this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
821 points (98.9% liked)

Programmer Humor

32495 readers
472 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 57 points 5 months ago (4 children)

I'd argue that abolishing the term "slave" isn't the worst idea, implying that the word "master," only in context where it's paired with "slave," should go as well - but that, of course, requires nuance, which a simple word filter lacks.

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 53 points 5 months ago (2 children)

This. To avoid the "master" branch on our git to be associated with "slave" I now name new branches "bitch"

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 43 points 5 months ago (2 children)

There aren't "slaves" in git, though. The term "master" in that context is that of a master copy.

[–] steventhedev@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Nope. Bitkeeper used it in the master-slave pairing and the term was carried forward. Gitlab did a whole writeup about it.

[–] xilona@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 months ago

"Historically, the default name for this initial branch was master. This term came from Bitkeeper, a predecessor to Git. Bitkeeper referred to the source of truth as the "master repository" and other copies as "slave repositories". This shows how common master/slave references have been in technology, and the difficulty in knowing how the term master should be interpreted."

Excerpt from the link the other member posted above! You're welcome!

[–] Miaou@jlai.lu 7 points 5 months ago

It's funny, because a quick online search shows gitlab runs operations in Saudi Arabia. But at least a bunch of idiot westerners get to feel good about themselves 🤷‍♂️

Just skip the intermediate naming conventions and go straight to dom/sub

[–] sping@lemmy.sdf.org 30 points 5 months ago (2 children)

And yet there's a big push to rename git "master" branches, which have no slave connotations and are more analogous to master recordings.

Its not like I'll fight it, but it's stupid.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It is stupid, and it's because of a failure to understand the nuance.

I will not inconvenience myself or anyone else by making any changes to existing configurations, which will surely break workflows, but I don't give a shit what the main branch is called as long as it's obvious.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 17 points 5 months ago

what the main branch is called

you mean master?

[–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago

I thought it was dumb too but, to be honest, I kind of prefer using "main" now. It's quicker to type lol

[–] FederatedSaint@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Why abolish the word slave? I've heard of people advocating for abolishing the word "black" also. It's crazy to me. I don't understand how using the word at all somehow advocates for human slavery.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It draws unfortunate parallels.

I do agree that the proposals to abolish "black" feel a bit misguided though surely well-intentioned; the etymology of "blacklist," for example, has no relation to race whatsoever. However, there are unfortunate parallels with how "black" and "white" people were and indeed are still treated differently.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 5 points 5 months ago

the etymology of “blacklist,” for example, has no relation to race whatsoever

What happens is that the term "black" takes on negative connotations in a million different ways. "Blacklist" being one example. It may have no overt connection to race, but it gains it through repeated use in different contexts. Your brain doesn't necessarily encode the different contexts in separate ways. You may be able to think it through at a high level of rationality in a debate, but not when you're out on the street going about your day.

The solution may not be to change the language, though. There are too many longstanding cultural associations with black = evil, and there's just no way to get rid of them all.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-bad-is-black-effect/

"Although psychologists have known for a long time that people associate dark skin with negative personality traits, this research shows that the reverse is also true: when we hear about an evil act, we are more likely to believe it was done by someone with darker skin. This “bad is black” effect may have its roots in our deep-seated human tendency to associate darkness with wickedness. Across time and cultures, we tend to portray villains as more likely to be active during nighttime and to don black clothing. Similarly, our heroes are often associated with daytime and lighter colors. These mental associations between color and morality may negatively bias us against people with darker skin tones. If this is true, it has far-reaching implications for our justice system. For example, eye witnesses to crimes may be more likely to falsely identify suspects who possess darker skin."

"Overall, the “bad is black” effect only underscores the importance of finding ways to combat the various ways that our inherent biases can influence perceptions of guilt and innocence. Understanding the extent of these biases, as well as what may be causing them, represents an important first step."

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 7 points 5 months ago

Humans, conversely, are incredibly talented at deciphering nuance, except when they don’t want to.