←back to thread

877 points thunderbong | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
langsoul-com ◴[] No.42162264[source]
> The color was originally going to be called beccapurple, but Meyer asked that it instead be named rebeccapurple, as his daughter had wanted to be called Rebecca once she had turned six. She had said that Becca was a "baby name," and that once she had turned six, she wanted to be called Rebecca. As Eric Meyer put it, "She made it to six. For almost twelve hours, she was six. So Rebecca it is and must be."

Wasn't expecting tears over a colour

replies(5): >>42162624 #>>42165500 #>>42166676 #>>42167838 #>>42167844 #
jvm___ ◴[] No.42162624[source]
..in 2014 in honor of Eric Meyer's daughter, Rebecca, who passed away at the age of six on her birthday from brain cancer.
replies(1): >>42163561 #
userbinator[dead post] ◴[] No.42163561[source]
[flagged]
ChrisMarshallNY ◴[] No.42163750{3}[source]
It is sad to see such a comment come from someone with such high karma and seniority. I hope that it is not reflective of the ethos of this community.

I feel we have way too little humanity in tech. With the advent of AI, that does not promise to improve.

replies(4): >>42163933 #>>42164076 #>>42165316 #>>42166874 #
johnisgood[dead post] ◴[] No.42164076{4}[source]
[flagged]
1. II2II ◴[] No.42165275{5}[source]
> Recently, we renamed the "master" branch to "main," which was seen by some as a step toward inclusivity. But does this truly contribute to meaningful progress?

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.)

replies(1): >>42184346 #
2. johnisgood ◴[] No.42184346[source]
The terminology itself is not inherently problematic; it is essential for us, as humans (as you noted), to be capable of compartmentalizing and recognizing the context in which terms are used. Language often carries multiple meanings, and our ability to discern the appropriate meaning within a specific context is a critical cognitive skill.

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.