If the tickets cost $50, there's no way anyone would have thought "this is a good idea." But they charged so much people who could afford to pay for the tickets assumed competence. Parallels with the Titanic are obscene...
I think the separate QA before release step I bet was mostly killed by modern methods of software distribution. It's true that automated testing is great, but let's be real: automated tests have existed for many decades, and certainly overlapped with orgs having manual QA steps as part of release engineering.
If you're duplicating floppies, minting CDs, DVDs and so forth it's very expensive to make corrections. If you're pushing remote updates and digital downloads, or just running the software as a service and making it available over the network (e.g. a website) there's not the same expense associated with correction.
These methods of distribution also let careful organizations release to a small things out to a fraction of users first, which can minimize the costs and risks associated with a bad software push as well.
That's why i brought up the Ceph example, but counts for databases etc too, actually the early databases had all their own fs/data-structure on the platter.
Do you think moral posturing as a means to gaining political and/or social capital when nothing is at stake is of any real value? Because that’s what virtue signalling is, and that’s what most people fighting the good fight in these comments are doing.
I don't appreciate my psychological safety being referred to as "nothing... at stake... of any real value."
I know that's probably not what you intended, but I've reread it several times and that's how I'm interpreting it each time. I think this disconnect between people -- a modicum of safety in a world that doesn't value our lives is seen as huge and worthwhile by some, but trivial and unimportant by others.
I appreciate you trying to clarify. Whether or not that's a correct interpretation of what I wrote depends on why you feel your "psychological safety" is at risk.
If you are a black person and the common use of the word "blacklist" is an affront to your psychological safety, then I would find that curious and I would ask why it is you feel that way. From what other black people in this thread have written, that doesn't appear to be the common case. Amusingly, the people fighting the good fight in the comments here (at least, the last time I checked) seem to have flatly ignored the people who essentially say "I am black. Squabbling about words in Linux does nothing in the fight against slavery. Why won't white people listen to us."
If that isn't your situation and you are being offended on behalf of other people, then I think you're standing on shaky moral ground.
To clarify, when I said "nothing… at stake… of any real value", I was referring to the common modern trend of slacktivism.
I am Black. I'm not ignoring the other Black people posting, I'm just letting the audience know they don't speak for all of us. We are not a monolith.
I don't particularly care about blacklist/whitelist (as there's a clearer connection to light) but a lot of the defenses against even considering that change sound racist as fuck to me -- there's lots of people who explicitly argue the status quo is OK and that it couldn't be worth any changes here.
Master/slave, however, does bother me. It's led to one too many conversations where people need to, or so, say things like "the slave isn't keeping up with the master" or "the master should detect that and kill the slave" or "we should add more slaves" and those words are grating to me. I don't want to say them, and if a coworker is saying them sometimes I'm not sure if they're enjoying getting to use those words a little too much.
I also want to add, none of this is as important to me as meaningful reparations for slavery and institutionalized racism. But the fact that other things are more important doesn't mean this isn't important. If I meet someone who is in a position to significantly advance reparations or rename these tech terms, I'll be talking with them about the former, not the latter. But most people are not in a position to move the needle on both of these issues.
This is something I absolutely agree with you on, and I think it's a disgrace that so many people — usually the most rabid — on both sides of the argument use the opinions of a fraction of some group as political ammunition.
> a lot of the defenses against even considering that change sound racist as fuck to me -- there's lots of people who explicitly argue the status quo is OK and that it couldn't be worth any changes here.
The status quo in which regard? The status quo with regards to police brutality in the US is obviously not OK, but the status quo with regards to words having multiple meanings and being able to be used in different contexts should be fine.
> Master/slave, however, does bother me. It's led to one too many conversations where people need to, or so, say things like "the slave isn't keeping up with the master" or "the master should detect that and kill the slave" or "we should add more slaves" and those words are grating to me. I don't want to say them, and if a coworker is saying them sometimes I'm not sure if they're enjoying getting to use those words a little too much.
I'm not denying your experience, but it sounds like your complaint is against racist assholes in your vicinity. I'm not [yet?] convinced that stopping them from using those words specifically will change their behaviour or perspective.
> I also want to add, none of this is as important to me as meaningful reparations for slavery and institutionalized racism.
I recognise that, and it's a view I share. My ancestors also suffered under slavery (much more recent slavery than the US slave trade) and their country is still asking for reparations.
> But the fact that other things are more important doesn't mean this isn't important.
I'm not suggesting we engage in whataboutery, but at least from my perspective lesser complaints undermine more egregious complaints, and for the sake of practicality I prefer to choose my battles.
In any case, while we agree on some (I think most?) things, I don't feel any less uncomfortable by the attempts of some people in society to normalise Orwellian newspeak. I do appreciate that we can discuss this thoughtfully and respectfully though, and I appreciate you sharing your perspective.
I'm a black engineer who disagrees with you. I appreciate seeing colleagues and peers make an effort, however small, however symbolic, and that helps motivate me to ignore bullshit and continue working in a team and company where i'm a visibly underrepresented historically oppressed minority. That in turn leads to others seeing me and - people have literally told me this, this isn't me guessing the impact of coming to work - feel like this is a place where they too may be able to survive if not thrive.
This change barely moves the needle on Black representation in tech, but I think it does, however little. Improving Black representation in tech /barely/ moves the needle on racism, but I too think it does, however little (these are good jobs and I know it's helped me and my family close some of the racial wealth gap).
This is not about the feelings of processes. It's about the feeling of engineers who have to work in this environment. Names are arbitrary; why not pick a better name that isn't tied to scars in our society that have not healed, and wrongs in our wealth distribution that have not been corrected by reparations?
But if we excised every word linked to some horrible thing people did from names of things, we'd have no words left to use to describe things.
Look, I get it. I can't tell you how many times people are discussing a problem and describe their "final solution" and I cringe a little inside. But I don't say anything, and I don't ask them to change their language because those are the correct words to use, they just have an unfortunate association. But of course the people saying it are not thinking that at all, nor do I suspect they even know the connection most of the time.
Cleansing nomenclature is a fool's errand and won't actually address the real issues we face today.
Indeed, think of the poor right wing engineers who feel the ever tightening noose as they walk on eggshells as the tech industry gets more anti-right.
There are tons of rightwingers in tech or wanting to get in to tech who are feeling excluded and unsafe due to the modern political environment, way more than there are potential black/minority software engineers put off by use of terms like "blacklist".
These hypothetical scenarios don't "flesh anything out a little," they distract from the real world in front of us.
It's very obnoxious when as a real world person with a real world request, I hear "but what about [insert hypothetical here that isn't actually happening]?" and there's an easy answer: "if that arises, let's deal with it then."
I am descended in part from African slaves. I work in tech. I have dealt with, because of my racial characteristics, a variety of micro and not-so-micro aggressions from my coworkers and that's on top of the bullshit I've had to deal with from neighbors and society. All of this causes me to consider walking away to find something where I don't have to deal with as much BS, and that also makes me sure that the diversity issues in tech are not just a pipeline issue, it's an issue of this work environment not being welcoming to people with different backgrounds. All of these issues are additive - few people want to enter a pipeline for hostile working environment in the end, and those that did have to endure constant bullshit in order to be retained.
Efforts to use more inclusive language aren't going to fix nearly any of the big problems, but it is very, very nice to see /any/ effort here, given the history of none at all. Seeing the effort makes these space more bearable, and in my estimation that justifies the very, very minimal cost of committing to trying to use inclusive language going forward (as a software engineer I'm not keen on renames for renames sake, but we're not talking about renames anywhere - we're talking about preferring inclusive names for new things). Likewise it's disheartening to see how many white folks want to proclaim that there are no diversity and inclusion issues in tech.
I'd be quite content to concede renaming master/slave in the linux kernel if that was the end of it. I think what I want to fight against most is the amount of distraction/canceling/fear involved in ever-changing semantic rules. The reason people like me get very hesitant to concede any ground is for fear it would empower even more fear of job security at work (over constantly changing correctness rules).
So you can understand where I'm coming from:
- I worry that this is a slippery slope, and if some places do it, then all places will feel pressure to do it, and be called out on twitter if they don't, and create a huge amount of distraction from actually building good products for the customer
- I worry that this is a slippery slope, and that more words might be included (class, caste, abort, kill, black, white, race, male port, female port, dongle)
- I worry that this is a slippery slope, and that these words in other contexts won't be allowed (mastery, pop culture Britney Spear's Slave4U song, BDSM, Master's ranks in videogames)
(I've seen this in my own lifetime with the word "retard," which used to be the most correct medical term for certain mental deficiencies, and due to a constantly shifting correctness window is now basically worse than "Fuck.")
Now traditionally "slippery slope" is sometimes considered a philosophical fallacy. But perhaps you can say, if the momentum kept going would you be against it? Because if that train didn't stop, I think all the consequences I listed would be much too high a price to pay.
I don't view any of this through the lens of changing our language for language sake. I view it through the lens of trying to rectify the injustices of slavery and legalized discrimination, and the inequality that permeates our society as a result.
So if we gain momentum here, I see the next step as seeking other forms of reparations, not going after other words.
If there are others who are suffering who want to advocate for ways to improve our language to reduce the unintended harm it has, they're of course welcome to.
Also c'mon this slippery slope argument sounds like this to me: "Where does it stop? Will people object to every word and I'll be forced to express myself just through grunts? What if they then come for my grunts? Therefore I should continue to call things whatever I want because slippery slope."
Where does it stop? It stops when people stop pushing.
US slavery ended more than a century ago. US "black" culture just got broken some time in the last 70 years, maybe due to the "war on drugs".
If you want to help american black people prosper you're looking too far back in the past.
> So if we gain momentum here, I see the next step as seeking other forms of reparations, not going after other words.
Why reparations based on race? Why not just help the poor and downtrodden regardless of race?
You're promoting race-conciousness. You know where that ends? White conciousness and white nationalism. If you (not "you" as in dannyphg) lump people together as a group and attacks them and says they need to give you stuff, those people will start banding together and fighting back. I cannot emphasize enough how much race wars fucking suck. Even the ones just fought with votes and preferential treatment for your own tribe suck.
Definitely not the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is every time we take a safe word and make it a "bad" word we sweep up a lot of people along the way, most of whom in my experience aren't really bad people, they're usually just stubborn, caught unawares, a standup comedian, or taken out of context.
Maybe these language changes should have a 5-year deployment window so everybody gets notice.
I think my other question isn't just where it stops, but when it stops. Is it ever going to be enough words banned and then we're done forever? Because if the answer is "no" then I'm probably not able to side with this change-the-language movement as a good use of our limited political energy.
Why do you think "master/slave" was "a safe word" in the first place?
The current narrative is that tech industry inherited the dominant white supremacist culture. (To be specific, "master/slave" entered as a tech term in the 1950s there was wide support by whites for the existing laws enforcing white supremacy)
As such, the term was "safe" because those who used it - white people in tech - were also nearly always those people who gain from the underlying dynamics of white supremacy.
Another narrative comes from "Broken Metaphor: The Master-Slave Analogy in Technical Literature" by Ron Eglash" available from https://sci-hub.st/10.1353/tech.2007.0066 :
> ... being unconscious of social mores was a good sign for a future physicist, because physics transcends culture. Perhaps this kind of emphasis on a technical identity is at work here, too, and the master-slave metaphor is attractive to engineers because its free use “proves” that they inhabit a nonsocial or culture-free realm, which is a matter of professional pride
There are other certainly other narratives, which is why I'm asking why you think it was a safe word, even when others do not, and have not for years.
Note that Eglash's paper quotes a Black researcher who had problems with that term back in 1992.
To re-ask your earlier question, whose opinions count on the issue of why a term is "safe"?
You mentioned "a 5-year deployment window so everybody gets notice".
When would you consider that proper notice has been sent?
Tell me, do you still use the term Negro? Or did you side with the change-the-language movement on that one? Because the logic you use sounds identical to the logic used to resist that change.
Why use your limited political energy to, e.g., construct hypotheticals against language change when language always changes?
> Tell me, do you still use the term Negro? Or did you side with the change-the-language movement on that one? Because the logic you use sounds identical to the logic used to resist that change.
This has connections with the right of a particular group of people to decide how their group gets named. Wikipedia indicates that "black" was once considered the offensive term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro#United_States . However, most black people today prefer either the term black, or for some Americans, African-American.
This is similar to the issue of whether it's ok to use master/slave to relationships between people, but not whether the usage in tech relates to people or is unacceptable because it parallels historical relationships with groups that in the United States were seperated by race
I was questioning why it was "safe" to use master/slave in the first place.
Once upon a time it was "safe" to use a number of terms which are no longer safe. I pointed out that some of reasons to oppose the change used similar arguments to what zug_zug used.
You are right - "Negro" is an example of a label that a group decides for itself, and not a good example to bring up. So I'll use two other examples.
Consider "boy". This was a form of infantilization used to remind adult black men that the were junior citizens at best. Civil rights protestors in the 1960s wore signs "I am a man", in opposition to this racist label. But before then, it was safe to call black men a "boy" because if the man were to oppose that use, he would risk being physically attacked and losing his job.
Going back a few decades, white passengers called all black porters "George", after George Pullman - a racial slur that was one of the reasons which lead the porters to unionize. But early on, it was "safe" to call your porter George.
In both cases, I don't doubt there were people who argued against the language change by asking "Is it ever going to be enough words banned and then we're done forever?" Which leads me to conclude that isn't a strong argument.
zug_zug suggested that it was once "safe" to use the term "master/slave". With those examples in mind, what does "safe" mean? Was it that those bothered or affected by the term have had little power to change things or even speak out until now?
zug_zug elsewhere posed a hypothetical question asking who gets to decide if something is offensive. I turned it around to ask who gets to decide if something is "safe."
Regarding your last paragraph, it also parallels historical relationships with groups elsewhere, as the current discussion of removing statues of South American "heroes" who were also slavers and leaders of genocide shows. South Americans whose ancestors were routinely oppressed via slave culture and white (or white-er) supremacy have little voice in this discussion, but shouldn't be forgotten.
So it's okay to construct hypotheticals that distract from actual complaints about the use of "master/slave", but it's not okay to point out seeming flaws in your logic. Got it.
> I hear "but what about [insert hypothetical here that isn't actually happening]?" and there's an easy answer: "if that arises, let's deal with it then."
Can't we devise a general set of principles on which we can base decisions to remove words and metaphors from our professions and culture? "Let's deal with it then" sounds like it leads more to reflexive responses to loud voices (for or against) instead of thoughtful, collective, consideration. If principles can be agreed upon in the abstract, without the emotional baggage of specific words for any side, they can be applied and even if one don't like a specific outcome, one can recognize that it's fair.
I'm totally on board with discarding the "master/slave" metaphors in tech, they bring up unwelcome reminders of something much more serious an terrible, especially for people because of the ancestry and/or because of feelings about their role within modern systems.
I have more of a problem with removal of the word "master" on its own; "master" has many different meanings and uses unrelated to American slavery or other systems of oppression.
My biggest problem is with claiming removing "blacklist/whitelist" is an act against systemic racism. "Blacklist" is not a racial term and "whitelist" was only an obvious choice for the opposite of "blacklist" when one was needed. Black and white dualism [0], associating black with bad and white with good, long predates any use of those terms towards groups of people and continues to do so today. It's unfortunate that these particular words are so overloaded; it would be better if "white" and "black" were no longer used to refer to people but there's little interest in that and I know of no good alternatives.
> I have dealt with, because of my racial characteristics, a variety of micro and not-so-micro aggressions from my coworkers and that's on top of the bullshit I've had to deal with from neighbors and society.
Have you considered whether you might just be sensitive and these micro-aggressions might just be the normal give and take of working in an office environment? With nothing racial about them?
> All of this causes me to consider walking away to find something where I don't have to deal with as much BS
I would be very surprised if you find a less racist job than in the tech industry. Big tech caters way more for minorities than most of the other industries.
> One thing that makes SCOTUS interesting is that they have no enforcement mechanism. It's mainly only tradition and respect for the institution that causes people to follow Supreme Court rulings
You're underselling this, I think.
It is "respect for the institution" why the military accepts the civilian authority of the POTUS as commander in chief. If we are only considering the ability to use violence to enforce one's position as legitimate, it's the military and police forces who rule. Once you factor in laws, the SCOTUS is authoritative as to how the laws can be legally interpreted.
This very much reminds me of the riddle in Game of Thrones:
"In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. ‘Do it,’ says the king, ‘for I am your lawful ruler.’ ‘Do it,’ says the priest, ‘for I command you in the name of the gods.’ ‘Do it,’ says the rich man, ‘and all this gold shall be yours.’ So tell me – who lives and who dies?”
The more interesting question to me than "who lives and who dies?" is "who holds the most power?" The three great men have enormous resources to influence the sellsword, but in this situation isn't it the sellsword ultimately making the decision and being the agent of change? Does the military let POTUS pretend he has ultimate power, or does "respect for the institution" really overpower the military?
I really hope "respect for institution" is more powerful than our military. I think so far we've seen that it is, but the current administration seems to be attacking our institutions pretty aggressivly.
>Does the military let POTUS pretend he has ultimate power, or does "respect for the institution" really overpower the military?
A huge portion of the military really comes down to who has money to keep paying the soldiers, fueling the bombers etc. If the military revolts but no one ends up paid, a problem ensues.
I think in the scenarios where the military decides to no longer respect civilian rule (a coup), it's not particularly hard to occupy the Treasury and the mint.
The worst cases of people losing their shirt tend to be people speculating with options, and it's definitely up to the broker what options trades (beyond those secured by cash or securities) they want to permit their customers to do.
There are different levels of options trading for a reason. Giving level 3 options trading out to anyone is reckless; in the hands of many people these are tools that are pretty much being used for making leveraged speculative bets, not careful hedges of risk.
