ret2plt

6 ms·

1.
by ret2plt 10mo ago
Good job finding something to complain about in one of the 13 examples I listed. This unassailable refutation utterly destroys my whole argument :(
2.
by ret2plt 10mo ago
You couldn't own slaves in London in 1845, and in any case the name derives from the "Master of the household", so if you want to be mad about it, you should call it sexist, not racist. Or you could just be chill, stretch the
3.
by ret2plt 10mo ago
PS: about the role in git: I don't feel that strongly about it, but I think master is somewhat more descriptive. The master branch contains the most up-to-date version of the source code, so e.g. if I'm working on a feature bran
4.
by ret2plt 10mo ago
Language is in constant flux. If a word has a remote historical connection to master/slave in a precursor project people nowadays don't even know, and people invent a "folk etymology" comparing it to a master record, do
5.
by ret2plt 10mo ago
I grant it's not nothing, but I think it's not enough of something to make changes over it. Thinking of a master record or similar is the natural reaction when you learn about the terminology, and most young people have never used
6.
by ret2plt 10mo ago
Eh, that's some interesting historical trivia, but I don't see how that matters tbh. If everybody is fine with the word because they (quite reasonably) assume it was inspired by master record or something similar, and you bring up
7.
by ret2plt 5y ago
It's worse than that. The problem is that being truly rational is hard, unpleasant work that few people want to do. If you read an article that makes your political opponents look bad, you can't just feel smugly superior, you have
8.
by ret2plt 5y ago
> This is often seen in the form of very smart people also believing conspiracy theories or throwing their hands up around other massive issues. As an example, the "Rationalist crowd" has de-emphasized work on climate change mi
9.
by ret2plt 5y ago
I think it depends on how you frame it. If the Linux Foundation thinks this kind of research would generate useful information for the kernel project, then the developers' time wouldn't be wasted, just used in a different, yet pro
10.
by ret2plt 5y ago
> You do not experiment on people without their consent. This is in fact the very FIRST point of the Nuremberg code: > 1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. The Nuremberg code is explicitly about medic
11.
by ret2plt 5y ago
I don't want to defend what these researchers did, but to equate infecting people with syphilis to wasting a bit of someones time is disingenuous. Informed consent is important, but only if the magnitude of the intervention is big enou
12.
by ret2plt 5y ago
This wouldn't really be representative. If people know they are being tested, they will be much more careful and cautious than when they are doing "business as usual".
13.
by ret2plt 6y ago
This is a minor nitpick, but I think claiming that anarcho-primitivism is less fringe than it seems because the youtube channel "Primitive Technology" is popular is seriously reaching.