Yeah it is playful and all, but telling your colleagues to use "kitty" doesn't sound very professional. You might disagree with this, but that doesn't change the overall perception and general take in corporate world.
You people are gross.
> Interesting you say the Dev isn't a great person, because I had a hunch when I saw the use of the Lena photo on the front page
You say:
> you guys are ruthless (...) You people are gross.
I'm not saying you don't have a point. I didn't know enough to be sensitive on the Lena topic once either, and could have been the target of the above comment. So I think, perhaps, those could have been formulated more constructively.
However, I must say the same for your comment too. Can't we all be friends here? :)
It's reactionary nonsense, there's nothing to be sensitive about. The subject of the photograph merely went along with it.
There are legitimate arguments against using it as a technical benchmark in this day and age but that isn't what people get outraged over.
My personal view is that the correct response to strangers trying to score social points by policing other's conduct is to defiantly do the opposite.
> The subject of the photograph merely went along with it.
The subject of the photograph did ask for it to no longer be used. Here's a quote from her:
> I retired from modeling a long time ago. It’s time I retired from tech, too.
> to defiantly do the opposite.
If the policing comes from third party for virtue signalling, this is fair game. Here, I'd just suggest that respecting her wish is just common courtesy and consider someone who defiantly doesn't as a somewhat rude person.
[0] https://interestingengineering.com/culture/bye-lenna-iconic-...
Even if I believed her request to be genuine I can't bring myself to view reproducing a commercial image of a professional model that's in widespread circulation as being unethical under any circumstances. Neither would I ever agree to stop distributing a well known book if one day many years later the author woke up suddenly wanting to undo its publication. If you find my viewpoint confusing or seemingly unreasonable, for reference I view projects such as Anna's Archive in a positive light.
While I strongly disagree with what I perceive to be the intent behind the image being banned by many journals, I nonetheless agree with the outcome. It's an objectively poor test image for demonstrating the technical capabilities of the vast majority of modern applications. We don't benchmark modern video codecs by encoding VHS rips of classic Disney movies and we shouldn't do the equivalent for still images.
I think what you wrote here says more about how you see the world than how Goyal sees it.
My point is that using the Lenna image is a signal, just as you rightly point out so is my comment. I know exactly what the image is and is used for. But I also think it's sad that it's politically charged to say using a Playboy image in a literally objectifying fashion as a test-subject by a women who's requested we don't use it is bad.
It's not a sudden ban, it's been an issue since ~2015. Fun fact I learnt in this, Goyal is totally open to changing it (https://github.com/kovidgoyal/kitty/issues/661), it's simply no-one changed it. I'll see if I can, thanks for the correct call-out.
Instead however I would ask you look at the words you used, where they came from, who said them to you, and why you brought them up here. They are strangely charged words for a debate over a picture.
yeah, so that tells us a lot about the yes-men at IEEE. I wonder what other current-thing they will follow when it suddenly becomes politically convenient.
how exactly is this a gendered thing at all? people can make whatever decisions they want, INCLUDING lena when she chose to make this photo public to the entire world, for people to consume. I respect that, and I understand that once you release such, theres no takes-backsies
In all honesty, until I read about that I couldn't have imagined the original was a playboy image. What is really used and we see online is a cropped portrait of a playboy image. I am not even sure that playboy image may have been pornographic. Nudity != porn. What is sure is that cropped portrait is not in any way pornographic.
So I kind of have difficulties on drawing opinions about that. Surely the model doesn't have any copyright on that photo, rather the photographer/publisher have and apparently nobody has cared. I would not use it today out of empathy given the model would rather not see her image still being used today and how easy it is to replace it. I feel that consent is above copyright laws.
I have mixed feeling about the argument that the presence of that totally non pornographic portrait would make women feel less welcomed in science. On one hand I would say that if they say so, that could be true. On another hand I would ask if these women really are representative of all women? Does it really matters? Should we avoid posting picture of portraits and stick to animals or still life scenes? And if not why should we avoid only women ones?
Luckily there are better terminal emulators out there, such as foot, so a fork is not necessary.
I personally wouldn't be able to remember "kitty" if it was named "featureful-python-terminal-emulator", and I certainly wouldn't want to recommend it to others under this name
> but that doesn't change the overall perception and general take in corporate world.
It may come as a shock to you, but many don't really care about the feelings of the corporate world, away from our day jobs. Heck, some of us struggle to care in our day jobs! Luckily my corporate overlords and immediate management are not quite so sensitive.
When did dual forms become problematic?