9 ms·

The insistence on a surname is quite annoying for people who don't have one or use one. In India, there are many cultures where a surname or family name isn't u

by wtmt 7y ago

The insistence on a surname is quite annoying for people who don't have one or use one. In India, there are many cultures where a surname or family name isn't used or isn't passed down from one generation to another and to the next and so on. There are cultures where a surname is used. But what's very common across the country is addressing people by their first (or only) names whether or not one is close to them. Even in writing (except in newspapers and TV), it's common to refer to people by their first (or only) names or to use the person's full name. Most websites that need a name assume that everyone has a last name and make it mandatory. What's more ridiculous is that this habit is prevalent even in places where it may be uncommon (like in some parts of India)! Even Jesus didn't really have a surname that was used everywhere. Jews in those times (and for a much longer period) didn't have surnames either. Instead of celebrating and appreciating the diversity among humans and human naming conventions, today's world thrives on forms that want to normalize things. It's just laziness and/or ignorance and/or unwillingness to learn. See "Falsehood programmers believe about names". [1] [1]: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-...

Iv 7y ago
There was a stand up comedian of Algerian descent explaining that situation when the French administration tries to do the census of their colony. The custom was to use your father's and grandfather's name as a name. Problem is, many people, including brothers would have the most popular name (I think it was Mohammed). Having a Mohammed, son of Mohammed, grandson of Mohammed was common. So the French admninistration gave arbitrary names to families. Algerians were rightfully angry about that. But then it got me thinking about what kind of acceptable solution you would have. There are naming conventions that are good enough to keep track of people in a village of mid-sized town. Given name + Parents names. Family names start appearing when you need to be able to identify a person unambiguously among the population of a big country. Some places never went through that phase, yet being able to identify unambiguously a person who may have changed address or even country is perfectly valid. In the absence of a universal ID scheme, I don't see a way around forcing a working pattern into every culture, with the acceptance that some things may be lost in translation. Jesus would have registered as "Jesus Bin Yoseph" to get a passport or an Amazon Prime account. His (hypothetical) children would have "Bin Jesus" as their family names. Hopefully one day we have a UID for humans that can be mapped to a variety of naming scheme, but we are not there yet.
- vpzom 7y ago
  >Hopefully one day we have a UID for humans[…] that sounds really dangerous
  - Iv 7y ago
    I keep seeing people from US and UK equating IDs with totalitarianism. Why? I don't follow the reasoning here. I believe all Americans have a social security number, right? And all passport holders have a de-facto global UID (but not everyone has a passport and bi-nationals may have several) I don't see what this enables that would be impossible without.
    - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
      The only reason for a UID is to track what you do. A world full of events where that is a pressing need is a frightening one.
    - walrus01 7y ago
      I find it amusing at how many Americans seem resistant to a national ID system, but blithely give out their social security number to any number of private entities, along with their DOB, full name, mother's maiden name, etc. Basically a ready made identity theft kit when the inevitable data breach occurs. You already have a national attempt at a GUID per human, it's called a social security number, it just has incredibly lax security and data handling practices, and no teeth in penalties for its misuse.
    - TuringNYC 7y ago
      I think there are several reasons: 1. Centralization gives provides a juicy target for misuse/negligence by both legitimate (see: Equifax) and illegitimate (see: Cambridge Analytica). De-centralization allows a preferable level of chaos 1. Historically there has been an attempt at balancing federal (national) vs local (state) powers. 2. The country can probably not even agree on one standard -- some states for examples are very strict while others are not (usually along party lines)
svat 7y ago
Another consequence of insisting on surnames is that those without a surname are forced to append say their father's name as a surname, with the result that their name now becomes twice as long. Each of the individual names (of the person and their father) was about as long as needed to be somewhat unique (some sort of universal "full name" length), but with the artificially added surname, the resulting length is now two times that. Quite annoying to spell out such long names on the phone for instance.
Osiris 7y ago
I'm working in a product right now where we've run into this and we have a ticket to remove the family name requirements. Even if we remove the family name requirement from our end, a third party we use for identity verification still requires a family name, so how do we deal with that?
- tempestn 7y ago
  Request that they change, and if they won't, then find a new third party I guess?
  - hcs 7y ago
    Joe base26(md5("null"))
    - tempestn 7y ago
      It's an 'identity verification' service though, so I doubt it will work very well if you feed it bogus info.
aaron695 7y ago
There simply is not enough entropy for one name. Even in a small village. Hence why there are surnames (or equivalents, Jesus son of Joseph) Not a normalisation. True, surnames are used for hierarchical system hence why some people don't want to use them for instance. But websites aren't here to pander to you. They want to make $. The less entropy they have on you the better. It's not laziness and/or ignorance and/or unwillingness to learn.
vegiraghav 7y ago
Some cultures in South India simply have the place from which they are from as their surname. Most of the south Indians have their father's name as surnames as well
umanwizard 7y ago
In some Western European cultures (Portuguese and Spanish, and thereby Latin American), most people have two last names. When dealing with automated systems in other countries, it causes all manner of problems!
- Bayart 7y ago
  Or having to give your « middle name » in the Anglosphere ! Try explaining you have three to a clerk...
  - weinzierl 7y ago
    > Try explaining you have three to a clerk... Or even that you don't have a first name but a set of given names and that the relative that gave you the name that is conventionally often put in a later position would not be amused about another relatives name singled out to be a "first name".
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    Is it harder than just saying "I have three middle names"? It's not exactly a foreign concept; it is normal for white Americans to have more than one, though not especially common.
    - weinzierl 7y ago
      Three "middle names" might not be a problem but the lack of a first name would almost certainly lead to troubles. Of course you can always just choose one of your "middle names" as an artificial "first name". Some people might find this disrespectful though.
  - gus_massa 7y ago
    Note that the convention of what is your given name and what is your family name, and how they are inherited are different that the convention in USA. This add a lot of confusion when someone moves and need to fill paperwork. Using a "|" to separate your given name(s) and your family name(s): --- Common pattern in USA: Father: X Y | Z Mother: A B | C Your name: R C | Z --- Spain/most of Latin America: Father: X | Y Z Mother: A | B C Your name: R | Y B --- Argentina: Father: X Y | Z Mother: A B | C Your name: R S | Z
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
I have seen the following variations in Pakistan. Given name is what people prefer to be called informally. * marks if people strongly prefer to be referred to by this name in a formal setting. Prefixes are usually religious in nature (Muhammad/Syed) and then you are never supposed to use them except when reading out the full name. FamilyName GivenName* <optional prefix> GivenName FamilyName GivenName* Father'sGivenName GivenName Father'sGivenName FamilyName Father'sGivenName GivenName FamilyName Prefix GivenName* My name is of the third type and as a scientist it annoys me immensely that my work is referred to by my Father'sGivenName in western culture when no one has ever called me that in real life in my culture. Source: my own comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19973627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19973627

by wtmt 7y ago

Iv 7y ago

There was a stand up comedian of Algerian descent explaining that situation when the French administration tries to do the census of their colony. The custom was to use your father's and grandfather's name as a name. Problem is, many people, including brothers would have the most popular name (I think it was Mohammed). Having a Mohammed, son of Mohammed, grandson of Mohammed was common. So the French admninistration gave arbitrary names to families. Algerians were rightfully angry about that. But then it got me thinking about what kind of acceptable solution you would have. There are naming conventions that are good enough to keep track of people in a village of mid-sized town. Given name + Parents names. Family names start appearing when you need to be able to identify a person unambiguously among the population of a big country. Some places never went through that phase, yet being able to identify unambiguously a person who may have changed address or even country is perfectly valid. In the absence of a universal ID scheme, I don't see a way around forcing a working pattern into every culture, with the acceptance that some things may be lost in translation. Jesus would have registered as "Jesus Bin Yoseph" to get a passport or an Amazon Prime account. His (hypothetical) children would have "Bin Jesus" as their family names. Hopefully one day we have a UID for humans that can be mapped to a variety of naming scheme, but we are not there yet.

vpzom 7y ago
>Hopefully one day we have a UID for humans[…] that sounds really dangerous
- Iv 7y ago
  I keep seeing people from US and UK equating IDs with totalitarianism. Why? I don't follow the reasoning here. I believe all Americans have a social security number, right? And all passport holders have a de-facto global UID (but not everyone has a passport and bi-nationals may have several) I don't see what this enables that would be impossible without.
  - 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
    The only reason for a UID is to track what you do. A world full of events where that is a pressing need is a frightening one.
  - walrus01 7y ago
    I find it amusing at how many Americans seem resistant to a national ID system, but blithely give out their social security number to any number of private entities, along with their DOB, full name, mother's maiden name, etc. Basically a ready made identity theft kit when the inevitable data breach occurs. You already have a national attempt at a GUID per human, it's called a social security number, it just has incredibly lax security and data handling practices, and no teeth in penalties for its misuse.
  - TuringNYC 7y ago
    I think there are several reasons: 1. Centralization gives provides a juicy target for misuse/negligence by both legitimate (see: Equifax) and illegitimate (see: Cambridge Analytica). De-centralization allows a preferable level of chaos 1. Historically there has been an attempt at balancing federal (national) vs local (state) powers. 2. The country can probably not even agree on one standard -- some states for examples are very strict while others are not (usually along party lines)

svat 7y ago

Another consequence of insisting on surnames is that those without a surname are forced to append say their father's name as a surname, with the result that their name now becomes twice as long. Each of the individual names (of the person and their father) was about as long as needed to be somewhat unique (some sort of universal "full name" length), but with the artificially added surname, the resulting length is now two times that. Quite annoying to spell out such long names on the phone for instance.

Osiris 7y ago

I'm working in a product right now where we've run into this and we have a ticket to remove the family name requirements. Even if we remove the family name requirement from our end, a third party we use for identity verification still requires a family name, so how do we deal with that?

tempestn 7y ago
Request that they change, and if they won't, then find a new third party I guess?
- hcs 7y ago
  Joe base26(md5("null"))
  - tempestn 7y ago
    It's an 'identity verification' service though, so I doubt it will work very well if you feed it bogus info.

aaron695 7y ago

There simply is not enough entropy for one name. Even in a small village. Hence why there are surnames (or equivalents, Jesus son of Joseph) Not a normalisation. True, surnames are used for hierarchical system hence why some people don't want to use them for instance. But websites aren't here to pander to you. They want to make $. The less entropy they have on you the better. It's not laziness and/or ignorance and/or unwillingness to learn.

vegiraghav 7y ago

Some cultures in South India simply have the place from which they are from as their surname. Most of the south Indians have their father's name as surnames as well

umanwizard 7y ago

In some Western European cultures (Portuguese and Spanish, and thereby Latin American), most people have two last names. When dealing with automated systems in other countries, it causes all manner of problems!

Bayart 7y ago
Or having to give your « middle name » in the Anglosphere ! Try explaining you have three to a clerk...
- weinzierl 7y ago
  > Try explaining you have three to a clerk... Or even that you don't have a first name but a set of given names and that the relative that gave you the name that is conventionally often put in a later position would not be amused about another relatives name singled out to be a "first name".
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  Is it harder than just saying "I have three middle names"? It's not exactly a foreign concept; it is normal for white Americans to have more than one, though not especially common.
  - weinzierl 7y ago
    Three "middle names" might not be a problem but the lack of a first name would almost certainly lead to troubles. Of course you can always just choose one of your "middle names" as an artificial "first name". Some people might find this disrespectful though.
- gus_massa 7y ago
  Note that the convention of what is your given name and what is your family name, and how they are inherited are different that the convention in USA. This add a lot of confusion when someone moves and need to fill paperwork. Using a "|" to separate your given name(s) and your family name(s): --- Common pattern in USA: Father: X Y | Z Mother: A B | C Your name: R C | Z --- Spain/most of Latin America: Father: X | Y Z Mother: A | B C Your name: R | Y B --- Argentina: Father: X Y | Z Mother: A B | C Your name: R S | Z

abdullahkhalids 7y ago

I have seen the following variations in Pakistan. Given name is what people prefer to be called informally. * marks if people strongly prefer to be referred to by this name in a formal setting. Prefixes are usually religious in nature (Muhammad/Syed) and then you are never supposed to use them except when reading out the full name. FamilyName GivenName* <optional prefix> GivenName FamilyName GivenName* Father'sGivenName GivenName Father'sGivenName FamilyName Father'sGivenName GivenName FamilyName Prefix GivenName* My name is of the third type and as a scientist it annoys me immensely that my work is referred to by my Father'sGivenName in western culture when no one has ever called me that in real life in my culture. Source: my own comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19973627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19973627