Show Navigation
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.
-
>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.
It's just ideological subversion. Computer hacking should never be involved into politics other than it's own.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLdDmeyMJls
>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.
This can help but the situation will never evolve if the mentalities do not change. 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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sjA90hvnQ0
-
> 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.
-
>But what if someone makes code with an intention to undermine said bad nation leader? That's also political, but not inappropriate.
This the "who is responsible" problem is it the "tool" who is responsible ? Or is it the "people" who did something with the tool ?
People do evil everyday with all kinds of tools be it a car, a hammer, a chainsaw etc...
In the end the responsibility always goes to the people who did it. If we began to take for responsible the people who made the tools then we would probably see DRM implementations in all kind of tools.
>But mentalities always change
The time of change is variable.
A mentality/culture etc.... has changed when a majority of a generation has changed, so between 15~20 years.
Change isn't always positive or negative.
>It's bidirectional – people define what surrounds them, but they also adapt to their surroundings.
That model is correct but incomplete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness
It's a self-input loop. Surroundings can influence someone but it will depend on the decision of the said people. Also a stimulus doesn't mean that everyone will act the same way.
>You can't expect humans to be rational.
I agree.
>So "people cannot change" is not a reasonable position.
I am not implying this. What I'm saying is that the probabilities of a positive change are small if the actual media/political behavior continues.
>And "people can easily change" is also flawed.
I'm not implying that either.
-
> 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)_/¯
-
>If you're referring to all those ideas like "maybe Linux shouldn't boot for Nazis"
Yes you understood my reasoning. We simply can't forbid for what usage a tool is going to be used and even if we did we are powerless to enforce such rules.
>This is more about whole societies.
I am taking that into account. A society is composed of individuals.
>Individual mistakes should not affect the outcome.
Mistakes are often disagreeable I agree. But they teach us, for those who admit it, having no negative outcome removes a type of experience that will have overall a negative effect long term speaking imo.
But it does not mean that help should not be provided when possible.
>And if there are too many mistakes, then maybe there's something wrong with the way things are organised.
Is it impossible for someone to make many mistakes on his own ?
>Individuals are unpredicable. Populations – not as much.
I think we agree that a group of individuals can be influenced.
What I mean is that influence doesn't work on everyone or that the decisions aren't always what was expected because of freewill.
I've rushed my post it's 4:30am here, I'm going to bed. Thanks and take care.
-
> 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.
-
>it is a sign of a systemic failure rather than them not being up to it.
>rather than them not being up to it.
I wouldn't use the term "systemic" because it implies a constant that cannot change.
But I do not deny that behaviors that stops people from doing achieving objectives exist.
As far as my experience is it can be:
-Hierarchical power.
-The people themselves.
-Or both.
In my region it's both. The Hierarchical power in place has showed my fam and I (in 2006) that if we wanted to get bigger we either had to wait for one of "them" to die or to suck them of. We did neither. Thus they control the middle class groups from getting better.
And a from my knowledge of the population in my old town the major reason for why it's not getting any better is because a majority of them act in a negative/violent way be it socially or physically, thus they are also reducing the probabilities of those who wish to do better to be better.
The behavior/decisions of a group of people can act as a filter to their own community, be it directly or indirectly.
Sorokin Alexei
mangeurdenuage
All Jonkman Microblog content and data are available under the