It looks like several commenters have been able to reproduce the problem, so in that sense I guess it's substantiated?

If people were trying to reproduce it and failing, I agree with you that would be a different story.

The allegation is the root cause, not the problem itself.

It's in a list of censored words that were leaked a while ago. It's not really a mystery.

I guess if it's not explicitly censored then its just a bug that Microsoft can fix.

"censored"

Much more likely: the upvotes are because many people have frustration at this type of thing, and limited places to channel their frustration, so when they see a post like this, they upvote it to express their frustration. Or maybe that’s just me..

It's also an interesting tidbit for people that have not used copilot. It's like a fluff piece.

Present something weird that is also easily verifiable. If you are having a bit of a break and are using copilot you can try out a few things and post answers.

And now we have independent verification (unless you think all these usernames are just lying) and some interesting bits of info about copilot.

What type of thing? Asking for genuine curiosity.

Verboten words that are completely commonplace and mundanely acceptable outside of a certain small but powerful bubble

I’m not aware of any such bubble which forbids the use of the word “gender”. Which bubble are you referring to?

Disclaimer: I’m a queer non-binary leftist, and many of my community and loved ones are at least one of those. The closest thing to any “verboten” I’m aware of is “gender critical”, and as far as I can tell that’s mostly a term used by detractors in my own community, and even so it doesn’t reject usage of the term only usage of it distinguished from sex assigned at birth. The next most “verboten” I can think of is commonly referenced “wrong things programmers assume about ____” which generally offer no guidance other than not asking if you don’t need to know or offering open text input if you do, and in any case don’t represent a small powerful bubble of anything other than being a memorable link.

One of the possible explanations is maybe whenever you typed "gender" it suggested one of the two possibilities next to it or some kind of binary type which might be something github wants to avoid but I am just speculating.

>Which bubble are you referring to?

Copilot, pretty clear from the context.

Clear as mud, given the context.

You can google "controversy" around Spanish word for black while trying to somehow imagine you are reading about it from culture/country which is not as much influenced by US culture as other countries with good English proficiency or even completely unaware of it while being taught from your childhood to treat everyone as an individual and actually truly believing it. Then while reading about it you might sort of get feel for "that type of thing".

For some time I collected sources to things as the linked github issue but I had to stop as it made me unhappy now I try to ignore it and hope that I am no longer there when that type of thing hits my city.

This deserves a chance at getting a sincere answer, so I’ve upvoted it. I almost asked a similar question on another thread, but backed out. There seems to be a lot of inference going on in other comments about what any commenter finds frustrating or otherwise confounding, but I think it would be good for the discussion to eliminate some of that inference.

This particular issue was hit by my friend previously on copilot.

I see this kind of questioning pop up when someone states that something bothers them and someone else deeply disagrees. Is there a name for this kind of questioning of someones foundational feelings about something, as if to allude in every question that it's purely wrong to feel that way?

Gaslighting.

Why?

Are you unable to believe someone might think differently than you do, without it being explained away as "artificial voting"?

Edit to add: Nice, they edited their comment. Previously it accused HN of having an artificial voting conspiracy. So that is what my comment was about. I will not edit my original comment above.

> It’s just interesting how unsubstantiated allegations are getting so much attention

Why make it about my opinions?

Who are you quoting? I didn't say that.

They made an unsubstantiated allegation about an unsubstantiated allegation. The allegation was upvoted, the allegation about the allegation was downvoted. Surely you understand how silly that is?

Just making a note here, the answer was approved by Dave Cheney. If you're unfamiliar with him: https://dave.cheney.net/

He works for GitHub.

You’re right, edited.