3 ms·
Eh. If I was managing a network with a ton of machines I needed to be able to turn off and on together (not that farfetched from what I'm currently doing), I'd
by ColanR 6y ago
Eh. If I was managing a network with a ton of machines I needed to be able to turn off and on together (not that farfetched from what I'm currently doing), I'd probably label the scripts 'resurrection' and 'genocide'. Apt and descriptive.
I think the difference is you chose words more emotionally charged, which isn't the point here.
- sk0g 6y agoI'd say genocide is a bit... Strong, something like terminate might be just as apt, and less likely to get you fired!
- ColanR 6y agoGenocide = kill them all, which is exactly what the script would be doing.
- sk0g 6y agoWhat do you think (ex)terminate means, while not being a quite direct reference to catastrophic events?
- ColanR 6y agoIt means kill one thing with extreme prejudice, which does not fit the description I gave you. The nice thing about a large vocabulary of both positive and negative words is that it's possible to use words that actually fit the context.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jgwil2 6y agoGenocide means destroying an ethnic group by killing all of its members - it is in no way generalizable to "kill them all." Surely you can see why that's a poor use of language (even discounting the potential to offend). Save yourself a character and just go with "killall."
- sriram_malhar 6y agoThe word genocide has a much more sinister import than 'kill all'. It literally means kill all of one race ('geno'). I wouldn't call terminating a child process 'infanticide' either.
- p49k 6y agoI’m curious what you would do if a new hire/junior programmer joined your team and asked you to change the name of the script because their parents were killed in a genocide and they would prefer not to be reminded every time they had to run the script? Would you be empathetic and spend three seconds renaming it or fight them tooth and nail on principle? Why would people so strongly resist practicing some pre-emptive effortless empathy toward people who have gone through similar things related to a small handful of specific words?
- ColanR 6y ago> asked you to change the name of the script because their parents were killed in a genocide I'd change it. Why do you ask? > pre-emptive effortless empathy Because the world is filled with negativity, and our language changes to refect the world: if we kept dropping every word that gained a negative connotation, within a few generations we'd be left with nothing but a child's vocabulary - if that.
- Nextgrid 6y agoI'm open to changing any problematic wording if it came from someone that was genuinely offended by it. However I am opposed to blanket changes like the one in this article not because of the wording itself but because the change is coming from the PR department as opposed to any actual minorities that might be offended by these words.
- p49k 6y ago1. People who speak up are often putting their jobs at stake, especially in the US where people can (and often are) fired for almost anything. We shouldn’t have to ask anyone; it’s so not a big deal to search and replace some text to a more neutral term. 2. I’ve met plenty of people who felt uncomfortable about specific jokes being made, words being used and did not feel comfortable for speaking out for various reasons. In at least one case the person explained that it took years before they were able to make the transition from feeling demeaned by a term and being able to understand and articulate exactly why it was demeaning. We can be proactive and emphatic. There’s no good reason people have to be so insanely motivated to fight against something that barely has any effect on their life but that might improve things for others.