Conversation
Notices
-
I haven't made a fuss about the master-slave topology, however now things have become weird.
There's an ongoing effort to deprecated the master branch's name in Git, which I find to be a strange move as the master-slave topology doesn't even apply to git – all branches are independent by design.
Maybe I'm employing an overly rational approach, but shouldn't our actions make sense?
Is making an implication that the word "master", in any context, is a sign of a slave owner a good idea at all? What about headmasters, people with master's degree, master records?
A similiar thing can be said about the deprecation of terms whitelist/blacklist. They even predate the European colonisation of the Americas. I.e. they never had anything to do with skin pigmentation. And they never could, as skin pigmentation is observed with eyes, not lists.
One can argue that it's fair as here "white" is employed with a positive connotation and "black" – with a negative.
But the same can be said about the terms "blackmail", "black market", "black humour", etc.
Is it a half-measure or are they next? I cannot tell.
-
> When trying to fix historical social ills, people will resort to silly triviality like eliminating "master" in situations where it does not imply slavery, because it is easier to rename things than to reshape problematic behaviors.
@lnxw48a1 What's especially strange is that lately people are more sure in that this works than ever.
Maybe they see annoyance of people they don't like as a sign that they're succeeding. If the adversary thinks it's bad, then it must be good.
> How to go from where we are today to a place where we do not use ancestry in workplace, housing, education decisions is tough.
Well, my personal biased opinion is that on a state level this can be fixed in just a matter of decades by affordable healthcare education and employment strictly based on merit, i.e. with social justice.
As I understand it, the correlation between wealth and skin tone is strong in the US, and I think that it's a self-perpetuating cycle as the need for money to make money is just too high.
And it's also a contribution to the human just-world fallacy, which here means that humans are inclined to think that poor people deserve their misfortunes.
And if most poor people share a trait, then it also becomes part of it.
-
> It's just ideological subversion. Computer hacking should never be involved into politics other than it's own.
I don't know if I have a strong opinion here. I do think though that professionalism and political stunts aren't very compatible.
Like when a website blocks a whole range of IP addresses, because nation leader bad.
But what if someone makes code with an intention to undermine said bad nation leader? That's also political, but not inappropriate.
> This can help but the situation will never evolve if the mentalities do not change.
But mentalities always change. Whole subcultures can disappear with political changes.
It's bidirectional – people define what surrounds them, but they also adapt to their surroundings.
> You can give the best opportunities to someone, if that person as a violent behavior he will either create misery or be miserable or both.
You can't expect humans to be rational. Undesired behaviour should be discouraged, desired behaviour should be encouraged, and mistakes will invariably be made, so there should be room for that too.
So "people cannot change" is not a reasonable position. And "people can easily change" is also flawed.
-
> This the "who is responsible" problem is it the "tool" who is responsible ? Or is it the "people" who did something with the tool ?
If you're referring to all those ideas like "maybe Linux shouldn't boot for Nazis", then yes, that is not constructive.
> It's a self-input loop. Surroundings can influence someone but it will depend on the decision of the said people.
I think you're zooming in too much. This is more about whole societies.
Individual mistakes should not affect the outcome. And if there are too many mistakes, then maybe there's something wrong with the way things are organised.
> so a stimulus doesn't mean that everyone will act the same way.
Individuals are unpredicable. Populations – not as much.
It's like trying to argue that water flow is indeterministic, because water molecules move randomly.
> What I'm saying is that the probabilities of a positive change are small if the actual media/political behavior continues.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
> Is it impossible for someone to make many mistakes on his own ?
@mangeurdenuage I mean that when a very big lot of people fails, it is a sign of a systemic failure rather than them not being up to it.
Sorokin Alexei
All senooken JP Social content and data are available under the