181–190 of 201 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...can you point to some of this 'fake "woke" science'?
Here's a study that looked at precisely the kind of thing this policy will address: https://www.cspicenter.com/p/increasing-politicization-and-h... To be clear, I would be in support of this policy even if there was no evidence because it sets a tone that I think is positive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people like to focus very exclusive on the aspect if its top-down, with the implied message being that censorship is acceptable as long its done by companies or community leaders rather than government. Yes, it is worse when it is done by governments. But no, it doesn't make censorship acceptable. So much debate happens because some people view all censorship as bad, that is rules intended to inhibit speech…
Voluntarily choosing not to say something is preference, not self-censorship. For example, some people choose not to swear because they don't like swears. That is just a preference, self-censorship is when you want to swear but don't because of external pressure. Nobody was forced to stop using master/slave, some companies just chose not to because that was their preference. They didn't want to use the word slave any…
Let's not mix up issues though.
Removing 'master' in git has much less justification than removing master/slave terminology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Voluntarily choosing not to say something is preference, not self-censorship. For example, some people choose not to swear because they don't like swears. That is just a preference, self-censorship is when you want to swear but don't because of external pressure. Nobody was forced to stop using master/slave, some companies just chose not to because that was their preference. They didn't want to use the word slave any…
> GitHub Let's not mix up issues though. Removing 'master' in git has much less justification than removing master/slave terminology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GitHub Let's not mix up issues though. Removing 'master' in git has much less justification than removing master/slave terminology.
Nobody removed “master” from git though
https://www.theserverside.com/feature/Why-GitHub-renamed-its...
They did stuff. Plenty qualifies as "removing". (And I didn't say they reached out and changed the entire world.)
And unlike master/slave, it's fake inclusivity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody removed “master” from git though
https://github.com/github/renaming https://www.theserverside.com/feature/Why-GitHub-renamed-its... They did stuff. Plenty qualifies as "removing". (And I didn't say they reached out and changed the entire world.) And unlike master/slave, it's fake inclusivity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion government focus should be on the education of young people, and not on trying to force and bend adults to behave in the narrow "correct" way. Again, with some exceptions. If we want more female representation in STEM - focus on education. If we want people not to use some slur or derogatory term - teach people in the school. And so on. The problem is that across the world education is a third tier acti…
> If we want more female representation in STEM - focus on education. You also have to introduce rules for hiring – unless you want your interventions to have an 80-year delay on them. (Or we could make unqualified 18-year-olds responsible for hiring decisions, I suppose.) If you're training children up for careers they're going to be kept out of, you're doing everyone a disservice.
Also in practice these quotas are often put at the lower rank jobs, where there is little discrimination anyway. E.g. IT industry will eat up any good candidate, usually. The problem with quotas is that we can't implement them where they are really needed - in the higher castes of social hierarchy. There are no quotas for CEOs or Senators, or top politicians etc. And really won't be.
So considering that, I tend to think that quotas is a losing game, and only education is the solution. And I mean real efforts there, not some token programs for 30 girls per nation or something. And yeah, unfortunately we will need to wait a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://github.com/github/renaming https://www.theserverside.com/feature/Why-GitHub-renamed-its... They did stuff. Plenty qualifies as "removing". (And I didn't say they reached out and changed the entire world.) And unlike master/slave, it's fake inclusivity.
Cool story, nobody removed “master” from git though
Which is different from saying they "removed", because "removed" sounds like 100% removal. They didn't 100% remove, but that's not my argument, only a strawman of it.
So will you meet me at what I actually meant, or are you going to insist on your own wording that doesn't actually rebut me?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cool story, nobody removed “master” from git though
They did (and encouraged) a lot of "removing". Which is different from saying they "removed", because "removed" sounds like 100% removal. They didn't 100% remove, but that's not my argument, only a strawman of it. So will you meet me at what I actually meant, or are you going to insist on your own wording that doesn't actually rebut me?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did (and encouraged) a lot of "removing". Which is different from saying they "removed", because "removed" sounds like 100% removal. They didn't 100% remove, but that's not my argument, only a strawman of it. So will you meet me at what I actually meant, or are you going to insist on your own wording that doesn't actually rebut me?
Git isn’t GitHub. GitHub changed the default for GitHub , didn’t touch existing projects and made it optional for projects to switch.
Hell, I didn't even say they accomplished their goal. I just criticized the goal, not just for github but for everyone else doing the same thing. And the goal is about git repos. Lots of those are on github, and lots of those are influenced by the things github did.
TL;DR: Lots of people removed "master" from git repos.
I remember how "master" and "slave" were banned a few years back in information technology context and people cheered that ban. And surprise surprise, the same mechanism of arbitrary bans can be turned 180 degrees. And it appears that if the only criteria is a superficial offense at the established word unrelated to the imaginary offense, then many different people can use that same mechanism to ban or attack whateve…