Your premise does not necessarily grant your conclusion without more elaboration. How it does research necessarily not have a benefit for 'real life'? Or, to put it another way, why is it basic research is, by default, divorced from 'real life'?

Presumably if there were a more efficient character encoding with sufficient advantages there would indeed be some 'useful' aspect to it. However, and I'd like to drive this point home, you have no business deriding the well-intentioned questions of others if you have nothing to contribute. Thus far you've outright dismissed even the validity of raising the questions--'who cares'--and, after being confronted, backpedaled somewhat but still dismissed the question's utility--'not terribly useful in real life'--without being so kind as to explain why, as if it were self-evident. Perhaps to you, but this somewhat the point of my last harangue: innovation starts with questions, even those which are seemingly naive.

You have been, to this point, not uncommonly, sadly, but rude indeed. If you have thoughts to share on the subject I would love to hear them. To contribute only blase dismissal tends to make individuals of less than adamantian character cease or hide their well-natured questioning of the world about them. I do not mean to suggest, of course, that every question posed should be met with twee praise: no, indeed. Rather, explorations should be met with good faith, disagreements elaborated such that rational observers might find in the conversation new ideas, or strengthening of their own. Our individual actions steer the culture in which we find ourselves; I hope we can both agree that it is a better world in which basic exploration is the norm; neither dogged travel in a well-worn rut if indeed a better road might be found.