5 ms·

Section 4.6 is certainly ridiculous, but I suppose you can just ignore it.

by _9ptr 1y ago

jacobgkau 1y ago
> Avoid neurodiversity bias. For example, avoid the terms "sanity check" and "sanity test", This one seems a little much. I've used this term in work writing within the past week (not in official documentation, but I do also write official documentation). I tried to look up what the acceptable alternatives are (since Section 4.6 doesn't specify one for that rule), but it seems most possible alternatives already have other, distinct meanings: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/282282/near-universally-applicable-alternative-to-sanity-check https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/282282/near-univ...
- perching_aix 1y ago
  I usually use "smoke check/test" or "smell test", but if you have a specific context in mind, maybe I can give you a different alternative phrase I use or two. Definitely not something I'd force onto others either though.
  - wmeredith 1y ago
    Are we just disregarding the differently-abled people who have a diminished sense of smell? /s
  - josefx 1y ago
    > "smell test" There are a lot more people who would fail that test and be offended when pointed out. That group includes some forms of mental illness as well.
    - perching_aix 1y ago
      Don't people who "fail a smell test" and get offended do so because they they think it's a propestourous claim they're failing it? It's kind of the opposite situation, cause wouldn't that make them not take it on themselves by default and thus not wish for the nonuse of this phrasing?
- duskwuff 1y ago
  It's not a hypothetical situation; I know people with chronic mental health conditions who find this usage of the word "sane" specifically hurtful. It's avoidable; use "reasonable" as an adjective and a phrase like "consistency check" as a verb, or a more specific term like "bounds check" if applicable.
  - bigstrat2003 1y ago
    Then those people are unreasonable, and need to adjust their outlook. It is neither healthy for them, nor fair to others, to take such great offense at harmless words.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      But words evolve, and we do actually change which words we use. We've been doing it since... forever. And, somehow, people still manage to act surprised when it happens. As if it's their first day on Earth. There's a lot of terminology around just mental illness that we have decided to leave in the past. And, a lot of it is for good. One benefit of changing our language is we get a second chance. We can be more specific, more fine-grained, or more accurate. For example, sanity check is vague. If it's a bound check, we might say bounds check. That's more accurate. If it's a consistency check, we might say consistency check. We want our language, particularly in technical pieces, to be both inclusive and precise. What I mean is, we want it to include every thing it should, and nothing it shouldn't. For example, in Medical literature you'll often see the term "pregnant person" or "pregnant people", or even "people who may be pregnant". At first glance, it seems stupid. Why not just say "women"? Women is imprecise. There's a variety of people who would not identify as a woman who may be pregnant. If they get, say, a form with that verbiage they might mark "no, I'm not a woman". But they SHOULD mark "yes, I am a pregnant person" or "yes, I am a person who may be pregnant". It doesn't even just include transgender individuals - it also includes people born intersex, or people born without a uterus who do identify as a woman. There's women who may be pregnant and women who may never be pregnant, just as there are people who do not identify as women who may be pregnant. The word "woman" is then imprecise, confusing, and includes people it shouldn't, as well as excluding people it should.
qualeed 1y ago
From that section, I really like: >"Avoid superlatives in job titles and descriptions, especially problematic terms such as "guru", "ninja", "rockstar", or "evangelist"." At a past job, it was actually embarrassing to introduce some of my colleagues in meetings as shit like "Data Guru" and "Marketing Guru". (I'm sure we can skip the 100,000th argument about the rest of the section).
- Cthulhu_ 1y ago
  Love seeing that section, hate people who unironically call themselves one of those phrases. I used to know one guy who integrated his karate hobby into his personality as an agile consultant... it was kinda embarrassing.
Cthulhu_ 1y ago
It seems you have a certain hyperfocus on inclusivity being mentioned, which is a shame; did you engage with the rest of the document with as much effort? Or do you have an agenda and/or an irrational emotional response to mentions of inclusivity?

Section 4.6 is certainly ridiculous, but I suppose you can just ignore it.

by _9ptr 1y ago

Section 4.6 is certainly ridiculous, but I suppose you can just ignore it.

> Avoid neurodiversity bias. For example, avoid the terms "sanity check" and "sanity test", This one seems a little much. I've used this term in work writing within the past week (not in official documentation, but I do also write official documentation). I tried to look up what the acceptable alternatives are (since Section 4.6 doesn't specify one for that rule), but it seems most possible alternatives already have other, distinct meanings: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/282282/near-universally-applicable-alternative-to-sanity-check https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/282282/near-univ...

perching_aix 1y ago
I usually use "smoke check/test" or "smell test", but if you have a specific context in mind, maybe I can give you a different alternative phrase I use or two. Definitely not something I'd force onto others either though.
- wmeredith 1y ago
  Are we just disregarding the differently-abled people who have a diminished sense of smell? /s
- josefx 1y ago
  > "smell test" There are a lot more people who would fail that test and be offended when pointed out. That group includes some forms of mental illness as well.
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    Don't people who "fail a smell test" and get offended do so because they they think it's a propestourous claim they're failing it? It's kind of the opposite situation, cause wouldn't that make them not take it on themselves by default and thus not wish for the nonuse of this phrasing?
duskwuff 1y ago
It's not a hypothetical situation; I know people with chronic mental health conditions who find this usage of the word "sane" specifically hurtful. It's avoidable; use "reasonable" as an adjective and a phrase like "consistency check" as a verb, or a more specific term like "bounds check" if applicable.
- bigstrat2003 1y ago
  Then those people are unreasonable, and need to adjust their outlook. It is neither healthy for them, nor fair to others, to take such great offense at harmless words.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    But words evolve, and we do actually change which words we use. We've been doing it since... forever. And, somehow, people still manage to act surprised when it happens. As if it's their first day on Earth. There's a lot of terminology around just mental illness that we have decided to leave in the past. And, a lot of it is for good. One benefit of changing our language is we get a second chance. We can be more specific, more fine-grained, or more accurate. For example, sanity check is vague. If it's a bound check, we might say bounds check. That's more accurate. If it's a consistency check, we might say consistency check. We want our language, particularly in technical pieces, to be both inclusive and precise. What I mean is, we want it to include every thing it should, and nothing it shouldn't. For example, in Medical literature you'll often see the term "pregnant person" or "pregnant people", or even "people who may be pregnant". At first glance, it seems stupid. Why not just say "women"? Women is imprecise. There's a variety of people who would not identify as a woman who may be pregnant. If they get, say, a form with that verbiage they might mark "no, I'm not a woman". But they SHOULD mark "yes, I am a pregnant person" or "yes, I am a person who may be pregnant". It doesn't even just include transgender individuals - it also includes people born intersex, or people born without a uterus who do identify as a woman. There's women who may be pregnant and women who may never be pregnant, just as there are people who do not identify as women who may be pregnant. The word "woman" is then imprecise, confusing, and includes people it shouldn't, as well as excluding people it should.

qualeed 1y ago

From that section, I really like: >"Avoid superlatives in job titles and descriptions, especially problematic terms such as "guru", "ninja", "rockstar", or "evangelist"." At a past job, it was actually embarrassing to introduce some of my colleagues in meetings as shit like "Data Guru" and "Marketing Guru". (I'm sure we can skip the 100,000th argument about the rest of the section).

Cthulhu_ 1y ago
Love seeing that section, hate people who unironically call themselves one of those phrases. I used to know one guy who integrated his karate hobby into his personality as an agile consultant... it was kinda embarrassing.

Cthulhu_ 1y ago

It seems you have a certain hyperfocus on inclusivity being mentioned, which is a shame; did you engage with the rest of the document with as much effort? Or do you have an agenda and/or an irrational emotional response to mentions of inclusivity?