People who claim the goal of changing the common terminology was to abolish or discourage racism are an example of why we are still having such prevalent racism all around.
Maybe comparing <the sum total of annoyance from reading the old name> to <the current sum total of annoyance reading the current name>, it was a positive direction overall?
I don’t believe that more than .0001% of people actually felt annoyance. Master branch was used referencing a master, as in the master copy of a record, not a slave master. No normal people were actually annoyed by that.
You need to add all of the real world breakage to scripts and tutorials on the right side of that ledger. Plus the negative effects of virtue signaling undermining efforts at substantive change.
Also, are we supposed to ban the word master from all of it's dozens of normal English use-cases? I never got a clear answer on why git branch names were so much more harmful than someone mastering a skill or making a master record.
I suggest we all boycott Mastercard until they rename to Maincard. I simply cannot bring myself to generate revenue for a company so bigoted they'd use such an egregious name.
Can you name any person who publicly registered any form of annoyance reading the old name, prior to the movement to replace the name?
Can you cite any person, before, during or after, who gave a valid, coherent argument as to why the old name should annoy anyone? (Or are you willing to attempt one yourself?)
Note: the two arguments I am familiar with boil down to "it could be understood as describing a bad historical event, and ipso facto must not be uttered", and "if I am annoyed by something then that is inherently valid and you lack standing to question me, on account of my identity characteristics". I don't accept either of these as valid, for hopefully obvious reasons.
(And in fact, I can't recall actually ever seeing the second argument deployed honestly. I can only recall seeing people not of the relevant identity characteristics presuming that they were defending people who would feel that way.)
I mean, if you were to do that, I'd wager more people are annoyed with the change than were annoyed with the original name. So no, it was a negative direction overall.
nope. to this day, it's still fucks people up and causes mistakes. it was stupid then, and it's still just as stupid. virtue signalling is always fucking stupid, and sometimes, like in this case, is flat out egregious
You'll be happy to know in the context of a "master branch" it never had any connotation to slavery, except in the minds of people who see everything as a question of race*
Anyway I'm off to listen to the 50th anniversary Dark Side of the Moon remaster. Wait, is "dark" an okay word? I didn't get a master's degree in English
> virtue signaling is fixing symptoms of the problem
It diminishes the seriousness of the entire anti-racism movement by making it look petty, out of touch and more interested in creating nuisances than solving real problems. The San Francisco school board got fired for doing similar nonsense during COVID, renaming schools and thus showing they weren’t serious people.
Can you, perhaps, cite your own pre-2020 writing attesting to the problem, and explaining why it should be considered a problem?
Do you consider that using the name "master" for a branch tends to endorse or normalize slavery, or (even stochastically) increase the amount of slavery that occurs in the world?
If so, how?
If not, why is it actually a problem to reference the concept (even disregarding the evidence that it was not intended to do so)?
I’m not making a claim about whether any particular idea is good or bad.
I’m pointing out that the process by which ideas gain acceptance is somewhat independent from their actual quality, so acceptance alone isn’t a strong signal.
Another interpretation exists too: maybe obedience and compassion were orthogonal. They reported an increase in the error rate in parallel with the increase in voltage, right? Maybe those who continued into the more dangerous voltage ranges, committed more errors because they felt flustered. So in direct contradiction to the image of their being driven into some kind of hateful bloodlust, perhaps they felt more compassion and distress as the experiment proceeded. But just didn't act on it.
America has been craving safety since 9/11, and it has made cowards of everybody, so in some sense I would agree.
But taking a risk regarding an unknown or to expand knowledge or actually accomplish something is one thing. Ignoring known and mitigable risks just to save money, save face, meet a deadline or please a bureaucrat is another.
Anyway these clowns even fail your criterion, because by covering up the results of the first launch/experiment, they are not being up front about a risk.
In my opinion this is a top-down, human hierarchy thing. CEOs and agency administrators create and set an organization's culture and expectations.
The irony is that a faulty heat shield is an engineering challenge that real engineers would love to tackle; all you have to do is turn them loose on the problem, let them fix it. They live for that. I find it actually aesthetically offensive that the organization and its culture has instead taught them venal, circumspect careerism, which is cowardice of a different kind.
Uh yeah I've heard of that! It's the first thing I did after reading you had fixed it. So either you said it right before actually fixing it, or my browser is caching a bit too aggressively, or perhaps your CDN took some time to propagate the change over to this side of the world. I got downvoted over this. "Hilarious"
The way the authors of the book on material strengths got those numbers, was through testing. If you're using mature technologies, that testing has been done by others and you can rely on it for your design, at least in a general way. Otherwise you have to do the testing yourself, which is something a structural engineering project might do also, if it's unusual in some way.
Whoever drafts the law has to arbitrarily choose a number, or there will be no end of litigation to settle it, and a judge will arbitrarily choose a number. OP's opinion is "not more than 10" so 9, 8 and 1 would all be fine with them, while 11 would be too long. Source: reading. Meanwhile you haven't even made clear where you stand on the issue or what point you're making or in what way "differently" OP is supposed to feel.
reply