This is counterproductive IMO, because it makes it look like a chi. (The article notes the problem.) That seems more likely to cause issues than the possible ambiguity with the “times” symbol (“×”). If you need a multiplication symbol, use the middle dot (“·”) instead.
Funnily enough, when I write for the purpose of math, my numbers are more legible than when I just write down a number. For some reason, I code switch in my handwriting. Kinda obnoxious when I'm filling out forms.
There are two issues I do see, though, and they're kind of the same issue. Right now, we have this concept of a central store of public certificates. It makes it easy for you to get a certificate for a particular entity, but it also makes the central store a target. If you can compromise a central store (or a machine that is attempting to access said central store), you probably have the resources to at least redirect the user to your own site and leave them none-the-wiser, and you probably have the resources to man-in-the-middle their connection entirely and just snoop your heart out. So central stores of trust are a bit of an issue, and the ways around that are non-trivial to set up. A good example is probably KeyBase, who allow you to certify your various online presences with your private key. So if someone wants to replace your information on KeyBase with their own one, and they have the resources to do so, now they also have to compromise all the places you've distributed that key to. Or, they have to compromise one of those centralized stores of trust....
The big issue with centralized stores of trust is that they build blind trust. That's the big issue with humans in general, though. We don't want to question what we're watching. And we probably don't want to be bothered with validating that the "trusted source" of the certificate used to sign this content is actually _trusted_. It's just too much mental overhead. We want it to be automatic. We want central stores of trust, because it's just _easier_. The work is going to be convincing people that _easier_ is dangerous, in this case. Or, it's going to be to convince software companies to build in inconvenient technology and not make it trivial to turn off.
Better to always use struct and never class, or the opposite. Always class is simpler because the first members declared in most classes are public, and struct saves you typing "public:" at the top of every class. But always class has the advantage that it is far more popular in C++ library code...including std::array which has no invariants.
Do you have something in mind that might be more complicated?
I don't understand this at all. The bigger number is at the bigger end, that's the whole point of the symbols. What does the alligator introduce, apart from an extra step and doubt over whether it's larger or smaller numbers they are said to eat?
It seems possible that WhatsApp could be persuaded by the government to implement such technology.
http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2017/08/study_lin...