Twitter removing "master", "slave", and "blacklist" to be more inclusi

Tell me how

Tony EH wrote: »

I
It has nothing to do with this. In fact you have to go out of your way to interpret those phrases like that. It's ridiculous.

You and the OP have both outlined how it is so obvious that white is good and black is bad, that it doesn't need explanation.
And neither of you can countenance that if this has been such a basic understanding in human history, that it might have influenced how black people were perceived? That doesn't make sense.

Tony EH wrote: »

Terminology shouldn't be constantly changing on a whim and especially not to placate idiotic notions. Otherwise we end up getting down to utterly meaningless and confusing terminology because someone somewhere MAY have some made up issue floating around in their heads.

This isn't on a whim, this conversation has been evolving over the last several years but recent affairs have brought it in to focus once again.

Terminology has always evolved and will continue to do so.

Tony EH

Ugh....

This is just going to go back and forth, isn't it. You're simply just going to refuse to understand, despite the fact that it's relatively easy.

Tell me how

Tony EH wrote: »

Ugh....

This is just going to go back and forth, isn't it. You're simply just going to refuse to understand, despite the fact that it's relatively easy.

I actually think it is very useful that you and the OP have demonstrated a bias which many people have in terms of identifying good/bad based on the colour of the display.

I don't care if we discuss it further, I would just ask if this fact, which you are adamant about, could have influenced how black people have been both perceived, and expect to be perceived.

Tony EH

Tell me how wrote: »

I would just ask if this fact, which you are adamant about, could have influenced how black people have been both perceived, and expect to be perceived.

ONLY if people are going to go out of their way to look for problems where there are none. As I have already said, "you have to go out of your way to interpret those phrases like that."

It's a case of looking to be offended by something and not a genuine reaction. And if, IF, there might be someone, somewhere, somehow, "offended" by a phrase with the word black in it, a simple correction is in order. Not an elimination of a term or a branch of terminology.

Language shouldn't be changed to accommodate the stupid...or worse, the disingenuous.

Quantum Erasure

Tell me how wrote: »

No. Im done with discussing this with you because you gave a case which you were aware of where person A is made to feel inferior because of their skin colour and yet you still couldn't understand why there is now action on ways in which other people may be experiencing the same thing.

It takes some skill to have that insight and still appear ignorant as to what is going on.

the products will still exist, they just won't use words like 'white' or 'light'

Quantum Erasure

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

So you think because there is a sunbed near you that racism doesn't exist got it....glad we cleared this up.

I feel enlightened.

careful now...

Quantum Erasure

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

The title of this thread refers to something that isn't even going to happen.

https://twitter.com/TwitterEng/status/1278733305190342656

Quantum Erasure

ronivek wrote: »

RedXIV wrote: »

Scenario 2: You inherit a legacy system or acquire it in a merger etc. It has these terms. You now have extra work in maintaining it, updating it, and if you run into problems with an older system and you want help, chances are you are going to need to google using these terms anyway? Is that allowed? The codebase itself may be ancient (look at banks) and they have zero intention of updating over a name change, so if you want to debug an issue you need to use original terminology. Will that be deemed racist?

Twitter isn't a bank; it's up to a bank to decide if they want to change their own internal naming schemes.

Also precisely where do you think this extra work would come from? Twitter can only change these terms within its own codebase and documentation; and if there were compelling reasons not to proceed with a rename I'm sure they wouldn't do so.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-jp-morgan-race-exc/exclusive-jpmorgan-drops-terms-master-slave-from-internal-tech-code-and-materials-idUSKBN2433E4

JPMorgan appears to be the first in the financial sector to remove most references to these racially problematic phrases, and it comes after the bank has said it is taking other steps to promote Black professionals and anti-bias culture training for staff.

The technology that underpins bank operations is often a spaghetti-like mess that results from merged companies, decades-old code and third-party systems, and any change can have cascading effects that are difficult to predict, Griffel said.

Changing these terms within the bank’s code could take millions of dollars and months of work, Griffel said.

“This is not a trivial” investment by the bank, Griffel said. “This kind of language and terminology is so entrenched. It has to (change) and now is as good a time as any.”

gailforecast

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

https://twitter.com/TwitterEng/status/1278733305190342656

Wait there’s more? This is just ducking ridiculous. Grandfathered is now offensive?

Quantum Erasure

I think they need a sanity check.....

Cordell

So, more inclusive for whom? Dummy and insane engineers? Seems already taken care of...

degsie

TV and transistors should be renamed with the obvious reference to 'trans'. Male/female connectors should be re-visited also.

Luxxis

KiKi III wrote: »

Language evolves constantly as does culture.

Yeah so do cry babies who cant handle words.

Cordell

degsie wrote: »

Male/female connectors should be re-visited also.

This bunch absolutely deserve to live in houses with male "sockets" on the wall and female "plugs" on the leads.
Or all males which have to be held in place.
Or all females and paperclips.
No half measures.

Quantum Erasure

don't mention double adapters...

Cordell

And no converters.
For inclusiveness reasons all appliances DO work with all voltage levels. The voltage on the label is a mistake, there should be no labels.

Stateofyou

Luxxis wrote: »

Yeah so do cry babies who cant handle words.

The actual issue here is people who can't handle words being changed, actually.
So in other words... you?

TomTomTim

Stateofyou wrote: »

The actual issue here is people who can't handle words being changed, actually.
So in other words... you?

The start point though, is you people being offended by commonly used terms that have no ill intent.

Eric Cartman

Cordell wrote: »

And no converters.
For inclusiveness reasons all appliances DO work with all voltage levels. The voltage on the label is a mistake, there should be no labels.

I will connect all 3 phases directly to the usb charging point of my phone #NoAdapter #LoveAllVoltages

ronivek

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

The technology that underpins bank operations is often a spaghetti-like mess that results from merged companies, decades-old code and third-party systems, and any change can have cascading effects that are difficult to predict, Griffel said.

Changing these terms within the bank’s code could take millions of dollars and months of work, Griffel said.

“This is not a trivial” investment by the bank, Griffel said. “This kind of language and terminology is so entrenched. It has to (change) and now is as good a time as any.”

To be clear; that's a University Professor making claims about cost here and not someone from JP Morgan.

It is certainly likely to be more difficult in an organisation like a bank due to their tendency to rely on significant chunks of legacy code and systems. Some products/platforms/frameworks potentially might not have changed or been rebuilt in decades; so if the goal is to change every single name and reference in every codebase it could certainly be a relatively costly challenge.

My expectation would be that active codebases and documentation will be changed gradually as new features touch certain areas of systems; and going forward they'll have guidelines to steer clear of any potentially problematic terms.

ronivek

TomTomTim wrote: »

The start point though, is you people being offended by commonly used terms that have no ill intent.

The start point is people in the companies mentioned who take issue with the terms; and actually lobby and use their own time to promote change.

Luxxis

Stateofyou wrote: »

The actual issue here is people who can't handle words being changed, actually.
So in other words... you?

Actually I was talking about the cry babies Twitter want to protect from words...In other words, babies who cant handle words...

joseywhales

ronivek wrote: »

To be clear; that's a University Professor making claims about cost here and not someone from JP Morgan.

It is certainly likely to be more difficult in an organisation like a bank due to their tendency to rely on significant chunks of legacy code and systems. Some products/platforms/frameworks potentially might not have changed or been rebuilt in decades; so if the goal is to change every single name and reference in every codebase it could certainly be a relatively costly challenge.

My expectation would be that active codebases and documentation will be changed gradually as new features touch certain areas of systems; and going forward they'll have guidelines to steer clear of any potentially problematic terms.

I cant see this working I barely have time to review code as it is, I certainly will not be auditing language where I work. I need to think through the functionality logic and form, I couldnt care less about the sensitivity of the language that is not for public exposure. Any extra beareaucratic hoop is a cost on productivity.

ronivek

joseywhales wrote: »

I cant see this working I barely have time to review code as it is, I certainly will not be auditing language where I work. I need to think through the functionality logic and form, I couldnt care less about the sensitivity of the language that is not for public exposure. Any extra beareaucratic hoop is a cost on productivity.

You don't have coding guidelines where you work which include rules on naming things?

What about the names of functions/classes/packages; do you consider those when you're performing code reviews?

Would you for example be fine with someone naming things:

• StupidEffingFunctionNumber1
• AnotherStupidEffingFunctionThatDoesSomeCrap
• ThisClassSux

If you're reviewing code and you see someone create a class called Master and a class called Slave you just review the code as you normally do and then hit the 'needs changes' button with a simple comment to rename the classes; it's hardly going to eat into your productivity to any noticeable extent.

Cordell

It's not as simple as that, there can be public APIs that are being used by other projects on which you have no control, and you're forcing them to either accommodate these changes or stop updating to the new versions. It's not just twitter, others are doing it and it's absolutely insane.

There is no malicious reasons behind these names, there is no harm done by them, it's just people go mad to do stuff that brings them self gratification but does nothing to fix the actual issues. It's like painting your house in response to a gas leak - you have done nothing to fix the problem, but you are now proud that you did such a good job to make the house better.

ronivek

Cordell wrote: »

It's not as simple as that, there can be public APIs that are being used by other projects on which you have no control, and you're forcing them to either accommodate these changes or stop updating to the new versions. It's not just twitter, others are doing it and it's absolutely insane.

If you have a dependency on a particular service/library that is not owned by your team; you don't implement features or fix bugs in that service/library. That's entirely up to whoever owns it; and is something that happens regularly as a matter of course.

Twitter isn't demanding that its external dependencies change their APIs; it has committed to making changes in its own codebase and documentation. I also haven't seen any other company or organisation demand their external dependencies change their APIs; do you have any examples?

Cordell wrote: »

There is no malicious reasons behind these names, there is no harm done by them, it's just people go mad to do stuff that brings them self gratification but does nothing to fix the actual issues. It's like painting your house in response to a gas leak - you have done nothing to fix the problem, but you are now proud that you did such a good job to make the house better.

Again I'm not sure anyone is claiming these names were or are malicious in intent or nature; simply that there are certain connotations which can and seemingly do cause discomfort to some people.

Also nobody is claiming these changes are "fixing the problem"; these are organisations who are doing what they reasonably can to try and make even a small difference.

I mean fundamentally I don't think these changes should be high priority or that significant resources should be assigned to them; but if organisations can make these changes over time as part of their normal operations I have no issues with it.

hetuzozaho

ronivek wrote: »

You don't have coding guidelines where you work which include rules on naming things?

What about the names of functions/classes/packages; do you consider those when you're performing code reviews?

Would you for example be fine with someone naming things:

• StupidEffingFunctionNumber1
• AnotherStupidEffingFunctionThatDoesSomeCrap
• ThisClassSux

If you're reviewing code and you see someone create a class called Master and a class called Slave you just review the code as you normally do and then hit the 'needs changes' button with a simple comment to rename the classes; it's hardly going to eat into your productivity to any noticeable extent.

Yep this is basic stuff nowadays IMO.

Am important part of code reviews is insuring the code being pushed is "Clean Code" and it is vital for maintaining a codebase and a big part of code reviews IMO.

hetuzozaho

Cordell wrote: »

It's not as simple as that, there can be public APIs that are being used by other projects on which you have no control, and you're forcing them to either accommodate these changes or stop updating to the new versions. It's not just twitter, others are doing it and it's absolutely insane.

Any links to this actually happening?

Nobody is forced to use my library if they don't want too
And any codebase that would find name changes in an API a big issue needs to look at their automated regression test suite!

Cordell

simply that there are certain connotations which can and seemingly do cause discomfort to some people.

There's a lot of words that if you try hard enough you will find connotations that are not there.
parent/child can cause discomfort to adopted persons
boss/worker can cause discomfort to people who dislike their bosses. Also, there should be no boss, we're all equal.

make even a small difference

ZERO difference. A small difference will be to spend those money to buy some computers for some underprivileged families.

Cordell

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Any links to this actually happening?

Nobody is forced to use my library if they don't want too
And any codebase that would find name changes in an API a big issue needs to look at their automated regression test suite!

I don't know how testing can fix API changes. It will highlight the problem, yes, but it will not fix it.

As for examples, first one I found: https://buildbot.readthedocs.io/en/v2.4.0/manual/upgrading/worker-transition.html
I know at least one other project I will not link here that is looking to deprecate the "offending" APIs.

Now, is is a big deal? No. Does it fix anything in the world? Also no.