4 ms·

A proper noun is a noun...? > Embrace, Extend, Extinguish How did we get from "change one word, find/replace basically" to an entire predatory policy by Micro

A proper noun is a noun...? > Embrace, Extend, Extinguish How did we get from "change one word, find/replace basically" to an entire predatory policy by Microsoft? If anything, this proves that it is possible over time. The issue with EEE was not the change itself but the power Microsoft gained by enforcing examples itself. Where's the power issue in making a change that is a positive for the world without negatives once past the transitional issue? Again, my point here is that this just feel like people put more energy into fighting it than the change costs, and I think often that speaks more to people marginalizing the underlying issue than caring about the problems with the change itself.

bonzini 6y ago
Everything that you name gets a proper noun. If you name your git branch "maint", that proper noun comes from the common noun "maintenance". If you name your git branch "master", that proper noun comes from the adjective "master". > The issue with EEE was not the change itself but the power Microsoft gained by enforcing examples itself Exactly, making things different is effectively a potential lock-in issue for GitHub vs. other git hosts.
- adjkant 6y ago
  And this changes what exactly? Its derivation doesn't change its use as a noun in the common use. Even if it was an adjective, you act as if that magically excludes it from being associated with the master/slave distributed systems reference, but it's still a CS term at the end of the day and I fail to see how there would not be a subconscious association there. > Exactly, making things different is effectively a potential lock-in issue for GitHub vs. other git hosts. Or all the others can change too for the low cost of near zero, at the same time. If those companies don't want to change for the societal good, maybe that's a legitimate reason not to use them. Do you really believe a single rename in the name of societal good that anyone can do with low cost is going to cause vendor lock-in?
  - bonzini 6y ago
    A proper noun and a common noun are grammatically different and easily distinguishable. Same for an adjective and a noun. This is why my original comment was specifically about reading comprehension. I don't believe there's any gain at all to achieve in terms of societal good, therefore any possible damage is going to be greater than zero. I am ready to be called a racist or fascist for this, which would be quite ironic given that my grandparents and great-grandparents had several unpleasant interactions with the Italian fascist party.
    - adjkant 6y ago
      > I don't believe there's any gain at all to achieve in terms of societal good The only thing I can say then is to look to psych research, implicit bias, and biases in decision making studies. The conclusions there clearly point the opposite direction. I'll drop one such example to start[1] > I am ready to be called a racist or fascist for this People walk into these assuming this hostility, but if you want such hostility to change, it's a two way street. It's been well established we are all a little racist, ironically here thanks to ingrained biases such as the one we are discussing. What matters is that you're trying to fight against those tendencies, learning, and correcting where you can. No one is asking for perfection. When people bring in hostility into these conversations though is where that then becomes interpreted as a choice, not just subconscious. > my grandparents and great-grandparents had several unpleasant interactions with the Italian fascist party I don't see why we are still trying to use this line of argument. There are plenty of sexist women, racist BIPOC to other races, etc. Being of or having been related to X can help statistically at a macro level, but does not magically stop an individual from developing any of those ideas. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/

bonzini 6y ago

Everything that you name gets a proper noun. If you name your git branch "maint", that proper noun comes from the common noun "maintenance". If you name your git branch "master", that proper noun comes from the adjective "master". > The issue with EEE was not the change itself but the power Microsoft gained by enforcing examples itself Exactly, making things different is effectively a potential lock-in issue for GitHub vs. other git hosts.

adjkant 6y ago
And this changes what exactly? Its derivation doesn't change its use as a noun in the common use. Even if it was an adjective, you act as if that magically excludes it from being associated with the master/slave distributed systems reference, but it's still a CS term at the end of the day and I fail to see how there would not be a subconscious association there. > Exactly, making things different is effectively a potential lock-in issue for GitHub vs. other git hosts. Or all the others can change too for the low cost of near zero, at the same time. If those companies don't want to change for the societal good, maybe that's a legitimate reason not to use them. Do you really believe a single rename in the name of societal good that anyone can do with low cost is going to cause vendor lock-in?
- bonzini 6y ago
  A proper noun and a common noun are grammatically different and easily distinguishable. Same for an adjective and a noun. This is why my original comment was specifically about reading comprehension. I don't believe there's any gain at all to achieve in terms of societal good, therefore any possible damage is going to be greater than zero. I am ready to be called a racist or fascist for this, which would be quite ironic given that my grandparents and great-grandparents had several unpleasant interactions with the Italian fascist party.
  - adjkant 6y ago
    > I don't believe there's any gain at all to achieve in terms of societal good The only thing I can say then is to look to psych research, implicit bias, and biases in decision making studies. The conclusions there clearly point the opposite direction. I'll drop one such example to start[1] > I am ready to be called a racist or fascist for this People walk into these assuming this hostility, but if you want such hostility to change, it's a two way street. It's been well established we are all a little racist, ironically here thanks to ingrained biases such as the one we are discussing. What matters is that you're trying to fight against those tendencies, learning, and correcting where you can. No one is asking for perfection. When people bring in hostility into these conversations though is where that then becomes interpreted as a choice, not just subconscious. > my grandparents and great-grandparents had several unpleasant interactions with the Italian fascist party I don't see why we are still trying to use this line of argument. There are plenty of sexist women, racist BIPOC to other races, etc. Being of or having been related to X can help statistically at a macro level, but does not magically stop an individual from developing any of those ideas. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/