Hacker News Reader

"It now takes something like 4 taps to get to the point where I can correct or otherwise edit the URL in my mobile browser (Safari)"

Just FYI, you can touch once in the URL bar to set focus to it (the whole URL will be selected), then touch and hold down on the keyboard (which will then act like a desktop touchpad) to move the cursor around to edit the URL.

I find this handy, though it took me a while to get used to it.

> I'm tired of this anti-Web and anti-accessibility SJW nonsense to the point that yeah, I'm ready to ditch Chrome.

It's funny what the final piece of straw is that breaks peoples' metaphorical camels' backs.

Still, better it breaks and people make the move to greener pastures — hopefully Firefox rather than Chrome-with-even-more-questionable-ethics … I don't remember the name, something like Courageous or Fearless or something like that.

(Poor camels, though)

It is the little things that piss you off. Tracking and spyware is too abstract. Hiding the street and house number in the adress bar is not.

> It's funny what the final piece of straw is that breaks peoples' metaphorical camels' backs.

For me, it was their removal a few years ago of the option to use the Backspace key to go back to the previous page.

It strikes me as not fair that comments are flagged and one line remains by being quoted.

The comment was entirely reasonable apart from the (accidental?) misuse of the TLA. But it also was anti-management and anti-talker, so lots of parasites here would have downvoted it anyway.

FF + Edgium is nice combo, your choose your point of equilibrium

>SJW nonsense

Uh, what? It’s changing the UI to hide parts of the URL.

Look, I’d prefer it the other way too, but we have to choose the right words. The thought process shouldn’t be “I’m mad, what else makes me really mad like this? Oh yeah social justice workers. This UI change is therefore like social justice work.”

If anything, there's, from my experience, a good overlap between the SJW types, and the people who push for accessibility/ a11y as the cool kids call it, as it sorta falls under the inclusion initiatives.

EDIT: I was clearly disagreeing with the parent badmouthing SJWs wrt accessibility...

Sure (I'm not sure that Venn diagram is a perfect overlap, but whatever), but AMP is bad for reasons other than accessibility.

AMP is just _bad_, IMO. Content regularly is broken till you visit the actual site, sites don't follow my dark mode preferences, and interactive elements don't translate that well sometimes.

It feels like someone printed out a website to a PDF and decided that was good enough to serve!

> there's, from my experience, a good overlap between the SJW types, and the people who push for accessibility/ a11y as the coop kids call it

"Pushing for accessibility" is a pejorative now? What in the world is going on in this thread?

No, you’re just assuming it is because it’s next to the word SWJ.

The parent's point is that someone who would self-identify or otherwise be described as SWJ would more likely push for greater accessibility to a fault rather than reduce it for aesthetic reasons. The attack on “SJWs” in the grandparent is misguided because it misunderstands their motivations so completely that it’s clear that the term is just meant as “people I vaguely don’t like and I feel have it out for me somehow.”

Thanks, at least someone got me! I was trying to call out randomly blaming people who, if anything, would be on their side, but it seems like most people misunderstood me.

I never said it was? I said if anything the SJWs they are blaming would be on their side, so it's a weird dig to make.

Insightful, but I am confused by the final paragraph:

> I'm tired of this anti-Web and anti-accessibility SJW nonsense

“SJW” must have a meaning I’m not familiar with, because Social Justice Warriors would be pro-accessibility, not anti.

Perhaps they meant something like vigilantism or a crusade, and feel it's synonymous with SJW.

How about this idiocy?

https://9to5google.com/2020/06/12/google-android-chrome-blac...

You’ll have to think and decide for yourself whether this is idiocy. I, for one, do not. The master/slave thing is stupid. The master branch in git is idiotic. Whitelist and blacklist, I can do without.

Yeah I think the master for git comes from mastering/master-image/master-tape which comes from the master = main/leading definition which doesn't necessarily imply a connection to master/slave. The black/white list seems to be more out of a day/light/dawn = good/pure/safe and night/dark/dusk = bad/corrupt/dangerous theme common to many cultures.

Either way though, can't really go wrong with more descriptive/functional names.

That’s not an example of idiocy.

Idiocy would be an anecdote my father told me in the mid-90s about his workplace trying to implement the same spirit with a naïve global search-and-replace, leading very quickly to a company-wide invitation to an “African-American tie dinner”.

But even that isn’t anti-accessibility.

I believe the preferred term these days is "tie dinner of color"

I'm not against the effort just because "block-list" and "allow-list" are more speaking and self-evident in their meaning. Insinuating that "black-list" and "white-list" are somehow racially charged terms is the idiotic part.

Its a decision I tend to respect (would actually never though of this myself). I don't think it patronizes the users in contrast to the decision like mentioned in the OP. Awareness of language is not all bad as it will influence us subconsciously. We seemingly did not need the term much in the 80s with the ending of the cold war, so IMHO it is not a huge loss: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=whitelist&year...

Without mentioning other connotations, IMHO the rise of computers have in places supported discriminating (ie. 0 vs 1) culture, because that is simply what computers can do best. If just renaming terms changes changes this can in fact be doubted.

I am actually not so happy about the consequences of hiding URLs to people. This will also change how we will perceive the Internet but IMHO not for the good. And here the motivations are not as clearly communicated here. It might actually hide some of the beautiful heterogenity and complexity of the Internet to the average user also with unforeseeable consequences.

Changing from blacklist and whitelist to blocklist and allowlist is one of the many small things we can do that makes our black colleagues feel seen, heard, and welcome in our workplaces. I support it. No one thinks changing language is enough to eliminate the systemic racism oppressing black people in the US. Eliminating that will require work and personal change. If you can't even stop using black to mean negative in the workplace and substitute it with more accurate words - the new words are clearer - then you likely are not prepared for the real work ahead. I personally refuse to work for any company that is not committing to that work.

Why would anyone be offended by blacklist? Would they be also offended by the color black? Or maybe dark mode, that is getting popular?

Or maybe offended by the fact that most pages on the web have light/white theme?

This is getting ridiculous (together with github ditching the name "master" - https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1271253144442253312), maybe it is the result of too much working from home recently - people create problems where there are none.

What is even more funny is the fact that those changes are proposed by white guys without any complains from the black folks.

> Why would anyone be offended by blacklist?

Because of its etymology and history [1] for starters:

    n.

    also black-list, black list, “list of persons who have incurred suspicion,” 1610s, from black (adj.), here indicative of disgrace, censure, punishment (attested from 1590s, in black book) + list (n.). Specifically of employers’ list of workers considered troublesome (usually for union activity) is from 1888. As a verb, from 1718. Related: Blacklisted; blacklisting. [32]

"It is notable that the first recorded use of the term occurs at the time of mass enslavement and forced deportation of Africans to work in European-held colonies in the Americas."

> Or maybe dark mode

Dark mode is not used in a negative way like "blacklist" or "blackballed". And it accurately describes exactly what happens. Unlike "blacklist" which is an inaccurate idiom that relies on "black" being used to mean "bad". So no, I doubt "dark mode" would offend anyone.

> Why would anyone be offended

You could start by learning about microagressions [2]. This one covers "blacklist" specifically. And was presented by a black man if that helps you with credibility.

> This is getting ridiculous

I agree that systemic racism has gone on for far too long. Even conservative four star US generals are starting to say we need big changes in society.

> What is even more funny is the fact that those changes are proposed by white guys without any complains from the black folks.

You are wrong. Just as one small counter-example the presentation I already cited that discusses "blacklist" was made by a black man. Anecdotal, but my black friends have sent me many resources recently about how to become a better anti-racist. Our diversity initiative at my current client is being lead by a black employee. This is coming from oppressed black people who have been very visibly protesting injustice for over two weeks now for the most recent injustice. And for decades actually for anyone who has been listening.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/

[2] https://www.appic.org/Portals/0/2018%20Conference/APPIC%2020...

There is a qualitative difference between your examples and “blacklist”. Dark mode is about color. The color black is a color. Light mode is a color’s brightness. A widely used white background is a color. I don’t think any reasonable person objects to using terms about color to refer to colors. Black objects are black, red objects are red, etc.

But “blacklist” is entirely different. “Blacklist” uses a color term to describe the acceptability of something. It relates a value judgment to a color. I don’t know the history of the term, but I can easily see how it could be at least somewhat offensive.

None of this is to say that the term “blacklist” is problematic or should be discouraged, but your argument about it doesn’t hold water.

Black is also not a color, but the light not being reflected or emitted or let through. Hence the blacklist, it doesn't need to have judgement or historically loaded meaning.

I don’t see your point. Blue is not a color. It’s just a failure of red or green light to be let through.

But it wouldn't ever cross my mind that black list is in any way related to people with dark skin color.

I don't know how others feel about it, for me connecting blacklist to those is quite racist.

What would you say about Black Friday?

Or white Christmas?

I think there is an insidiousness to our language that can help to stabilise social discrimination, and most of us (white/black, male/female) are unaware of it.

Dark mode doesn't have negative connotations. A 'blacklist' is negative selection, as opposed to a 'whitelist' which is positive selection. I didn't even realise this until I came across, and, on reflection, I agree that this is a simple change in the right direction.

There are lots of real problems out there, but this is an imaginary one.

Already addressed in my original comment:

If you can't even stop using black to mean negative in the workplace and substitute it with more accurate words - the new words are clearer - then you likely are not prepared for the real work ahead.

I'll also add the problem is not imaginary. Microagressions are a well documented and well studied category of racism. You can find many studies with supporting evidence. While you might choose to critique the scientific rigour of existing studies, you would have to do that with your own counter evidence, and not with a dismissive "it's imaginary". You could start here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/174569161982749...

It's worth noting that "blacklist" is awful because it's origins are in British history, having to do political assassination and conspiracy. Amongst a bunch of very Caucasian parties.

The "black" is not racial but metaphorical, as in "the absence if light". The connection to dark-skinned folks is accidental through the science of optics. Light being good and darkness being bad is part of most (all?) monotheistic culture. To excise them all would include considering much art, culture, and even holy texts insensitive. It's overkill, especially when there are more pressing reforms to pursue.

There's a nice confluence where basically all parties win by eliminating "blacklist" from benign contexts, but the original violence is not racial at all. Religious and political, sure.

In case I am not clear, if we want to be on the side of education, accurate history, and truth, we should not assume racist history and intention everywhere. In this case, it's an entirely different form of tyrrany, violence, and bigotry, but we should be careful about appearing overzealous and under-informed.

> It's worth noting that "blacklist" is awful because it's origins are in British history,

> The connection to dark-skinned folks is accidental through the science of optics.

Both of these are an oversimplification that leaves out other context and other history.

The first recorded use of the term "blacklist" occurs at the time of mass enslavement and forced deportation of Africans to work in European-held colonies in the Americas.

> To excise them all would include considering much art, culture, and even holy texts insensitive.

That is a strawman. No one is suggesting to eliminate all historical uses of darkness meaning bad. What we are talking about is very specific: words that are very commonly used in a modern work setting, and that have clearer alternatives.

> The connection to dark-skinned folks is accidental.

It far too convenient that "black" continued to mean evil in the midst of widespread dehumanization and slavery for it to be purely accidental.

Consider also that the Latin word "niger" had many of the same figurative senses ("gloomy; unlucky; bad, wicked, malicious"). Another accident?

But if it were accidental - and I think that would be near impossible to prove - many microagressions are accidental.

> we should not assume racist history and intention everywhere

That's another strawman. Where was that assumption made? Besides the fact that much of modern Western history is racist.

Racism against black people in the US has survived for well over 200 years. Thanks much in part to lack of intention. Clearly, it's not enough to have absence of bad intentions. We tried that, and it is not working.

I would appreciate citations for your claims about racial origins for the term. Wikipedia does not mention any such thing in either the article for blacklisting nor in the disambiguation for the word blacklist.

There is also this quora answer from an apparent Yale linguist specifically saying blacklist does not have racial origins, mentioning other phrases like "black sheep" that are only racial in inference, not especially in implication.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-term-blacklist-racist

I also disagree that microaggression can be accidental, though I do think reflexive actions can betray racial attitudes. But that lies typically in instinctive actions like purse-clutching, not in formation of artistic or other creative devices like Stevenson's black spot, Tolkein's Black Gate, or the various incarnations of "black swan".

To reiterate, I am actually fine getting rid of the term blacklist given it's very negative history, but it's a stretch, and counterproductive, to racialize the term. That sort of overreach plays into the hands of people like Trump, who are not afraid of portraying these movements as unhinged.

“In the black” is a positive business term signifying profitability, as opposed to “in the red.” Is this just words, or words to hurt Native Americans? Side note, if we all change from blacklist to blocklist and such, I don’t mind and it likely is a better term. I just want to point out that black != bad.

The white:black :: good:evil dichotomy has been open to criticism since one group of people labeled themselves white and another group of people black. That was when the colors became politicized.

That dichotomy is older than politics, and has more to do with day being safer than night for diurnal animals like humans.

> “SJW” must have a meaning I’m not familiar with, because Social Justice Warriors would be pro-accessibility, not anti.

They would be, except blind, simple-minded activism tends to have unintended consequences that make it a net negative for the cause.

Are all these posts whatabouts from Googlers who are fed up with all the Google bashing on HN or something?

What on Earth.

I'm not sure how I feel about the proposed (anti-?)feature, but in what way is this "SJW nonsense"?

Pretending to be an advocate of "weak users" or something? I also have a feeling that these tracking and ad centric changes from Google (eg. http warning icon) have the undertone of 'protect the children and elderly'.

I doubt that any sane technician would opt for showing the user less information. So the decision must be from someone else, someone who has no clue about how a URL works. So because that person doesn't know about URLs, nobody should know about ULRs.

Fair chance by now Google has been infiltrated by Sociopaths, the Clueless, and Losers[1]

None of whom would know how to change a tyre or what a transistor is.

1. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

Please stop using HN for ideological flamewar. It's the last thing we want or need here—it destroys this place.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> SJW nonsense

Congratulations on making everything about politics, even if it has zero to do with it.

Actually everything is political, some things just more than others, and pulling in the SJW discussion is indeed not relevant here.

I was with you until the "SJW nonsense" bull. What exactly does social justice have to do with any of this?

> I'm tired of this anti-Web and anti-accessibility SJW nonsense to the point that yeah

Wtf is wrong with you people it's no longer 2016

It’s a common belief that SJW motivations are extremely toxic and unproductive.

> It’s a common belief

_citation needed_

The bigger problem is that these people are often very two-faced in what they believe. I've seen Europeans who are all for BLM yet say the most disgusting things about the Roma in their own backyard. Or those who preach about womens rights but turn a blind eye to the rampant sexism present in their own religion. Both laudible causes in their own right; but if you're going to make a stand for them you must be willing to eat your own cooking.

Incredible, with three letters, you managed to derail an entire discussion about an incredibly important topic concerning Google's engineering decisions that will affect billions. If you were paid by a PR firm you couldn't have done it better.

To be honest, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this entire subthread was mostly PR firm manufactured and designed to drown discussion and outrage about a topic Google knows is going to be bad for it.

A telltale sign of a manipulation campaign is when someone says something outrageous in a way that doesn't make sense and it gets pushed to the front of the discussion. Especially when that discussion will likely be bad for a major corporation. It's not a 100% accurate detector, but it works a lot better than being a rube.