Re:Google’s AI-powered ‘inclusive warnings’ feature is very ...
by cornel_io on Friday April 22, 2022 @04:02PM
(#31127311)
Why not?
Because we don't want to keep handing out stupid prizes to the weenies that constantly force us to play these stupid games. Every time they win they're further emboldened, and that's not a good thing, since there are actual problems to solve.
Re:Google’s AI-powered ‘inclusive warnings’ feature is very ...
by akomtu on Friday April 22, 2022 @06:57PM
(#31129263)
You can refactor a piece of software you wrote, or a piece of your employer's software with his permission. But language doesn't belong to anyone, it's a collective consensus on how to say things. If you believe you have authority to ignore this consensus and force your opinion on others, you must have an incredibly inflated ego.
Re:Google’s AI-powered ‘inclusive warnings’ feature is very ...
by cookie_monsta on Friday April 22, 2022 @09:52PM
(#31130633)
What I like about this comment is that it can be read as being either in favour or against what Google is doing here.
Re:Google’s AI-powered ‘inclusive warnings’ feature is very ...
by google234123 on Saturday April 23, 2022 @01:44AM
(#31131733)
I’ve literally never heard of the term and I work in tech and build personal pcs. So I would disagree that it’s “available, widely understood”.
Anyhow, you might find it awkward, but the general assumption that "parent" is synonymous with "mother" to the exclusion of all other kinds of parents does real damage to inclusiveness, and the term "motherboard" flows from that.
I know your tongue is in cheek, but the mainboard may be considered a parent of the components, but it is not giving birth to them. "Parent" fits better than "mother". So your absurdist counter-argument doesn't really fit here.
We're programmers. We refactor mercilessly. Why shouldn't language be refactored mercilessly too? The term "mainboard" is available, widely understood, and well-adopted, so why not use that?