Wasn't expecting tears over a colour
I feel we have way too little humanity in tech. With the advent of AI, that does not promise to improve.
C# is named because it’s a step up from C++, which is one better than C, which is the next thing after B.
Python is just an arbitrarily chosen name referencing a comedy troupe.
Linux is Linus’s copy of Minix, which is a minimal Unix, which is based off of Multics, which is a pseudo-initialism.
We have names honoring the dead; Pascal, Ada, Darwin.
We can name one color in one spec in honor of one person’s dead child.
It is neither a burden nor out of character for the field. If you genuinely believe it is a problem, I ask that you step back and reflect on why you truly believe it is.
But I don't think this thread is the place for such a discussion. Technical authority and "woke" culture arguments are one thing, but we're talking here about honoring Erie Meier (a seminal figure in CSS history) and his daughter by adding a named color (basically an alias) to CSS and using it in the logo. That's worth doing simply out of love and honor for Eric, his wife and family, and his daughter.
I do not mind the rename from beccapurple to rebeccapurple either.
I can only speak for myself, but I inject a great deal of “humanity” into my technical work.
I write software that Serves a pretty marginalized and sidelined demographic. Not many folks are willing to do the type of work that I do.
I certainly don’t do it for the kudos. I don’t think most of the folks here, would care, and some, might actually hate me for doing the work.
I do it, because I actually have a personal stake in the work, and because I care -deeply- about the people that use my software. Whenever I design an app, I keep in mind the folks that use it, and ensure that it delivers something that they need (not what I think they need; what they actually need). My work is informed by a mental model that I have, imagining the software being used by people, not by it projecting my brand, making money (it’s free), or salving personal insecurities.
I’m quite aware that this is not the norm, in the industry, but I have worked for companies that kept a laser focus on the end-user experience, which involves a great deal of “getting into their heads.”
My issue boils down to some completely wanting to change IT terminology because of "emotions" which happens because people do not consider the context in which it is embedded.
In that case, probably not since the world master has multiple meanings. However, as you noted, it is common to use master/slave terminology in the hardware world. That terminology is definitely problematic because we are humans. We are affected by human history and we are affected by social constructs. Something similar can be said about killing processes. It is also worth noting that people noticed that terminology was problematic long before the current social environment, probably because it affects a much broader range of the population. (For example: I don't see that terminology used much outside of Unix.)
http://www.art.net/studios/hackers/hopkins/Don/text/rms-vs-d...
I keep mine off, because, for the most part, I don't mind not seeing the trolls.
In this case, the chap made a point that many people (including myself) disagree with, but in a fashion that I think is right in line with the way we should deal with each other.
I just think people downvote posts they disagree with, or because they have some animus with the poster (I have a couple of downvote stalkers, myself, and it's sometimes amusing to see which posts they hit).
I'll say "You will find more than zero people here who don't really seem to consider humanity and tech overlapping domains."
I'm told that it stands for "PHP Hypertext Processor." A recursive acronym.
Nuance;
Neutralizing a term or altering it solely for the sake of political correctness (or whatever you may call it) is not the most effective approach when dealing with terminology that has long-standing and widespread usage. Such changes can create unnecessary confusion, disrupt established workflows, and detract from efforts to address more impactful systemic issues. Instead, fostering education and promoting contextual understanding can better equip individuals to interpret terms appropriately without discarding their historical or technical significance.
> Something similar can be said about killing processes. It is also worth noting that people noticed that terminology was problematic long before the current social environment, probably because it affects a much broader range of the population.
People should ideally not be affected by such terminology, as it is clearly used within a technical context with no intention of causing harm or evoking negative connotations[1]. The phrase "killing processes" for example, is a metaphorical term that accurately describes terminating a running operation in computing. Allowing neutral, domain-specific terminology to become a source of offense risks overextending sensitivity and detracts from the importance of addressing genuinely harmful language or actions in broader societal contexts. As I have previously mentioned, fostering an understanding of the technical intent behind such terms can help mitigate unnecessary emotional responses.
Altering long-standing and widespread technical terminology for perceived correctness is often futile, as individuals who lack contextual understanding or are overly sensitive could potentially take offense at ANY TERM. If anything, we should focus on education and promoting linguistic contextualization that ensures terms are understood within their intended meaning, preserving clarity, historical significance, and functionality.
[1] master/slave terminology has absolutely nothing to do with slavery, for example.