Mozilla gives 15k to remove "Slave" from build bot documentation

[iller3]

Next, we'll only have grey cables because having different colouring is racist.

you got me, I laughed out loud at this. ...as someone who does a lot of soldering, yeah that'd be a nightmare

 

[Creator002]

Personally, don't care. Besides some possible confusion and backwards compatibility issues, I don't really see many problems arising from the change.

That being said, if they don't change it to Dom and Sub, then we're going to have a problem.

 

[chocolate pickles]

How absolutely pointless. Why not actually put that money to, oh I don't know, actual good use?

 

[shintakie10]

Their money, they can spend it how they like. Don't think it matters if you get behind it or not.

Pretty sure no one was lining up to sue Firefox over their use of donated funds, but the fact that people are against practices such as this is meaningful.
I mean the fact that they spent 15k changing the programming language means they'll do just about anything for cheap PR.

It was 15k to remove the terminology and to quote the relevant blog post.

to make improvements so Buildbot works better in the Amazon EC2 cloud

Its like people didn't bother to read anythin other than the OP's title and just jumped straight to "PC GONE CRAZY!"

On topic. I'm down with this change. Sure its a technical term that technically is relevant, but so would be the words they replace it with. Also the word they replace it with wouldn't be uncomfortable for anyone. Not sure why people think this is such a problem.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

After all, this is something that would need to be changed eventually anyway, assuming we ever create artificial intelligence or partially virtualized biological intelligence, so we may as well get it out of the way now.

Would you mind explaining the significance of AI to this, because I'm not seeing the connection.

It would be odd to have terms like that being used to denote the status of an independent intelligence, or even the device it exists on. Then again, I'm kinda assuming that slave in a technical context is similar to how it is used in Shadowrun, so I may be super mistaken. Somehow, despite being a programmer and an IT consultant, this term has never come up for me outside of Shadowrun.

 

[NiPah]

Their money, they can spend it how they like. Don't think it matters if you get behind it or not.

Pretty sure no one was lining up to sue Firefox over their use of donated funds, but the fact that people are against practices such as this is meaningful.
I mean the fact that they spent 15k changing the programming language means they'll do just about anything for cheap PR.

It was 15k to remove the terminology and to quote the relevant blog post.

to make improvements so Buildbot works better in the Amazon EC2 cloud

Its like people didn't bother to read anythin other than the OP's title and just jumped straight to "PC GONE CRAZY!"

On topic. I'm down with this change. Sure its a technical term that technically is relevant, but so would be the words they replace it with. Also the word they replace it with wouldn't be uncomfortable for anyone. Not sure why people think this is such a problem.

True, after reading it I was completely wrong.
I was just pissed as pluvia's "you can't do shit, your opinion is meaningless" post that got tacked on and did something I hate, offering an opinion when I don't know what's going on.
Thank you for the heads up though, at least now I know what's going on.

 

[Silvanus]

Well that's a silly waste of money. Mayhaps it could be spent better?

They could spend it on replacing instances of the word "perhaps" with "mayhaps", to give everything a cool posh Britishy-sounding vibe.

 

[MysticSlayer]

It would be odd to have terms like that being used to denote the status of an independent intelligence, or even the device it exists on. Then again, I'm kinda assuming that slave in a technical context is similar to how it is used in Shadowrun, so I may be super mistaken. Somehow, despite being a programmer and an IT consultant, this term has never come up for me outside of Shadowrun.

I'm not incredibly well-versed on it myself, but my understanding is that it basically describes two devices, databases, processes, or some other technology-related thing having control over other devices, databases, processes, etc. It basically is the rule that governs communication between the two: the master is given control over the slave without the slave being able to take control over the master.

I guess, personally, I would be far more disturbed if AI started exhibiting such communication among each other (i.e. one AI starts taking a master/slave communication approach to other AI) regardless of terminology.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

It would be odd to have terms like that being used to denote the status of an independent intelligence, or even the device it exists on. Then again, I'm kinda assuming that slave in a technical context is similar to how it is used in Shadowrun, so I may be super mistaken. Somehow, despite being a programmer and an IT consultant, this term has never come up for me outside of Shadowrun.

I'm not incredibly well-versed on it myself, but my understanding is that it basically describes two devices, databases, processes, or some other technology-related thing having control over other devices, databases, processes, etc. It basically is the rule that governs communication between the two: the master is given control over the slave without the slave being able to take control over the master.

I guess, personally, I would be far more disturbed if AI started exhibiting such communication among each other (i.e. one AI starts taking a master/slave communication approach to other AI) regardless of terminology.

I don't know enough about the process to say that it would be absolutely necessary to forbid partially or fully virtual intelligences from engaging in it, but the terminology would definitely need to go if it were to be used by them.

 

[Callate]

Oy, first world problems...

I only care in as much as whatever comes of the new terminology is likely to cause confusion for an extended period following changeover. Whatever master/slave is replaced with, it had better be something that's easy for tech support to mentally translate. Otherwise, those responsible can enjoy their sense of self-satisfaction during their downtime. Or maybe to contemplate the industries they're supporting that use actual slaves.

 

[TomWest]

This is the very definition of the concept of 'Feels before Reals'.

Unless you're dealing with robots, 'feels' *are* 'reals'.

And, if one has ever dealt with a project that involves actual humans, you probably understand that the morale, enthusiasm, and teamwork of those working on a project are vastly more crucial to a project's success than the particular terminology that's used on a project.

Now, a terminology change *does* have some minor cost, and just because there's a real benefit to some members of the community, it doesn't necessarily mean the benefit is worth the cost.

However, judging a cost benefit analysis is completely different from 'Feels before Reals', which presupposes that their concerns don't even merit consideration. (It doesn't help that this attitude almost always translates to "their feelings are temper tantrums but *my* feelings are critical)".

 

[Areloch]

This is the very definition of the concept of 'Feels before Reals'.

Unless you're dealing with robots, 'feels' *are* 'reals'.

And, if one has ever dealt with a project that involves actual humans, you probably understand that the morale, enthusiasm, and teamwork of those working on a project are vastly more crucial to a project's success than the particular terminology that's used on a project.

Now, a terminology change *does* have some minor cost, and just because there's a real benefit to some members of the community, it doesn't necessarily mean the benefit is worth the cost.

However, judging a cost benefit analysis is completely different from 'Feels before Reals', which presupposes that their concerns don't even merit consideration. (It doesn't help that this attitude almost always translates to "their feelings are temper tantrums but *my* feelings are critical)".

Well, no, feels are NOT reals, because feels are completely, and entirely subjective. That's the point of the saying.

Someone's subjective feelings is coming before objective reality. The words master and slave are technical and accurate descriptors that in no way suggest, endorse or perpetuate human slavery. This is the objective reality of their usage in this context.

Someone's subjective feelings, however, were that the words - regardless of their context - made them vaguely uncomfortable because slavery was a thing that happened at some point, and so they wanted the words scrubbed from usage.

Should we stop using 'male' and 'female' as descriptives of plug connectors because that's technically insensitive to transgender/sexual people that may present themselves as men and women and have the opposite sexual organs?

Should we stop using 'classes' in code because that suggests classism in society and usage of it could potentially perpetuate said societal problem?

Should we stop using 'kill' in programming as a description for stopping and deleting an object because killing people in real life is a bad thing?

We could play the 'This word is offensive' game for an eternity because someone MAY feel slightly uncomfortable upon hearing them. If they're legitimately offput by a technical descriptor that is entirely accurate and not actually offensive, then that falls on them, not everyone else that's been using the terminologies for decades.

Alternatively, if we're going to pull words - regardless of their context - because someone MIGHT feel slightly uncomfortable reading them, I could draft up a list of other words - ostensibly far more offensive but still in common usage - we should purge from programming, movies, books, games, spoken language, sign language and any other medium to convey concepts and ideas.

 

[beastro]

After all, this is something that would need to be changed eventually anyway, assuming we ever create artificial intelligence or partially virtualized biological intelligence, so we may as well get it out of the way now.

Would you mind explaining the significance of AI to this, because I'm not seeing the connection.

It would be odd to have terms like that being used to denote the status of an independent intelligence, or even the device it exists on. Then again, I'm kinda assuming that slave in a technical context is similar to how it is used in Shadowrun, so I may be super mistaken. Somehow, despite being a programmer and an IT consultant, this term has never come up for me outside of Shadowrun.

They're bloody machines.

 

[Silvanus]

Someone's subjective feelings, however, were that the words - regardless of their context - made them vaguely uncomfortable because slavery was a thing that happened at some point, and so they wanted the words scrubbed from usage.

Aye, but it's also your subjective feeling that that isn't the case. Pro or con is a subjective call.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

After all, this is something that would need to be changed eventually anyway, assuming we ever create artificial intelligence or partially virtualized biological intelligence, so we may as well get it out of the way now.

Would you mind explaining the significance of AI to this, because I'm not seeing the connection.

It would be odd to have terms like that being used to denote the status of an independent intelligence, or even the device it exists on. Then again, I'm kinda assuming that slave in a technical context is similar to how it is used in Shadowrun, so I may be super mistaken. Somehow, despite being a programmer and an IT consultant, this term has never come up for me outside of Shadowrun.

They're bloody machines.

You realize that by using a term like partially virtualized I'm referring to humans with cybernetically enhanced minds, which is something of an inevitability? And in all honesty, you're just a machine.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Yeah, they didn't make money to put it back into the project, they just spent it. On a problem that didn't exist.

So what you're saying is it's their money and they can spend it how they like?

Well took you long enough but you finally got there.

Unless it's to anti-gay organisations of course [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10767104/Mozilla-appoints-new-CEO-after-gay-marriage-controversy.html]

 

[TomWest]

This is the very definition of the concept of 'Feels before Reals'.

Unless you're dealing with robots, 'feels' *are* 'reals'.

Well, no, feels are NOT reals, because feels are completely, and entirely subjective. That's the point of the saying.

Of course they're subjective - words only have the meaning we assign, and more importantly, they have meaning to the party that created them *and* to the party that receives them. That's the most basic premise of communication. The person who whines "that's not what I mean when I use the word" has failed to understand the basis of communication - *two* parties are involved.

Now, you may decide that's you don't care about communicating with that second party - that they are not worth your time and effort. But that's *your* choice (at least once you understand your communication's ramifications).

Those issues are still real, and your choice is saying that you don't value their discomfort more than the cost. And that's fine. You may be judged for the decision - but it is a *decision*, and "feels before reals" is an attempt to pretend that a decision is not being made. (I'll admit that's what I find offensive - not the decision, but the cowardice behind claiming 'I'm not making a decision - there's no decision to be made!')

All your suggestions are valid questions to ask. For me, the answers are usually pretty clear. For example, I *don't* value the discomfort of those who find the word 'kill' or 'class' offensive over the cost of changing it.

But that does *not* mean that the discomfort of those offended by the word are invalid or are not real. It simply means that in my opinion, their very real discomfort is not worth the effort to change.

And yes, as society changes and evolves, I may change my opinion on particular words. After all, language serves society, not the other way around.

 

[blackrave]

And yes, as society changes and evolves, I may change my opinion on particular words. After all, language serves society, not the other way around.

True, but that doesn't mean that language should change based on temporary ill-informed whims of minority.
While language should be adaptive, it should possess certain rigidity at the same time.

 

[Areloch]

This is the very definition of the concept of 'Feels before Reals'.

Unless you're dealing with robots, 'feels' *are* 'reals'.

Well, no, feels are NOT reals, because feels are completely, and entirely subjective. That's the point of the saying.

But that does *not* mean that the discomfort of those offended by the word are invalid or are not real. It simply means that in my opinion, their very real discomfort is not worth the effort to change.

Hm, this part makes me think you interpreted my usage of 'Feels before reals' as to imply that their feelings are not real.

To clarify, I have NO doubt in my mind that there are people that are, indeed, made uncomfortable by the mere useage and existence of the words 'master' and 'slave', regardless of their context. Lord knows I've seen people take offense to sillier things on the internet.

However, as you mention with cost, I find it incredibly unlikely that the general societal cost of scrubbing certain words out of usage - ignoring their context(and this is the important part) - to EVER be worth it.

My stance on that holds true for even openly offensive words, such as ******, or ******, or gook, etc. Because if we toss words out the window with no regard to context, then that means we can't utilize those words in fiction where they're used, nor historical accounts where they very literally WERE used, and their usage is enlightening/educational. (It also means that people are likely incredibly hypocritical about this, as no doubt they use words like 'stupid' or 'dumb' or 'lame' or any number of old sayings that used to be deep insults or discriminatory/derogatory words, but are just lightweight insults/zingers now. So why are those OK, but master/slave is not?)

I think most people can agree that using slurs or other targeted, specifically derogatory or offensive language is something you shouldn't direct at other people.

However, someone reading a word, completely ignoring the context of it's usage, and deciding that "This word shouldn't ever be used, no matter the context or reason" does a LOT of damage to our communication mediums, and isn't something that should be endorsed, let alone paid for.

Someone's subjective feelings, however, were that the words - regardless of their context - made them vaguely uncomfortable because slavery was a thing that happened at some point, and so they wanted the words scrubbed from usage.

Aye, but it's also your subjective feeling that that isn't the case. Pro or con is a subjective call.

Oh, to be sure, and I'm 100% cognizant of the 'Societal Compromise' game, where it's not "make everyone happy" but "make everyone the least angry".

The root of my problem with this, is it's removing a word or words from usage while completely ignoring the context in which they are used. As I mention above, this line of logic can be very readily applied to other words that MAY make someone uncomfortable and if we toss any and all context out the window, that means that fictional and historical usages of the word should also be game for removing words over the possibility that someone could be offended.

I find this to be untenable, which is, indeed my subjective opinion.

But as I said above, the objective reality of the word's usage in this case does not endorse, cause or propagate actual human slavery, and is merely an accurate, technical descriptor of the relationship between two objects in software/hardware, and whether someone feels offended by it or not does not change the objective reality of it's usage in this context.

 

[Silvanus]

Oh, to be sure, and I'm 100% cognizant of the 'Societal Compromise' game, where it's not "make everyone happy" but "make everyone the least angry".

The root of my problem with this, is it's removing a word or words from usage while completely ignoring the context in which they are used. As I mention above, this line of logic can be very readily applied to other words that MAY make someone uncomfortable and if we toss any and all context out the window, that means that fictional and historical usages of the word should also be game for removing words over the possibility that someone could be offended.

I find this to be untenable, which is, indeed my subjective opinion.

But as I said above, the objective reality of the word's usage in this case does not endorse, cause or propagate actual human slavery, and is merely an accurate, technical descriptor of the relationship between two objects in software/hardware, and whether someone feels offended by it or not does not change the objective reality of it's usage in this context.

It would be untenable if taken to the extreme, or applied in all cases. It's very unlikely that will be the case, though; people have been replacing words in various contexts since language began, and we've never tipped over into the extreme of replacing everything potentially problematic. I don't see any particular reason to think it has much chance of happening now.

Of course, this is quite aside from whether I think this instance was silly or not.