Oh, sorry, you're right - when a slave wants to go talk to someone, he can do so at any time as long as the master isn't currently talking to someone. And the slave gets no orders from the master, both the master and the slave get orders from someone else.

And yes, the master makes no decisions on his own, the master simply sees which of the slaves has indicated that he wishes to be passed control, and then the master passes all control onto that slave and leaves.

I completely forgot what slavery means. I thought that slavery meant that masters controlled the slaves and the slaves didn't have freedom. Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding.

Would you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You do it often enough that I wince when I see your username in threads like this, even though you're generally a good HN contributor.

Comments like this do not help, regardless of how right you are on the underlying issues.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Ask that same question again after we have self-aware machines/software.

Inherent in the negative concept of slavery is the removal or limitation of self-determination. If the components don't have free will, this isn't an imposition.

However, in the larger context, there are very much thinking, feeling entities that are negatively impacted by the use of this terminology.

In contrast, it costs next to nothing to update the terminology to use similar terms that don't cause psychological harm to a significant portion of the populace.