8 ms·

1. This is removing actual content, not just changing internal naming. "Children/Families affected by systematic discrimination/bias/exclusion" will simply no l

1. This is removing actual content, not just changing internal naming. "Children/Families affected by systematic discrimination/bias/exclusion" will simply no longer be able to find grants targeted at them. 2. The amount of effort being put into this is much higher than GitHub changing their default for new repos to "main"

IshKebab 2y ago
> The amount of effort being put into this is much higher than GitHub changing their default for new repos to "main" Sorry but that's bullshit. This is just deleting a few words from static content. The whole `main` thing required: * Github (and Gitlab etc.) to make `master` configurable - an entirely new feature. * All tooling that previously could assume a default of `master` now can't have a sensible default. You have to specify every time. * Users to remember which one to use for every repo. This is still causing me pain. Repos I use are about 50:50 split between `main` and `master`. I sure do love having to retype `git switch master` half the time I do it. This is dumb, but it definitely is less effort than the dumb `main` change.
- Hizonner 2y ago
  Less effort on that repo? Sure. Less effort replicated over the entire US government? No, sorry, don't buy it. ... and the git changes were allowed to happen on a sane schedule. Oh, and most of the people or projects affected by the git change got a choice.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  It isn't though. This is the beginning of wiping LGBTQ from any federal government concerns, grants, programs, health data, etc. It's been pretty obvious for the past 2 weeks that Trump doesn't care about the law, nor do his acolytes or GOP Congress members who have failed to stand up for the very role of the Congress as a check to Presidential and Judicial power. They passed these laws, the President has to go through them to make changes to them, not do end runs around the law disguised as Musk and his minions
  - cbeach 2y ago
    Why should people get grants because of who they choose to sleep with?
    - gchamonlive 2y ago
      Why should people not get specific needs cared for, to exist for instance, because of who they choose to sleep with? I think that question precedes yours in priority.
      - cbeach 2y ago
        Could you give me an example of someone whose sexual preferences mean they are unable to "exist" unless they have a government grant?
        gchamonlive 2y ago
        A friend of mine got a stone thrown to his head because he was holding hands with someone from the same sex. He barely survived and today, I think 10 years later, he still suffers from severe migraines and doesn't have movement in half his body. And I wouldn't blame you if you didn't believe me. I sometimes also don't believe this happened, that that was just a bad dream. That we actually need laws to prevent people from killing each other just because.
    - amarcheschi 2y ago
      Iirc, lgbtq removal involved removing gender studies and pages regarding sexual and women's health. It hadn't to do with grants
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Because they're a usefully distinct group from the point of view of epidemiological studies.
- _kst_ 2y ago
  I deal with the main/master brouhaha by using a script I wrote that determines the name of the appropriate branch: #!/bin/bash git remote show origin | sed -n '/^ *HEAD branch: */s///p' It's in my `$HOME/bin` as `git-master`, symlinked as `git-main`. git switch $(git master) (`git foo` finds and executes a `git-foo` command anywhere in $PATH, a handy feature if you want to implement your own extensions.) (This is of course irrelevant to the topic of the top-level post.)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    Ah neat! Might have to steal that. Let's just hope nobody decides that "origin" is racist too...
- knome 2y ago
  Having to keep track of what branch has been arbitrarily tapped as the trunk in a repo is not reasonably comparable to stripping Americans of recognition and rights. The former may annoy some folks until they standardize or figure out a way to tag the repos. The latter is actively aiming to be detrimental to people in a large way, and unless stopped, will very likely succeed in that goal.
- pjc50 2y ago
  You didn't have to do this, there was no EO.
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    Ah so is there a way I can magically get everyone to go back to `master`?
    - ben_w 2y ago
      To get *everyone* to magically go back would require *forcing me* to go back. Very few of the places I worked kept the default name anyway, for entirely unrelated reasons. Call the default branch "A" for all I care. Or "Release". Or "Primary". Or "Root". Sure, I know the etymology doesn't go to what it sounds like, but even without any culture war stuff — and this is very mild, I view "not using 'master'" in this context as "being polite" — even without culture war stuff, what you're whinging about was already something people had to handle.
      - IshKebab 2y ago
        So I am forced to deal with the main/master mess. That's what I thought. I don't know why you commented.
        ben_w 2y ago
        "Very few of the places I worked kept the default name anyway, for entirely unrelated reasons." You already had the problem you're whinging about, even without any culture war. And I really do mean it when I say you are 'whinging' here: of all the things people in software have to deal with, what something is called is among the more trivial. A policy that strips people of money, even with good reason, is much more disruptive than "what's this called?", that you call this "bullshit" and *this* is your comparison? It's like a posh person in WW1 saying that their caviar being rationed is more important than the troops getting winter jackets.
- beezlewax 2y ago
  I use "git switch -" Usually you're switching from a feature branch back to main or master anyway.
isaacremuant 2y ago
> 2. The amount of effort being put into this is much higher than GitHub changing their default for new repos to "main" The buck didn't stop with that useless piece of wokeism that, oh so curiously, didn't go after master degrees. The funniest thing when red is in power instead of blue is how all the blue people pretend their crap was good and the crap of red is bad and how it's not about the action but about who does it.

IshKebab 2y ago

> The amount of effort being put into this is much higher than GitHub changing their default for new repos to "main" Sorry but that's bullshit. This is just deleting a few words from static content. The whole `main` thing required: * Github (and Gitlab etc.) to make `master` configurable - an entirely new feature. * All tooling that previously could assume a default of `master` now can't have a sensible default. You have to specify every time. * Users to remember which one to use for every repo. This is still causing me pain. Repos I use are about 50:50 split between `main` and `master`. I sure do love having to retype `git switch master` half the time I do it. This is dumb, but it definitely is less effort than the dumb `main` change.

Hizonner 2y ago
Less effort on that repo? Sure. Less effort replicated over the entire US government? No, sorry, don't buy it. ... and the git changes were allowed to happen on a sane schedule. Oh, and most of the people or projects affected by the git change got a choice.
EasyMark 2y ago
It isn't though. This is the beginning of wiping LGBTQ from any federal government concerns, grants, programs, health data, etc. It's been pretty obvious for the past 2 weeks that Trump doesn't care about the law, nor do his acolytes or GOP Congress members who have failed to stand up for the very role of the Congress as a check to Presidential and Judicial power. They passed these laws, the President has to go through them to make changes to them, not do end runs around the law disguised as Musk and his minions
- cbeach 2y ago
  Why should people get grants because of who they choose to sleep with?
  - gchamonlive 2y ago
    Why should people not get specific needs cared for, to exist for instance, because of who they choose to sleep with? I think that question precedes yours in priority.
    - cbeach 2y ago
      Could you give me an example of someone whose sexual preferences mean they are unable to "exist" unless they have a government grant?
      - gchamonlive 2y ago
        A friend of mine got a stone thrown to his head because he was holding hands with someone from the same sex. He barely survived and today, I think 10 years later, he still suffers from severe migraines and doesn't have movement in half his body. And I wouldn't blame you if you didn't believe me. I sometimes also don't believe this happened, that that was just a bad dream. That we actually need laws to prevent people from killing each other just because.
  - amarcheschi 2y ago
    Iirc, lgbtq removal involved removing gender studies and pages regarding sexual and women's health. It hadn't to do with grants
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Because they're a usefully distinct group from the point of view of epidemiological studies.
_kst_ 2y ago
I deal with the main/master brouhaha by using a script I wrote that determines the name of the appropriate branch: #!/bin/bash git remote show origin | sed -n '/^ *HEAD branch: */s///p' It's in my `$HOME/bin` as `git-master`, symlinked as `git-main`. git switch $(git master) (`git foo` finds and executes a `git-foo` command anywhere in $PATH, a handy feature if you want to implement your own extensions.) (This is of course irrelevant to the topic of the top-level post.)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- IshKebab 2y ago
  Ah neat! Might have to steal that. Let's just hope nobody decides that "origin" is racist too...
knome 2y ago
Having to keep track of what branch has been arbitrarily tapped as the trunk in a repo is not reasonably comparable to stripping Americans of recognition and rights. The former may annoy some folks until they standardize or figure out a way to tag the repos. The latter is actively aiming to be detrimental to people in a large way, and unless stopped, will very likely succeed in that goal.
pjc50 2y ago
You didn't have to do this, there was no EO.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  Ah so is there a way I can magically get everyone to go back to `master`?
  - ben_w 2y ago
    To get *everyone* to magically go back would require *forcing me* to go back. Very few of the places I worked kept the default name anyway, for entirely unrelated reasons. Call the default branch "A" for all I care. Or "Release". Or "Primary". Or "Root". Sure, I know the etymology doesn't go to what it sounds like, but even without any culture war stuff — and this is very mild, I view "not using 'master'" in this context as "being polite" — even without culture war stuff, what you're whinging about was already something people had to handle.
    - IshKebab 2y ago
      So I am forced to deal with the main/master mess. That's what I thought. I don't know why you commented.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        "Very few of the places I worked kept the default name anyway, for entirely unrelated reasons." You already had the problem you're whinging about, even without any culture war. And I really do mean it when I say you are 'whinging' here: of all the things people in software have to deal with, what something is called is among the more trivial. A policy that strips people of money, even with good reason, is much more disruptive than "what's this called?", that you call this "bullshit" and *this* is your comparison? It's like a posh person in WW1 saying that their caviar being rationed is more important than the troops getting winter jackets.
beezlewax 2y ago
I use "git switch -" Usually you're switching from a feature branch back to main or master anyway.

isaacremuant 2y ago

> 2. The amount of effort being put into this is much higher than GitHub changing their default for new repos to "main" The buck didn't stop with that useless piece of wokeism that, oh so curiously, didn't go after master degrees. The funniest thing when red is in power instead of blue is how all the blue people pretend their crap was good and the crap of red is bad and how it's not about the action but about who does it.