4 ms·

But what does this have to do with using the concept of master / slave as an apt technical analogy? How does changing technical terminology help close racial ga

But what does this have to do with using the concept of master / slave as an apt technical analogy? How does changing technical terminology help close racial gaps in opportunity or change outdated attitudes on race? It seems to me (a white guy) that this accomplishes nothing compared to other uses of the time, energy, and $ that this wastes. If I were at the head of the org I would take the time & $ that would be wasted on this effort and invest it into underserved black schools. (of which there are many in the US)

kybernetikos 6y ago
> an apt technical analogy It's really not an apt technical analogy. The most significant aspects of the master/slave relationship (ownership) are not present in the technical version.
- Hammershaft 6y ago
  I think thats true for git, (altho the master branch could also refer to a master record), but there are a lot of uses of master/slave terminology in computer tech that are more apt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%2Fslave_%28technology%29?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%2Fslave_%28technology%2...
  - kybernetikos 6y ago
    Pretty much none of those have the key ownership feature that is the most significant aspect of the master/slave relationship. Most of the relationships in that list would be more accurately described as lead/follower (followers copy or join in with the actions of a leader), boss/worker (workers work on tasks given them by a boss).
    - politician 6y ago
      In centralized coordination protocols, the follower or worker nodes do not have autonomy. That said, the master/boss/leader nodes also do not have autonomy (in the sense that they are all bound to the protocol: none of the nodes can choose to quit and get ice cream, for example). However, in human social terms, it can seem like the central coordination node has more autonomy relative to the worker nodes, but that's an illusion. In protocols, work provider --(activates)--> work performer. None of nodes have autonomy, so any pair of terms that overlaps with (provider, performer) are equivalent.
      - kybernetikos 6y ago
        > any pair of terms that overlaps with (provider, performer) are equivalent. Well, some terms are more accurate and some terms have greater baggage. If we're talking about a relationship where one node gives work and another node does the work, this is the kind of relationship we see everywhere in manager/employee relationships without unnecessary and inaccurate baggage about ownership or autonomy. It's not even necessarily the case in a human master/slave relationship that the master gives work to the slaves, the key aspect is that the slave's work is done for the benefit of the master, but the actual assigning, coordinating and supervision of the work is not a core aspect of a masters role, and being itself work, would often be delegated to someone else.

kybernetikos 6y ago

> an apt technical analogy It's really not an apt technical analogy. The most significant aspects of the master/slave relationship (ownership) are not present in the technical version.

Hammershaft 6y ago
I think thats true for git, (altho the master branch could also refer to a master record), but there are a lot of uses of master/slave terminology in computer tech that are more apt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%2Fslave_%28technology%29?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%2Fslave_%28technology%2...
- kybernetikos 6y ago
  Pretty much none of those have the key ownership feature that is the most significant aspect of the master/slave relationship. Most of the relationships in that list would be more accurately described as lead/follower (followers copy or join in with the actions of a leader), boss/worker (workers work on tasks given them by a boss).
  - politician 6y ago
    In centralized coordination protocols, the follower or worker nodes do not have autonomy. That said, the master/boss/leader nodes also do not have autonomy (in the sense that they are all bound to the protocol: none of the nodes can choose to quit and get ice cream, for example). However, in human social terms, it can seem like the central coordination node has more autonomy relative to the worker nodes, but that's an illusion. In protocols, work provider --(activates)--> work performer. None of nodes have autonomy, so any pair of terms that overlaps with (provider, performer) are equivalent.
    - kybernetikos 6y ago
      > any pair of terms that overlaps with (provider, performer) are equivalent. Well, some terms are more accurate and some terms have greater baggage. If we're talking about a relationship where one node gives work and another node does the work, this is the kind of relationship we see everywhere in manager/employee relationships without unnecessary and inaccurate baggage about ownership or autonomy. It's not even necessarily the case in a human master/slave relationship that the master gives work to the slaves, the key aspect is that the slave's work is done for the benefit of the master, but the actual assigning, coordinating and supervision of the work is not a core aspect of a masters role, and being itself work, would often be delegated to someone else.