Hacker News Reader

Comment by dvfjsdhgfv | Hacker News Reader

This. People got so confused they started fighting with words. What's interesting is that the reverse is happening. These words were completly innocuous, especially in this context. Now whenever I see a "blackilist" I think about black people and how this would offend them. Before I say something, I think a bit if I don't pronounce any word that might be assigned a negative value by someone. I speak less often.

What is even more ridiculous is that it's an American thing. English speakers in other parts of the world look in amazement what is happening and how it's going to end.

View on HN

i sincerely hope this remain an american thing, but given the cultural influence the US has over the rest of the world, i wouldn't be so confident.

Which is why people should absolutely make a stand whenever they can to not let this craziness reach the rest of the world.

Let's say you are training a black intern. Do you think you could, with a straight face, explain the nuances of a master-slave relationship in the Linux ecocsystem?

On some level, you must know these words have meaning.

Done it a few times down here in Africa. Was never a problem.

Presumably you'll now update your position based on my personal anecdote? [Or is that not how it works]

On some level, you must know that meanings change based on the context a word is used in.

The sentence "i love you" changes its meaning based on the context. you can say it to your mom, your partner, your friend or even complete strangers after they helped you. every time the meaning changes.

Why do you say "black intern"? Why the obsession with black people? Do you understand that slavery is a global problem that has both been perpetrated by and victimised people of all races?

I'm Polish. My great-grandfather died in a Nazi concentration camp, as a slave. Would you care to be offended on my behalf too? Or will you tell me that I am no longer allowed to use words with multiple meanings in case I might offend myself?

>Do you think you could, with a straight face, explain the nuances of a master-slave relationship in the Linux ecocsystem?

Yes? Master/slave in computers is not the same as slavery in the real life, which is why we can actually do things like switch a server from a master to a slave and vice versa.

Think about how that sounds from the perspective of someone learning this: “we don’t actually use this term following the dictionary definition, we just like keeping it instead of using more accurate words”

What do we lose by switching to precise terms which don’t require everyone to internalize an overloaded meaning in multiple contexts?

>“we don’t actually use this term following the dictionary definition, we just like keeping it instead of using more accurate words”

Words can have more than one meaning. Besides, computer terminology has a lot of words that have different meaning in the context of computers than outside of it. We have the desktop, we have the mouse, we have cookies, viruses, buses, servers, clients and so on.

Should we get rid of the "virus" since it can be so easily confused for the thing that is upending the world right now?

“Virus” follows closely with the biological behavior, and it doesn’t have a recent history of being targeted at specific groups.

Master/slave is technically inaccurate in most use and, unlike mouse, it bothers some people. Why are you so attached to keeping incorrect terms when changing will have no impact on your life?

I mean, it'll only have no impact on my life as long as I don't have to go and change my master/slave instances to be something else.

And again, it's no less "incorrect" than any of those other terms.

How many seconds will it take you to replace “master” with “primary”? Compare that with the amount of time spent on this thread.

Arguing that the term is not more incorrect, which you have conspicuously failed to do, is missing the point. If you want to argue that a mouse is a confusing name, feel free but also note that usage doesn’t recall brutality in recent history. Masters not only didn’t usually do the same work as their slaves but the relationship was defined by the violence and permanence: your database master doesn’t torture its slaves if they make errors, or threaten to sell their children, etc. When the master died, they were replaced by their children or someone else but never a former slave. If you’re just talking about parceling out work, try to think about why you’re so attached to using “slave” instead of “workers” and how that would call your motives into question.

Using terms like primary/replica (where both do the same work) or controller/worker (where they don’t) both more accurately expresses the nature of the relation and don’t drag in unpleasant connotations.

>How many seconds will it take you to replace “master” with “primary”?

It'll take more time than I care to spend on a matter that doesn't have any effect on anything. Unless someone wants to go update all of the servers and all of their documentation for free on our behalf, then fine, sure, have at it.

>that usage doesn’t recall brutality in recent history

This reeks of Americentrism. How is slavery "recent history"? Are we talking about world history or American history?

>Masters not only didn’t usually do the same work as their slaves but the relationship was defined by the violence and permanence

And viruses (the real world ones) are usually not crafted by criminals, yet we call them viruses since the basic premise of the two concepts is similar enough. A mouse has fuck-all to do with a mouse yet we call it that since they have a somewhat similar shape. Now that the wireless mouse is commonplace, this naming is just completely inaccurate and yet it doesn't matter since we can separate the etymology from the meaning.

>try to think about why you’re so attached to using “slave” instead of “workers”

So if I just call a server that has to obey its superior to the T or it's broken a "worker", everything is fine and dandy? That kinda seems like brushing away the issue.

>how that would call your motives into question.

Maybe my motive is that I'm enjoying the status quo (as humans tend to do) and I don't exactly want to start doing all of this renaming just because Americans are upset at it. Or maybe I'm just a massive BDSM fan.

>Using terms like primary/replica (where both do the same work) or controller/worker (where they don’t) both more accurately expresses the nature of the relation and don’t drag in unpleasant connotations.

Killing also has a negative connotation but I don't really feel like I need to spare my processes from this cruel, unpleasant and inaccurate word.

> Compare that with the amount of time spent on this thread.

Less time than not changing it.

> Why are you so attached to keeping incorrect terms when changing will have no impact on your life?

Master/slave terminology is absolutely accurate here and changing it will have an impact on my life.

> "Think about how that sounds from the perspective of someone learning this: “we don’t actually use this term following the dictionary definition, we just like keeping it instead of using more accurate words”"

A bus doesn't have four wheels. An interpreter isn't a human being with language fluency. A bit doesn't refer to the business end of a drill. A port isn't a place where you find cargo ships. People manage to deal with jargon just fine.

> "What do we lose by switching to precise terms which don’t require everyone to internalize an overloaded meaning in multiple contexts?"

The time wasted reeducating (and I use that word intentionally) everyone?

Again, the problem isn’t jargon as a concept but that a few specific terms have negative connotations. “Slave” has baggage which “bus” does not. There isn’t a call to rename the mouse because the name isn’t inextricably linked to a horrible part of history.

As for the cost of switching, one nice benefit to using more accurate terms is that they’re already familiar - if you swap “slave” for “worker” or “replica”, nobody is going to need extensive retraining to adjust.

What historical baggage does whitelist/blacklist have?

white = good black = bad

Does that seem like a great association to defend when it can trivially be changed with no confusion or loss of meaning?

Educate yourself please. This narrow worldview is disingenuous and does you no Good.

Black is positive in finance.

You should read my comment more carefully: I was specifically referring to the whitelist / blacklist usage where there is no common usage reversing the relationship of the terms. I have no objection to finance using it because it’s positive and doesn’t resemble past racist usage.

Light = white Darkness = black

Just out of curiosity, is chess master gives also bad connotations ?

Do chess pieces color seem racial to you ?

No, because the white and black pieces are exactly the same. This is unlike whitelist/blacklist where you’re specifying a preference where white is desirable and black is not.

They are not same, white moves first, and first move is an advantage in a chess game.

> Let's say you are training a black intern. Do you think you could, with a straight face, explain the nuances of a master-slave relationship in the Linux ecocsystem?

It would never, ever cross my mind there is any relationship between my colleague being black and the terminology used in the system. Moreover, I think it would be racist to even suggest so.

The color of the person I'm explaining this to has no relevance.

Unrelated: Do you think black people are the only people who have suffered in slavery?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com