It wouldn't be hard to start a movement and get people to sign-up for a demand to change a word like allowlist to something else, and then jump on the something else to change it again.
There is no possible way that any rational human, whom understands the language in question, English in this case, could mistake Master and Slave, as used in technology, for the context of non-voluntary human slavery. In the same vain Whitelist / Blacklist doesn't have the same context being misappropriated to it, by peopl
How far are we willing to go to bubble wrap the world so no one can get offended, over anything, even by accident, and their own willingness to not understand?
We're not as it happens. You might have noticed but a LOT of people seem to be deeply offended by this. The choice isn't about whether to offend fewer people, it's about who to offend and who has the worst reasons for taking offence.
As TFS said about one of the points, it's a negative cost change since the new terminology is clearer.
Same for master/slave versus primary/replica. The latter is much more accurate, the replica replicates the primary. It doesn't do stuff for the master.
Not in the case of I2C bus (and many other communications buses). The master controls the bus and dictates when others - the slaves - do actual actions for the master. They are in no ways replicates of the primary, as that defeats the entire purpose of multiple different devices sharing a common communications bus. But I guess it's still racist somehow, even though it is 100 times more appropriate and descriptive as compared to "primary/replica".
So, in this case, it would be Boss/Workers or something like that, isn't it clearer that master/slave? The simple fact that master/slave is not always replaced by the same thing prove that it's a vague term that doesn't really convey their role.
Worker implies voluntary association; a slave has no such option. A boss/worker relationship also implies some sort of autonomy - I want you to do this task, and maybe even do it this way; but you can use your right or left hand, or close one eye if you want. A master/slave relationship doesn't allow ANY autonomy.
No, boss/worker is much less clear than the reality of the situation - the slave sits and does NOTHING until explicitly so instructed by the master, and the slave ONLY does what the master wants,
Wrong, slavery can absolutely be voluntary, for instance in BDSM a slave voluntary submits to their Master / Dom / Handler, etc... On the same note you can ask a slave to wash the floor and it doesn't matter how they wash the floors, it just matters they do the job to the right standard. Of course this assumes you're talking about people, which in the case of technology we're not.
Scoping this to technology and using the correct meaning of the terms where "X has power of and control of Y and where Y is control and or powered by X", then you'd be right, of course abstracting the human reference.
Boss / worker is not acceptable analogy, because when a worker is doing X, they could decide to stop, change tasks, or just quit. If a worker doesn't have a task, they can do something else, maybe for the company, maybe for themselves, maybe just an experiment, or nothing at all. This doesn't get into all the problem associated with a "boss" and what constitutes a "boss" as that can change dynamically, even with the work being assigned. It's possible to be a "worker" but for some tasks you're actually the "boss" of the "boss" that assigned the work. That would term into an absolutely soup of a mess, where no one would understand or have clarity on anything being done in the system.
Your point is defeated because I can find an exception to it, and that's ignoring the fact that you intentionally used the wrong context for the words. That being said, don't feel bad and you can forgo the facepalm, it was probably a honest mistake.
What wrong context? What exception? How does anything change the rather stunning fact that you opted to pick a meaningless recreational weekend kink of bored 20th century westerners instead of pointing out something from five millennia of history? [google.com]
That can be interpreted both ways, either as saying that the naming is highly appropriate or highly inappropriate. Nevertheless I still fail to see how this relates to GGP's poor skill at choosing prominent examples of voluntary slavery.
Boss / worker is not acceptable analogy, because when a worker is doing X, they could decide to stop, change tasks, or just quit.
So then Boss/worker is actually a much much better analogy in fault tolerant environments.
boss" and what constitutes a "boss" as that can change dynamically
So, the I2C which for some reason has become the cause celebre of the local alt-right would be better with the phrase "boss/worker" because in fact the the boss can indeed change dynamically just like a real boss.
Also stop bein
Only through hard work and perseverance can one truly suffer.
What if allowlist offends me / my group? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no possible way that any rational human, whom understands the language in question, English in this case, could mistake Master and Slave, as used in technology, for the context of non-voluntary human slavery. In the same vain Whitelist / Blacklist doesn't have the same context being misappropriated to it, by peopl
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
How far are we willing to go to bubble wrap the world so no one can get offended, over anything, even by accident, and their own willingness to not understand?
We're not as it happens. You might have noticed but a LOT of people seem to be deeply offended by this. The choice isn't about whether to offend fewer people, it's about who to offend and who has the worst reasons for taking offence.
As TFS said about one of the points, it's a negative cost change since the new terminology is clearer.
Same for master/sl
Re: (Score:2)
Same for master/slave versus primary/replica. The latter is much more accurate, the replica replicates the primary. It doesn't do stuff for the master.
Not in the case of I2C bus (and many other communications buses). The master controls the bus and dictates when others - the slaves - do actual actions for the master. They are in no ways replicates of the primary, as that defeats the entire purpose of multiple different devices sharing a common communications bus. But I guess it's still racist somehow, even though it is 100 times more appropriate and descriptive as compared to "primary/replica".
Re: (Score:0)
So, in this case, it would be Boss/Workers or something like that, isn't it clearer that master/slave?
The simple fact that master/slave is not always replaced by the same thing prove that it's a vague term that doesn't really convey their role.
Re: (Score:0)
Worker implies voluntary association; a slave has no such option. A boss/worker relationship also implies some sort of autonomy - I want you to do this task, and maybe even do it this way; but you can use your right or left hand, or close one eye if you want. A master/slave relationship doesn't allow ANY autonomy.
No, boss/worker is much less clear than the reality of the situation - the slave sits and does NOTHING until explicitly so instructed by the master, and the slave ONLY does what the master wants,
Re:What if allowlist offends me / my group? (Score:3)
Scoping this to technology and using the correct meaning of the terms where "X has power of and control of Y and where Y is control and or powered by X", then you'd be right, of course abstracting the human reference.
Boss / worker is not acceptable analogy, because when a worker is doing X, they could decide to stop, change tasks, or just quit. If a worker doesn't have a task, they can do something else, maybe for the company, maybe for themselves, maybe just an experiment, or nothing at all. This doesn't get into all the problem associated with a "boss" and what constitutes a "boss" as that can change dynamically, even with the work being assigned. It's possible to be a "worker" but for some tasks you're actually the "boss" of the "boss" that assigned the work. That would term into an absolutely soup of a mess, where no one would understand or have clarity on anything being done in the system.
Re: What if allowlist offends me / my group? (Score:1)
Wrong, slavery can absolutely be voluntary, for instance in BDSM
Yes, BDSM fun is definitely a better example than actual indentured servitude. /facepalm
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That context.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boss / worker is not acceptable analogy, because when a worker is doing X, they could decide to stop, change tasks, or just quit.
So then Boss/worker is actually a much much better analogy in fault tolerant environments.
boss" and what constitutes a "boss" as that can change dynamically
So, the I2C which for some reason has become the cause celebre of the local alt-right would be better with the phrase "boss/worker" because in fact the the boss can indeed change dynamically just like a real boss.
Also stop bein