3saryHg6LP2e

oh dear

>I have been building a cryptocurrency trade execution platform. He started it in Node, and I picked up where he left off not even knowing what a Promise was.

Sounds secure

I for example would never work for someone like Goldman Sachs because my perception is the work/life balance is abysmal. It's a surprise to me that anyone is surprised by this.

I have already commented with something snarky, but in seriousness:

Does it it seem to anyone else that the new generation entering the workplace (zoomers?) have wildly different expectations of what it's like vs. the reality? Not necessarily out of line with what it could or should be like (though I would say it does lean this way), but just how it is in practice?

Imagine taking a job at Goldman Sachs and thinking it would be a nice, chill place to work.

Well, certainly there is language that is completely inappropriate, imagine what the default branch name _could_ be called if we really were attempting to be non-inclusive.

It's very, very clear what language that applies to, however.

This article doesn't explain how "main" is more "inclusive" than "master". I don't agree that it is at all.

Or "robot"/"bot".

It's fine to think "main" or "trunk" or whatever is a better name, it's very easy with git to use a branch with whatever name you like. The issue I and others have (and I appreciate you aren't saying this in your comment) is we don't agree that "master" is "problematic" at all.

Christ, I agree with this article so much it hurts.

I am convinced future people will find this whole saga quite an interesting anecdote of how, for a period of time, _appearing_ to be "anti-racist" was far more important than doing anything positive.

As an aside I find it highly amusing watching the proponents of such changes eat themselves (see Twitch: womxn debacle).

It's a fairly arbitrarily number sure, but I think it could be representative. During the working week I listen to music almost all the working day, when I as commuting that adds on another couple of hours.

Even if it's 2 hours a day it would still represent an increase in costs.

Another poster put it better: for $9.99 per month you would be able to pay for 999 streams, I am sure a typical user can easily exceed 999 streams in a month.

Will consumers pay that price is the question?

Let's do some back-of-the-envelop calculations:

Let's say people stream for 4 hours a day on average.

4 * 60 = 240 minutes

Let's say a song is 3 minutes.

240 / 3 = 80 streams == 80p/day

80p * 30 days per month = 2400p

2400p == £24

So that would be ~2.4x increase in price for end users without including Spotify cut or taxes.

Doesn't seem possible to me.

The record labels are a bigger problem than Spotify; they set the streaming prices and take a big cut.

Facts aren't racist, your intent and your construction of the "fact" can be.

Example: Black men make up the largest group of prisoners in the US.

If you are discussing criminal justice reform it's probably not racist to bring it up, if you are discussing the superiority of the white race it is.

Context is key and for the life of me I can't understand why everyone seems to be pretending it isn't these days.

Or the spreads/volatility of GME is big/frothy enough that they can make much more per trade

It is not an attachment to the words themselves it is a reaction to the idea that words have some kind of implied sinister meaning outside of the context in which they are used.

And yes, I use the word "sinister" deliberately - why aren't we banning the use of this word on behalf of left-handed people?

Words get their meaning from common understanding, common usage and most importantly context.

In context these words are fine.

What would your response be if someone came along and said "binary" is not an appropriate word for compiled artefacts because some people do not identify as a man or a woman?

What would your response be if someone came along and said we should rename the HTML <div> element because "div" is a schoolyard insult implying low intelligence?

What would your response be if someone came along and said we should stop referring to mobile phones as "cells" because people are unjustly confined to prison cells due to structural racism?

I do not believe I am, or others who agree with me are, arguing that we should not change language where it is problematic the issue is we do not agree that the use of these words in context are an issue at all.

"guys" is literally literally defined in the dictionary[1] as:

> used to address a group of people of either sex: >Come on, you guys, let's go.

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/guy

I hadn't seen that "sanity check" and "dummy value" were being replaced too until I see this comment. I am _dumbfounded_.

But I suppose we will have to replace that word too.

Jfc.

Words have different meanings in different contexts, to "floss" could be a dental hygiene procedure or it could be performing a particular dance. It is simply not the same to refer to a "master branch" as it is to a "slave master".

I do not agree with the premise that these words in context are problematic, many others do not agree with it either.

I can get onboard with master/slave when used in conjunction.

But the etymology of "blacklist" so far as I know and can Google is not to do with race and it's use and understood meaning is not to do with race. How then can it be racist?

I have heard others argue that it's the implication that black is bad - but it's not as simple as that. "Whiteknighting" can be used negatively. "Bad" can literally mean "good". Come on.

This especially goes for "grandfathered" - what on earth is wrong with this?

It's a very common misconception, there is no requirement for Scottish banknotes to be accepted as payment anywhere in the UK (including Scotland!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterlin...

There is no such thing as "defacto" legal tender. By definition only legal tender must be accepted as a form of payment - you can choose to accept something else but you don't have to.

I mean they are not "not technically" legal tender, they are not legal tender and that is why you have problems with them being accepted (because they don't have to be!)