3 ms·
I did read that part, I just feel that the idea that somehow something good comes from removing the feather (which is negligible expense relative to changing th
by nathanwh 2y ago
I did read that part, I just feel that the idea that somehow something good comes from removing the feather (which is negligible expense relative to changing the name), is just plainly saying that we care about inclusivity but only so long as it’s not expensive. Which is more or less the policy of every large organization, but it’s rare that it gets said.
- kajecounterhack 2y agoI read it as "we can't do it now because complex reasons, but we know it's still a problem and want to do it" and that feels pretty good. Like who's supposed to set the timeline for rectifying long-lived errors in judgement? Unwinding long-lived errors generally takes time.
- orra 2y agoIt's cheaper to change the name and logo in one go, than to change the logo; then later change the name and logo. I cannot agree they want to change the name, otherwise they would be.
- wrs 2y agoAs someone who once implemented a name change for a much, much smaller company, I can tell you this is just not so. You have to find and fix every contract, bank account, government registration, checkbook, domain name, knowledge base article…it’s endless. And some of those changes cost money in addition to time.
- tannhaeuser 2y agoAIU using the feather along with the Apache name could be seen as mindlessly evoking the stereotypical image of a native American as in naive 1950/1960s Western movies, which adds insult to the act of cultural appropriation that is merely using the name.