This change means that sufficient nagging on popular social networks can bully entire companies into submission. Where do we draw the line between technology an

This change means that sufficient nagging on popular social networks can bully entire companies into submission. Where do we draw the line between technology and being offended? The whole notion of "we are doing it to fix things" is a lie. Changing words that mean something in technology does absolutely nothing to fix the underlying problem - hatred. The cheapest way to buy yourself conscience is to sit at home and do absolutely nothing of value, but to appear as if you "care". This is precisely what changing terminology does - it buys companies conscience. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this noble cause, I just can't wait to invest yet more time to fix all the problems caused by naming change. And yes, there's us who deal with software not working when you rename a branch. Telling me it was already broken if naming change breaks it - thanks, it magically makes it go away. There's a huge number of us who work in maintenance field and we can't construct or design systems to satisfy every possible great practice out there - namely, we inherit old, crappy systems that no one wants to deal with and work on and we make them run. Changing something that worked under false pretense of doing it for greater good - while jeopardizing entire jobs because of failing software - has anyone given it any thought? Sure, someone you never saw is not offended any more by a naming convention in a field they never interacted with. But I'll be there, with many of my coworkers fixing older systems on the fly, praying nothing goes down at the wrong moment, enabling the ones who depend on that software to do their work. While I understand the motivation behind this.. let's call it movement - I can't understand that very little thought has been given to consequences and to who will suffer because of the changes.