Emoji are for communicating to other people. I can’t imagine why you would ever send someone a message with a ram stick in it. OP sounds like they want the icon for a task bar. In that case they can simply import any SVG they want.
> I can’t imagine why you would ever send someone a message with a ram stick in it.
Would you consider this to be a very different thing from, say, a MiniDisc? Yet there is an Emoji for that.
Obviously we cannot include every picture possible in Unicode, but there certainly seems to be demand for a lot of them. Besides really enjoying their use in texting, I've also come across a lot of professional uses as well.
Yes, this means that the Unicode Consortium probably has needed to adapt their original mission a bit, but I don't see the harm in that.
Would you consider this to be a very different thing from, say, a MiniDisc? Yet there is an Emoji for that.
MiniDisc makes sense for two reasons. First, because it's a legacy inclusion. Second, because absolutely, you might use it in a text message. "Don't forget to bring over your bitchin collection of [MiniDisc] on Thursday!"
Yeah the OP's arguments wouldn't work: the typical answer would be "use PUA and a custom font" as Powerline symbols do (incidentally, they have been proposed to Unicode [1]). But as a general emoji CPU and RAM can be actually substantially different from any other existing emoji, which is the main concern of the Unicode emoji process.
This is an important point that most technical people miss. They want to turn Unicode into a cross-platform FontAwesome. That's not what it's for.
There are a lot of specific-use symbols in Unicode (chess pieces, for example), but those are legacy inclusions because many of those symbols were included in computers before the internet.
Chess pieces aren't included just because of legacy computer software, chess pieces and many related symbols in Unicode come from "there are hundreds of years of books that use these symbols and encoding those books needs these symbols".
I think that's also a distinction often missing in technical people's assumptions about Unicode and why it isn't just a cross-platform "FontAwesome" even just of legacy proto-FontAwesomes like Wingdings (which is also included and is its own different story). Unicode Consortium likes proposals to include things such as scanned documents of "here's how this 1850s book used chess symbols in the flow of text to communicate how the game is played". Not as adornments or images or separate figures, but directly as a part of the text.
That was one of the things that the Power Symbol Proposal [1] that was heavily discussed on HN in the past (and sort of spun out of HN comments in the first place) wound up learning and realizing how big that was to Unicode Consortium's needs in a proposal. "How was this used in real examples in the flow of text?" Finding and being able to cite and scan real world examples from text books and help documentation is an important part of the process. Even the chess pieces were about communicating to other people, in the flow of text in historic books and magazine articles and discussions.
