←back to thread

193 points jumpocelot | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
GLdRH ◴[] No.44524415[source]
Section 4.6 is certainly ridiculous, but I suppose you can just ignore it.
replies(2): >>44524795 #>>44524819 #
jacobgkau ◴[] No.44524795[source]
> Avoid neurodiversity bias. For example, avoid the terms "sanity check" and "sanity test",

This one seems a little much. I've used this term in work writing within the past week (not in official documentation, but I do also write official documentation). I tried to look up what the acceptable alternatives are (since Section 4.6 doesn't specify one for that rule), but it seems most possible alternatives already have other, distinct meanings: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/282282/near-univ...

replies(2): >>44525093 #>>44526245 #
perching_aix ◴[] No.44525093[source]
I usually use "smoke check/test" or "smell test", but if you have a specific context in mind, maybe I can give you a different alternative phrase I use or two.

Definitely not something I'd force onto others either though.

replies(1): >>44526117 #
1. wmeredith ◴[] No.44526117[source]
Are we just disregarding the differently-abled people who have a diminished sense of smell? /s