4 ms·
I think it makes sense, since it's an assumption that the attacker is a male. In security it should be a focus to be as precise as possible and not to introduce
by nilsherzig 2y ago
I think it makes sense, since it's an assumption that the attacker is a male. In security it should be a focus to be as precise as possible and not to introduce assumptions which might cloud your ability to judge other details.
- tired-turtle 2y agoOur nascent AI overlord wants a word with you. The assumption that the attacker was a person was deemed culturally insensitive.
- eru 2y ago> The term man (from Proto-Germanic *mann- "person") and words derived from it can designate any or even all of the human race regardless of their sex or age. In traditional usage, man (without an article) itself refers to the species or to humanity (mankind) as a whole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word) Of course, the meaning of words change over time. But also, the meaning of words in a compound expression can be different from the meaning of the word on its own. (See also how a pickpocket is not a type of pocked, nor is a cutthroat a kind of throat.)
- Dylan16807 2y ago> since it's an assumption that the attacker is a male It most certainly is not. I could talk about linguistics but instead I'll just point out that the default attacker is a woman named Eve.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 2y agoI find the "precise" language excuse insulting. The purpose of these forced changes is an American understanding of DEI, pretending it's not about that feels like a lie, and being told a transparent lie feels insulting to me because it suggests the person telling the lie considers me dumb enough to not see through it.
- apantel 2y agoIn reality, it is probably 100x more likely to be a man performing a MITM than a woman.