4 ms·

Anyone who believes that "master" is some kind of slur and takes the opportunity to take offense over it is not someone you want causing problems in your organi

Anyone who believes that "master" is some kind of slur and takes the opportunity to take offense over it is not someone you want causing problems in your organization.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eli 6y ago
I feel that way about people who lack empathy
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
JosephRedfern 6y ago
Where is this imaginary line between “ok to be offended” and “not ok to be offended”? Who decides where that line is? If you can trivially avoid even the risk of offending someone — especially in a professional context — then why wouldn’t you?
- swat535 6y ago
  How is making a change that impacts people globally (which includes non English speakers) to mildly please a tiny portion of loud people trivial?
  - stnmtn 6y ago
    How big of a change is this for you? I mean seriously?
oap_bram 6y ago
I dont know, I was taught from a very young age to be nice. And honestly, I kinda of kept it as a close part of my personality to not make anyone feel uncomfortable for any reason. Although I can argue most of these things from a political angle, I also feel like "making people feel more welcome" is a goal in and of itself, and therefor can't be overlooked. Honestly, I feel like if you would have a problem with a particular community you would like to have it resolved too right? I just don't think that it's ever been about terminology because you never had to feel uncomfortable because of it. That's not bad however, but it's easy to forget that if you don't relate to someone subjective reality, doesn't mean it's any less real.
- egwor 6y ago
  Totally agree with this. If someone still struggles to get behind it, think of the few chars that will be shorter to type and also think how it is much easier to compare the branch concept a real tree, and talk about the main branch. Maybe they could have gone for trunk? (If you care so much about main vs trunk, then choose whatever makes you happy)
  - rvnx 6y ago
    It's very smart. Trunk is a better term than "main" and reflects very well the logic with the tree and historical naming (including CVS, SVN, and the trunk software itself). main implies that one branch is more important than the others. This could be offending to some.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
      > main implies that one branch is more important than the others. This could be offending to some. What if one branch is actually more important than others? What about weighted graphs? Stochastic dominance? You can't blindly project social concepts on math/computing science, it's a blind alley.
    - garaetjjte 6y ago
      >main implies that one branch is more important than the others. This could be offending to some. I can't tell if this is satire or not.
afavour 6y ago
“I am personally not offended by this, therefore anyone that is offended is a problem to be removed” People have different life experiences and backgrounds. The cost to you of renaming is near zero, if you’re the one loudly opposing something that makes your coworkers more comfortable then you’re the one causing problems in the organisation.
- IshKebab 6y ago
  I have yet to hear of anyone being actually offended by this. > The cost to you of renaming is near zero Not true. I just had to update a load of tests for a git client I'm working on that assume the default branch name is `master` (I wrote them before this mess), and now I have to configure Git on every system I use to use a default name of master. It's not a huge pain, sure, but it isn't nothing and I don't get any benefit from it either.
  - afavour 6y ago
    Sounds like a flaw in your git client. It was always possible to change the default branch name, so hardcoding master was never right. You’re far from alone in making that assumption though! The good news is this makes everyone’s git tools more resilient. > It’s not a huge pain, sure, but it isn’t nothing and I don’t get any benefit from it either The entire notion here is accommodating people. It doesn’t benefit you personally but it does benefit others. And it’s not a huge pain. At a certain point we’re expending more energy debating doing this than if everyone just did it and moved on with their lives.
    - IshKebab 6y ago
      > Sounds like a flaw in your git client It wasn't in the client, it was in the tests. You know like, here's a script that makes a test repo: git init git add foo.txt git commit -m "A" git switch -c develop git add bar.txt git commit -m "B" git merge master # This will break soon. > The entire notion here is accommodating people. Is it though? It seems to me like the notion is appearing to accommodate people. I still haven't seen a single person say "my great grandfather was a slave and this offends me", only people saying "this might offend someone".
schoolornot 6y ago
We all know exactly the kind of people driving this change. We've worked with them. We know how they function on teams and in the office. We know they aren't particularly good at what they do, barring a few exceptions. And we know what they will do to us, to our jobs, and to our companies if we don't bow to their demands.
- oap_bram 6y ago
  I don't know, seems like a very weird subjective reality you're trying to push in an objective one. I am one of those people, yet I haven't had any significant problems with my work ethic. Pushing a narrative that these people are "gonna do something to us" is a weird one to push. What's gonna happen? We're gonna be kinder to one another? We would want to make people around us happy in a profoundly human way rather than a shallow one? Just to follow you along in your way of thinking. What are "we" gonna do to your job and your companies? I honestly fail to see what you mean.
  - cobraetor 6y ago
    Claiming without evidence that African Americans are offended (not to mention it is patronizing to them) by a term like "master" is subjective reality. Cancel culture, which grand parent is referring to, is real. You will find many anecdotes on Hacker News. Here is one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21484347 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21484347
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    If an employer or coworker doesn’t agree to whatever is your latest demand, “you” would start a campaign to get them fired or contact their customers to try to lose them business. Happens regularly.
    - oap_bram 6y ago
      I mean, that would imply you would prefer a term that is in a way discriminatory to a particular group right? Not in bad faith, but it seems you kind off admitted that there is some evil in doing so, and that you're willing to do it. Also, I wouldn't do that. Emancipating an actual workforce or colleagues would be my solution, not making the company suffer under it.
throwaway210222 6y ago
I cannot wait until the woke find out what 'robot' means in Hungarian.

Anyone who believes that "master" is some kind of slur and takes the opportunity to take offense over it is not someone you want causing problems in your organization.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

eli 6y ago

I feel that way about people who lack empathy

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

JosephRedfern 6y ago

Where is this imaginary line between “ok to be offended” and “not ok to be offended”? Who decides where that line is? If you can trivially avoid even the risk of offending someone — especially in a professional context — then why wouldn’t you?

swat535 6y ago
How is making a change that impacts people globally (which includes non English speakers) to mildly please a tiny portion of loud people trivial?
- stnmtn 6y ago
  How big of a change is this for you? I mean seriously?

oap_bram 6y ago

I dont know, I was taught from a very young age to be nice. And honestly, I kinda of kept it as a close part of my personality to not make anyone feel uncomfortable for any reason. Although I can argue most of these things from a political angle, I also feel like "making people feel more welcome" is a goal in and of itself, and therefor can't be overlooked. Honestly, I feel like if you would have a problem with a particular community you would like to have it resolved too right? I just don't think that it's ever been about terminology because you never had to feel uncomfortable because of it. That's not bad however, but it's easy to forget that if you don't relate to someone subjective reality, doesn't mean it's any less real.

egwor 6y ago
Totally agree with this. If someone still struggles to get behind it, think of the few chars that will be shorter to type and also think how it is much easier to compare the branch concept a real tree, and talk about the main branch. Maybe they could have gone for trunk? (If you care so much about main vs trunk, then choose whatever makes you happy)
- rvnx 6y ago
  It's very smart. Trunk is a better term than "main" and reflects very well the logic with the tree and historical naming (including CVS, SVN, and the trunk software itself). main implies that one branch is more important than the others. This could be offending to some.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
    > main implies that one branch is more important than the others. This could be offending to some. What if one branch is actually more important than others? What about weighted graphs? Stochastic dominance? You can't blindly project social concepts on math/computing science, it's a blind alley.
  - garaetjjte 6y ago
    >main implies that one branch is more important than the others. This could be offending to some. I can't tell if this is satire or not.

afavour 6y ago

“I am personally not offended by this, therefore anyone that is offended is a problem to be removed” People have different life experiences and backgrounds. The cost to you of renaming is near zero, if you’re the one loudly opposing something that makes your coworkers more comfortable then you’re the one causing problems in the organisation.

IshKebab 6y ago
I have yet to hear of anyone being actually offended by this. > The cost to you of renaming is near zero Not true. I just had to update a load of tests for a git client I'm working on that assume the default branch name is `master` (I wrote them before this mess), and now I have to configure Git on every system I use to use a default name of master. It's not a huge pain, sure, but it isn't nothing and I don't get any benefit from it either.
- afavour 6y ago
  Sounds like a flaw in your git client. It was always possible to change the default branch name, so hardcoding master was never right. You’re far from alone in making that assumption though! The good news is this makes everyone’s git tools more resilient. > It’s not a huge pain, sure, but it isn’t nothing and I don’t get any benefit from it either The entire notion here is accommodating people. It doesn’t benefit you personally but it does benefit others. And it’s not a huge pain. At a certain point we’re expending more energy debating doing this than if everyone just did it and moved on with their lives.
  - IshKebab 6y ago
    > Sounds like a flaw in your git client It wasn't in the client, it was in the tests. You know like, here's a script that makes a test repo: git init git add foo.txt git commit -m "A" git switch -c develop git add bar.txt git commit -m "B" git merge master # This will break soon. > The entire notion here is accommodating people. Is it though? It seems to me like the notion is appearing to accommodate people. I still haven't seen a single person say "my great grandfather was a slave and this offends me", only people saying "this might offend someone".

schoolornot 6y ago

We all know exactly the kind of people driving this change. We've worked with them. We know how they function on teams and in the office. We know they aren't particularly good at what they do, barring a few exceptions. And we know what they will do to us, to our jobs, and to our companies if we don't bow to their demands.

oap_bram 6y ago
I don't know, seems like a very weird subjective reality you're trying to push in an objective one. I am one of those people, yet I haven't had any significant problems with my work ethic. Pushing a narrative that these people are "gonna do something to us" is a weird one to push. What's gonna happen? We're gonna be kinder to one another? We would want to make people around us happy in a profoundly human way rather than a shallow one? Just to follow you along in your way of thinking. What are "we" gonna do to your job and your companies? I honestly fail to see what you mean.
- cobraetor 6y ago
  Claiming without evidence that African Americans are offended (not to mention it is patronizing to them) by a term like "master" is subjective reality. Cancel culture, which grand parent is referring to, is real. You will find many anecdotes on Hacker News. Here is one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21484347 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21484347
- 1123581321 6y ago
  If an employer or coworker doesn’t agree to whatever is your latest demand, “you” would start a campaign to get them fired or contact their customers to try to lose them business. Happens regularly.
  - oap_bram 6y ago
    I mean, that would imply you would prefer a term that is in a way discriminatory to a particular group right? Not in bad faith, but it seems you kind off admitted that there is some evil in doing so, and that you're willing to do it. Also, I wouldn't do that. Emancipating an actual workforce or colleagues would be my solution, not making the company suffer under it.

throwaway210222 6y ago

I cannot wait until the woke find out what 'robot' means in Hungarian.