web.</p>
</noscript>das_keyboard
How would this change anything?
Would it really increase your trust in this site, if the site itself told you it's content?
A malicious actor would just put "Enable JavaScript now or you will miss out on cool prices" or something like this.
"noscript" shouldn't serve any other means but telling you that javascript is disabled.
toastal
No script is also a place for normal fallbacks where relevant in a multi-page app such as a static image instead of an interactive SVG. You can let crawlers and scrapers that don’t execute JavaScript know what content should be there. There’s still malice in many noscript elements embedding fishy tracking pixels.
If this application said “Emoji Kitchen let’s you combine existing emoji to create new hybrid emojis” I could decide if I think that’s silly, probably legit, and it’s worth the ‘risk’. It would also assist the aforementioned crawlers and scrapers.
Biganon
Serious question, could you explain why you disable JS in 2023?
JS cannot access your files, your browser certainly protects you against cryptomining...
JS is not always eye candy, there are many things that cannot be done with forms alone. If you want a terrible web experience, feel free, but it's not the devs' job to write an exposé to explain why they had to use JS.
toastal
A lot of the web is full of sludge—blog spam, analytics, advertising, unnecessary motion. A lot of these files are large and take time to execute for marginal benefit (or negative benefit with tracking). Opting in on a per-site basis can save you the rare threat vector, but also prevent the sludge. When it’s clear the JavaScript provides value (or even good eyecandy), I do the two clicks to enable it and refresh; a blank page generically saying “Enable JavaScript” isn’t telling me anything and feels more like a warning to stay away. Exposé implies it needs to be anything beyond a line or two.
Not everyone wants to download and execute programs from the internet every time they visit a site.
Note: the ‘web’ is comprised of both web pages & applications where web applications obviously need JavaScript, but web pages are better served with JavaScript as an enhancement. In the post here, we have a web app, but there’s nothing that tells me what it is and with so many sites running these project generator defaults of “You need to enable JavaScript to run this app”, it’s impossible to tell if this is an trustworthy application, malicious, or another SPA that should have just been static content.
You could also check out 2018 articles praising uBlock Origin for allowing users to disable JS by default in v1.17.0 such as https://www.zdnet.com/article/ublock-origin-gets-option-to-b...
Yondle
You been on the internet before bud?
kissgyorgy
It's really tiresome reading all the crying from no-JS snobs in a world when you cannot use most websites without JS. Move on or turn on JS.
toastal
I opt in to JavaScript—not fully disabled. When there’s a compelling reason to enable it, I do, but if a site shows me nothing, it gives me nothing to work with. I run TUI browsers semi-regular though and they’ll never show me anything. Slap on that non-Google web crawlers aren’t executing JS & your site will get worse SEO too.
I was thinking these are somehow generated. But they are Google's mashups: https://emojipedia.org/emoji-kitchen/