7 ms·

https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/blob/2d04cacc5322951f187bb17e017c12920ac8ebe2/v4.0/src/BIOS/MSBIO1.ASM#L82 https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/blob/2d04cacc

https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/blob/2d04cacc5322951f187bb17e017c12920ac8ebe2/v4.0/src/BIOS/MSBIO1.ASM#L82 https://github.com/microsoft/MS-DOS/blob/2d04cacc5322951f187... > ; REV 2.15 7/13/83 ARR BECAUSE IBM IS FUNDAMENTALY BRAIN DAMAGED, AND Someone was angry that day. Wonder if any IBM dev ever stumbled upon this when MS and IBM worked together.

justinclift 2y ago
Well they're not wrong, so maybe the comment was just prescient? :)
freedomben 2y ago
This was the good 'ol days, back when you could put stuff in comments like that and not worry about legal
- elwell 2y ago
  Now you can't even say "sanity check", much less mention brain damage.
  - steelbrain 2y ago
    Wait, I missed the bus on this one. What's wrong with "sanity check"?
    - rnd0 2y ago
      These days it would be considered a problematic allusion to people with cognitive or emotional issues.
    - Stratoscope 2y ago
      As someone who recently asked our QA team to change the name of one of our test suites from "sanity test" to "quick test", maybe I can provide some perspective. Many software developers like me have faced challenges to our mental health. Indeed, there has been a time or two when I questioned my own sanity. And perhaps the sanity of some of my colleagues! It's not so much that there is something inherently wrong with the term "sanity check". We all know what it means. It's just that there are more descriptive and neutral terms available to us, so why not use them?
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        > It's just that there are more descriptive and neutral terms available to us, so why not use them? Because it's boring.
        Stratoscope 2y ago
        Walter, you and I have known each other for a long time. Not in person; we've never met. But through our interactions here on HN. I have a lot of respect for you and for everything you have accomplished. So I have to ask you directly: Is being "boring" or not the way we should decide how to express ourselves? Regarding a "quick test" vs. a "sanity test". Instead of judging this on what is "boring", why can't we make a choice on which is more respectful to our peers and colleagues?
        at_a_remove 2y ago
        We should make choices based on communication, first and foremost. Words that do not communicate are not useful. A "quick test" implies almost nothing, other than it is faster than some other, unnamed test out there. Is a quick test good or is it bad? No way to tell. This term, quick test, it does not inform. On the other hand, a sanity test, well, it is more evocative. You definitely want to pass a sanity test. If you reach back to your psychology classes, they talked about a four-part test that is useful for determine if a behavior is sane or not. 1) Is it abnormal? Unusual? Out of the ordinary? for the situation. 2) Is it unjustifiable, unreasonable given the circumstances? 3) Is it counter-productive? Which is to say, does the behavior serve the individual, or does it in fact make things worse? Or simply do nothing? 4) (and this is where my memory is fuzzy) I think it involves personal distress. For the life of me I can't find it via Google and it annoys me. Now, interestingly, a sanity test matches the first three! (The fourth, well, there is no "I" in the program to be distressed) In programming, a sanity test looks for something abnormal, not reasonable for the program, and represents a state that won't get us the desired output. In short, it's highly congruent to the other context for sanity. This term, it communicates, and in a way "quick test" does not. In general, one of the main critiques of political correctness which few really notice is that the new term is less specific and less useful, that it fails at communicating. Consider when "Oriental" fell off of the euphemism treadmill for "Asian." We all knew that the first term referred to a particular part of the world, from the Latin for "east." (Ex lux orient and so on) "Asian," however, could refer to people in Russia or people in India, but nobody in the US does (I note in the UK India does get the "Asian" pass). So here the new term is less specific and less useful, and is confusing to boot because we deliberately ignore parts of Asia when using the term "Asian." If you want something to supplant "sanity test," you gotta work harder for it than "quick test."
    - arp242 2y ago
      According to some it's ableist language, e.g.: https://developers.google.com/style/inclusive-documentation#ableist-language https://developers.google.com/style/inclusive-documentation#... Not really interested in discussing this and not saying I agree (or disagree!) with that. Just answering the question.
    - leeoniya 2y ago
      since 1984 no one was offended by it, but in 2024 it became offensive to insane people AFAIK "sanity check" doesnt even have a history like "retarded" (which actually became an offensive slur). maybe some folks just feel left out if they cant rage about and feel offended by something these days. ::eyeroll::
      - smegger001 2y ago
        Usually its offended on someone elses behalf.
        leeoniya 2y ago
        indeed
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    I've always thought it a strange and insensitive phrase.
  - JoachimS 2y ago
    And please don't use 'brain dead', which is a mortuist expression. Using 'brain dead' in a negative way may be insensitive to zombies. Also avoid the expression 'zombie process' or the word 'expired'. You don't want to step on the toes of a zombie do you? (It's probably gross.)
    - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
      The google guidelines already prevent something like "hung process" because of the "unnecessary violence" rule.
- eesmith 2y ago
  Oh, you had to worry about legal. But since lawyers are concerned with risk, if the source is all proprietary and internal, the risk was lower. When Mozilla went open source back in the 1990s, Netscape's lawyers required the source first be bowdlerized. (Search for "censorzilla" for some examples.)
wormius 2y ago
It's what happens after Ballmer exceeds the peak.

justinclift 2y ago

Well they're not wrong, so maybe the comment was just prescient? :)

freedomben 2y ago

This was the good 'ol days, back when you could put stuff in comments like that and not worry about legal

elwell 2y ago
Now you can't even say "sanity check", much less mention brain damage.
- steelbrain 2y ago
  Wait, I missed the bus on this one. What's wrong with "sanity check"?
  - rnd0 2y ago
    These days it would be considered a problematic allusion to people with cognitive or emotional issues.
  - Stratoscope 2y ago
    As someone who recently asked our QA team to change the name of one of our test suites from "sanity test" to "quick test", maybe I can provide some perspective. Many software developers like me have faced challenges to our mental health. Indeed, there has been a time or two when I questioned my own sanity. And perhaps the sanity of some of my colleagues! It's not so much that there is something inherently wrong with the term "sanity check". We all know what it means. It's just that there are more descriptive and neutral terms available to us, so why not use them?
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      > It's just that there are more descriptive and neutral terms available to us, so why not use them? Because it's boring.
      - Stratoscope 2y ago
        Walter, you and I have known each other for a long time. Not in person; we've never met. But through our interactions here on HN. I have a lot of respect for you and for everything you have accomplished. So I have to ask you directly: Is being "boring" or not the way we should decide how to express ourselves? Regarding a "quick test" vs. a "sanity test". Instead of judging this on what is "boring", why can't we make a choice on which is more respectful to our peers and colleagues?
        at_a_remove 2y ago
        We should make choices based on communication, first and foremost. Words that do not communicate are not useful. A "quick test" implies almost nothing, other than it is faster than some other, unnamed test out there. Is a quick test good or is it bad? No way to tell. This term, quick test, it does not inform. On the other hand, a sanity test, well, it is more evocative. You definitely want to pass a sanity test. If you reach back to your psychology classes, they talked about a four-part test that is useful for determine if a behavior is sane or not. 1) Is it abnormal? Unusual? Out of the ordinary? for the situation. 2) Is it unjustifiable, unreasonable given the circumstances? 3) Is it counter-productive? Which is to say, does the behavior serve the individual, or does it in fact make things worse? Or simply do nothing? 4) (and this is where my memory is fuzzy) I think it involves personal distress. For the life of me I can't find it via Google and it annoys me. Now, interestingly, a sanity test matches the first three! (The fourth, well, there is no "I" in the program to be distressed) In programming, a sanity test looks for something abnormal, not reasonable for the program, and represents a state that won't get us the desired output. In short, it's highly congruent to the other context for sanity. This term, it communicates, and in a way "quick test" does not. In general, one of the main critiques of political correctness which few really notice is that the new term is less specific and less useful, that it fails at communicating. Consider when "Oriental" fell off of the euphemism treadmill for "Asian." We all knew that the first term referred to a particular part of the world, from the Latin for "east." (Ex lux orient and so on) "Asian," however, could refer to people in Russia or people in India, but nobody in the US does (I note in the UK India does get the "Asian" pass). So here the new term is less specific and less useful, and is confusing to boot because we deliberately ignore parts of Asia when using the term "Asian." If you want something to supplant "sanity test," you gotta work harder for it than "quick test."
  - arp242 2y ago
    According to some it's ableist language, e.g.: https://developers.google.com/style/inclusive-documentation#ableist-language https://developers.google.com/style/inclusive-documentation#... Not really interested in discussing this and not saying I agree (or disagree!) with that. Just answering the question.
  - leeoniya 2y ago
    since 1984 no one was offended by it, but in 2024 it became offensive to insane people AFAIK "sanity check" doesnt even have a history like "retarded" (which actually became an offensive slur). maybe some folks just feel left out if they cant rage about and feel offended by something these days. ::eyeroll::
    - smegger001 2y ago
      Usually its offended on someone elses behalf.
      - leeoniya 2y ago
        indeed
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  I've always thought it a strange and insensitive phrase.
- JoachimS 2y ago
  And please don't use 'brain dead', which is a mortuist expression. Using 'brain dead' in a negative way may be insensitive to zombies. Also avoid the expression 'zombie process' or the word 'expired'. You don't want to step on the toes of a zombie do you? (It's probably gross.)
  - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
    The google guidelines already prevent something like "hung process" because of the "unnecessary violence" rule.
eesmith 2y ago
Oh, you had to worry about legal. But since lawyers are concerned with risk, if the source is all proprietary and internal, the risk was lower. When Mozilla went open source back in the 1990s, Netscape's lawyers required the source first be bowdlerized. (Search for "censorzilla" for some examples.)

wormius 2y ago

It's what happens after Ballmer exceeds the peak.