> There's a zero percent chance the people putting in the effort to promote this don't realize that 'Master' is an industry term of art meaning original or refe

> There's a zero percent chance the people putting in the effort to promote this don't realize that 'Master' is an industry term of art meaning original or reference copy. True, although in the case of this article it's talking more about music technology like MIDI, where rather than "original" or "reference" it usually means something closer to "leader" or "commander". But this misses the point of the article. The suggestion isn't that we should drop the historic terms to improve the precision of tech communication. Rather, the worry is that habitualizing the terms "master" and "slave" in technology desensitizes us to concept. If we accept that one device is naturally the "master" of other devices, perhaps we are more willing to accept that one human can be the master of other humans. If we accept that the role of one device is to be merely a "slave", perhaps we won't recoil sufficiently at the notion that one human might be enslave another. Certainly, one can disagree with this premise. Why should using the same language to describe one concept influence attitudes toward another? But rather than suggesting that author is pretending not to understand a standard industry term, you'd do much better to argue about the point the article is actually making.