3 ms·

> It doesn't. That's not what I've found in my research, which makes very explicit references to a master/slave dichotomy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id

> It doesn't. That's not what I've found in my research, which makes very explicit references to a master/slave dichotomy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26497027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26497027 If what you say is true, that master recording has no relationship to a master/slave dichotomy, then why is there such a thing as a slave reel? Why do industry insiders refer to the dichotomy with a wink and nudge, as if it's a pun ("get it")? They explicitly talk about the master as representing "control" and not "quality". > There's nothing to expose. I said expose to popular culture. Many people did not know about this practice, and find it objectionable.

908B64B197 4y ago
You seem to enjoy quoting yourself. >They explicitly talk about the master as representing "control" and not "quality". You seem to misunderstand there's a technical term (a recording master, the highest quality and original recording made in a studio) and a legal term (owning the rights to the master) in which said performance can be sold. >Many people did not know about this practice, and find it objectionable. I guess they object to owning stocks and shares too?
- ModernMech 4y ago
  I’m not quoting myself I’m pointing you to links, which is exactly what you did for me. I just didn’t want to repaste them here. > You seem to misunderstand Had you read the link I provided, you’d have seen I quote a source that says exactly what you’re saying. So no, I am aware there are two usages. However, both refer to the master/slave dichotomy in the recording industry: > there's a technical term (a recording master, the highest quality and original recording made in a studio) Right, and this is the one from which “slave reels” are made. So the “master/slave” dichotomy exists there. If the name we’re about quality they wouldn’t call the derivatives “slaves”. > a legal term (owning the rights to the master) in which said performance can be sold. Which is also part of a master/slave dichotomy because it is about control. The book I link to explicitly refers to the master/slave dichotomy in that particular context. > I guess they object to owning stocks and shares too? They are against the exploitive aspects surrounding the practice. I’m not sure how owning stocks and shares could be considered exploitation.
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    > If the name we’re about quality they wouldn’t call the derivatives “slaves”. I've never heard the term "slave reels" and git doesn't have the concept nor the term slave anywhere in the codebase afaik. The term is very much about quality; in the analog days it was way harder and sometimes even impossible to make a perfect copy. Hence the importance of the master being the highest quality (and often recorded on a different, much more expensive medium). > They are against the exploitive aspects surrounding the practice. I’m not sure how owning stocks and shares could be considered exploitation. As explained, it's the same model as raising funds for a startup. The record label claims a percentage, or the whole master in exchange for advance payment and promotion. This isn't a race thing.
    - ModernMech 4y ago
      > I've never heard the term "slave reels" Well now you have, and I've shown you plenty of evidence that the term has been used even in "the analog days". You may keep insisting that the term is very much about quality, but the sources I've linked suggest the opposite. If you can provide some sources aside from the wiki on "Mastering (audio)" I'm willing to look at them and integrate them into my perspective. Otherwise it's your insistence against the references I've already found. > and git doesn't have the concept nor the term slave anywhere in the codebase afaik. That's the whole point of this thread. The original contention was that a "master" branch is a reference to a master/slave dichotomy. The retort is that "no, it actually derives from the term "master recording" in the audio industry, which has nothing to do with a master/slave dichotomy." I've show references that in fact, the "master" in "master recording" is an explicit reference to the master/slave dichotomy. > As explained, it's the same model as raising funds for a startup. VC funding is also a pretty dubious imo. But that's neither here nor there. > This isn't a race thing. I hear you saying that, but I've also heard others who've shown me evidence that it is. We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm willing to split the difference and accept it can be a little of both, but you can't hide from the term "slave reels". Even if you want to say it's very much about quality, it's clear there is a race component, and maybe you can admit that too? Either way I'll still be defaulting my repos to "main" and teaching my students that way.

908B64B197 4y ago

You seem to enjoy quoting yourself. >They explicitly talk about the master as representing "control" and not "quality". You seem to misunderstand there's a technical term (a recording master, the highest quality and original recording made in a studio) and a legal term (owning the rights to the master) in which said performance can be sold. >Many people did not know about this practice, and find it objectionable. I guess they object to owning stocks and shares too?

ModernMech 4y ago
I’m not quoting myself I’m pointing you to links, which is exactly what you did for me. I just didn’t want to repaste them here. > You seem to misunderstand Had you read the link I provided, you’d have seen I quote a source that says exactly what you’re saying. So no, I am aware there are two usages. However, both refer to the master/slave dichotomy in the recording industry: > there's a technical term (a recording master, the highest quality and original recording made in a studio) Right, and this is the one from which “slave reels” are made. So the “master/slave” dichotomy exists there. If the name we’re about quality they wouldn’t call the derivatives “slaves”. > a legal term (owning the rights to the master) in which said performance can be sold. Which is also part of a master/slave dichotomy because it is about control. The book I link to explicitly refers to the master/slave dichotomy in that particular context. > I guess they object to owning stocks and shares too? They are against the exploitive aspects surrounding the practice. I’m not sure how owning stocks and shares could be considered exploitation.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  > If the name we’re about quality they wouldn’t call the derivatives “slaves”. I've never heard the term "slave reels" and git doesn't have the concept nor the term slave anywhere in the codebase afaik. The term is very much about quality; in the analog days it was way harder and sometimes even impossible to make a perfect copy. Hence the importance of the master being the highest quality (and often recorded on a different, much more expensive medium). > They are against the exploitive aspects surrounding the practice. I’m not sure how owning stocks and shares could be considered exploitation. As explained, it's the same model as raising funds for a startup. The record label claims a percentage, or the whole master in exchange for advance payment and promotion. This isn't a race thing.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > I've never heard the term "slave reels" Well now you have, and I've shown you plenty of evidence that the term has been used even in "the analog days". You may keep insisting that the term is very much about quality, but the sources I've linked suggest the opposite. If you can provide some sources aside from the wiki on "Mastering (audio)" I'm willing to look at them and integrate them into my perspective. Otherwise it's your insistence against the references I've already found. > and git doesn't have the concept nor the term slave anywhere in the codebase afaik. That's the whole point of this thread. The original contention was that a "master" branch is a reference to a master/slave dichotomy. The retort is that "no, it actually derives from the term "master recording" in the audio industry, which has nothing to do with a master/slave dichotomy." I've show references that in fact, the "master" in "master recording" is an explicit reference to the master/slave dichotomy. > As explained, it's the same model as raising funds for a startup. VC funding is also a pretty dubious imo. But that's neither here nor there. > This isn't a race thing. I hear you saying that, but I've also heard others who've shown me evidence that it is. We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm willing to split the difference and accept it can be a little of both, but you can't hide from the term "slave reels". Even if you want to say it's very much about quality, it's clear there is a race component, and maybe you can admit that too? Either way I'll still be defaulting my repos to "main" and teaching my students that way.