GitHub reveals how software engineers are purging federal databases(404media.co)
404media.co
GitHub reveals how software engineers are purging federal databases
https://www.404media.co/forbidden-words-github-reveals-how-software-engineers-are-purging-federal-databases/
355 comments
These developers have had to drop whatever projects they were working on to go back to previous code and spend time finding all of this, just to keep their jobs. Then they have to redeploy new versions everywhere, which also carries a significant cost. Really frustrating.
IMO this is only going to be a thing for as long as:
0. it takes the reigning POTUS to realize its causing problems that are impacting wealthy elites (24 hours in the case of tariffs)
1. 4 years.
If i were product owner/manager of any of these teams id recommend we fork the codebase for 4 years and call it done. keep the forked version on standby with backports of major content updated in case you wind up with this sort of situation again, but dont start ripping all this stuff out of prod.
Or if on a longer timeline, build culture war into the release as a feature flag (culture=1, culture=0, etc..)
0. it takes the reigning POTUS to realize its causing problems that are impacting wealthy elites (24 hours in the case of tariffs)
1. 4 years.
If i were product owner/manager of any of these teams id recommend we fork the codebase for 4 years and call it done. keep the forked version on standby with backports of major content updated in case you wind up with this sort of situation again, but dont start ripping all this stuff out of prod.
Or if on a longer timeline, build culture war into the release as a feature flag (culture=1, culture=0, etc..)
[flagged]
The histrionics don't help:
If this is the case, incepting everyone with the idea in advance subconsciously lowers resistance right now, when nothing can be done, because this is all hypothetical.
And if it isn't the case, you can't be taken seriously.
Simply respond to the moment, in the moment. That is already enough.
Plus remember: he doesn't need to be a dictator, because he won a democratic election. If anything, liberals should be focusing on how to avoid JD Vance simply winning in 2028.
If this is the case, incepting everyone with the idea in advance subconsciously lowers resistance right now, when nothing can be done, because this is all hypothetical.
And if it isn't the case, you can't be taken seriously.
Simply respond to the moment, in the moment. That is already enough.
Plus remember: he doesn't need to be a dictator, because he won a democratic election. If anything, liberals should be focusing on how to avoid JD Vance simply winning in 2028.
It's not "histrionics"; they tried it last time and they'll try it again. This time they seem more organized, so I wouldn't be surprised if they succeed. If you care about the US remaining a functioning democracy, you should work in whatever way you can toward removing the current administration from power.
"They" are not any more organized now than they were then, they're simply better staffed. This is precisely why Trump has to use executive orders (many of which are rescinded instantly) and send Elon on dummy missions instead of just doing the durable thing: whipping Congress into passing law.
As it stands, the only durable policy win of his term so far was achieved on a bipartisan basis and mostly passed before he even took office: the Laken Riley Act. Why isn't the opposition party acting as opposition?
> If you care about the US remaining a functioning democracy, you should work in whatever way you can toward removing the current administration from power.
The U.S. is already not a functioning democracy (see 2016 and 2020), and removing the current administration from power (illegally?) will not change that.
This constant cycle of ineffective freakouts that America's liberal bloc find themselves in every 4 years is a large part of the reason why Trump won to begin with.
As it stands, the only durable policy win of his term so far was achieved on a bipartisan basis and mostly passed before he even took office: the Laken Riley Act. Why isn't the opposition party acting as opposition?
> If you care about the US remaining a functioning democracy, you should work in whatever way you can toward removing the current administration from power.
The U.S. is already not a functioning democracy (see 2016 and 2020), and removing the current administration from power (illegally?) will not change that.
This constant cycle of ineffective freakouts that America's liberal bloc find themselves in every 4 years is a large part of the reason why Trump won to begin with.
not disagreeing with anything you wrote, well, except that very last line.
he won because many groups of people were promised exactly what they wanted to hear. majority of america is very dumb. to the point it seems intentional. they reject any attempt to be informed about this subject. people routinely having abortions voted trump. people on SSI voted for trump. unemployed people voted for trump. disabled veterans voted for trump. literal nazis trump -- and i'm not saying HE is one, i'm saying that his campaign made sure they see him as one, and it absolutely worked ... over and over again against many of these groups whom are just frothing for fellow haters
i get really upset trying to figure out how to resolve this. but i can't even talk to the couple of relatives i have who are in this cult. if they detect you aren't praising the leader, things get hostile fast.
he won because many groups of people were promised exactly what they wanted to hear. majority of america is very dumb. to the point it seems intentional. they reject any attempt to be informed about this subject. people routinely having abortions voted trump. people on SSI voted for trump. unemployed people voted for trump. disabled veterans voted for trump. literal nazis trump -- and i'm not saying HE is one, i'm saying that his campaign made sure they see him as one, and it absolutely worked ... over and over again against many of these groups whom are just frothing for fellow haters
i get really upset trying to figure out how to resolve this. but i can't even talk to the couple of relatives i have who are in this cult. if they detect you aren't praising the leader, things get hostile fast.
I think the way out is to offer an alternative vision for the future that speaks to their wants and needs. The problem is that it can't happen overnight -- attacking the cult leader just raises their hackles. People have to come to that conclusion themselves. The Democrats don't have the ability to raise an effective counter to Trump at the moment that isn't an attack on the man himself. There's no substantive positive vision for the future -- because part of mainstream liberal politics is the idea that things are mostly ok as they are, minus some egalitarian tweaks in terms of rights for certain minority groups, etc.
But people have the sense -- in some cases rightfully and in some not -- that their lives aren't going great. So they look to someone to offer an opportunity for change. And they're willing -- really primed, by all of American society -- to throw under the bus whatever boogeyman is necessary as dictated by the Fox News monster of the week™
But people have the sense -- in some cases rightfully and in some not -- that their lives aren't going great. So they look to someone to offer an opportunity for change. And they're willing -- really primed, by all of American society -- to throw under the bus whatever boogeyman is necessary as dictated by the Fox News monster of the week™
[deleted]
hamhock666(3)
The FBI and 51 Intelligence officials signed a document saying Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation 2-3 weeks before the last election, when in fact it was actually Hunter Biden's laptop.
Is this a true statement or not?
Is this a true statement or not?
The FBI never made such a statement, and the 51 *former* intelligence officers made a statement that, in their opinion, the laptop contained hallmarks of Russian disinformation, and all of this occurred 2 weeks before the 2020 election for maximum political effect.
[deleted]
> Plus remember: he doesn't need to be a dictator, because he won a democratic election.
He was elected President, not king. The laws being broken applied to all previous election winners.
He was elected President, not king. The laws being broken applied to all previous election winners.
King Charles III is many Kings and quite a few other head of states/dominions/Mann! He does not have many of the powers that Trump is deploying.
It may turn out to be ironic that you describe Trump and our Monarch (or any other) within the same breath.
Please recall (or look up) what happened to Charles I of England.
It may turn out to be ironic that you describe Trump and our Monarch (or any other) within the same breath.
Please recall (or look up) what happened to Charles I of England.
You know the guy who was elected was prepared to stay in power had his insurrectionists been a little better planned.
Histerioinics and history are not associated with the same word.
Grow up.
Histerioinics and history are not associated with the same word.
Grow up.
I mean, he's literally gone on live TV, in an official briefing, saying he's going to take over the Gaza Strip. With no authority except his own. This is exactly how dictators across the world operate after they're initially elected.
Trump has already signaled he plans to run for a (as of right now) unconstitutional third term.
Time is not on his side.
With the best healthcare in the world available, I definitely won't be getting my hopes up on that. And furthermore the order of succession isn't much better.
Where did he signal this?
Once you find the quote, go onto politco (a not exactly pro-trump site) fact-checking service to get the full context.
Once you find the quote, go onto politco (a not exactly pro-trump site) fact-checking service to get the full context.
What full context am I missing?
Here from his own mouth https://youtube.com/shorts/DpVsZZtEpS8?feature=shared
And a proposed amendment to go with it, excluding Obama of course https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-propo...
Here from his own mouth https://youtube.com/shorts/DpVsZZtEpS8?feature=shared
And a proposed amendment to go with it, excluding Obama of course https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-propo...
Literally one guy proposed an amendment in an attempt to brown nose his boss.
It has practically zero support and has an actual zero chance of being ratified.
It has practically zero support and has an actual zero chance of being ratified.
I actually agree with you, I don’t think a constitutional amendment will be ratified in my lifetime. But a lot of things I didn’t think I’d ever see have happened in the last two weeks
[deleted]
[deleted]
>he doesn't need to be a dictator, because he won a democratic election
So did Hitler.
So did Hitler.
I wish that in 100 years Hitler becomes truly synonymous to "Satan", and instead of "satanic" or "demonic" people would say "hitleric". Because it sounds cooler and it suits the way how people throw "hitlers" at each other online.
Culture war as a feature flag is so good. I’m definitely reusing that.
> it takes the reigning POTUS to realize its causing problems that are impacting wealthy elites (24 hours in the case of tariffs)
He didn't "realize" anything. All of the show we're seeing was planned posturing and "deal-making by leverage". We shouldn't be accepting even talking about the US annexing Greenland FFS - but here we are, with credible proposals for installing new US military presence on Greenland being discussed. That's alarming.
> 4 years.
Bold of you to assume there will be elections in four years, that these elections will be anywhere close to fair, or that the people who voted for the 47th won't just vote for him (or his successor, assuming the 47th goes six-feet-under) again.
He didn't "realize" anything. All of the show we're seeing was planned posturing and "deal-making by leverage". We shouldn't be accepting even talking about the US annexing Greenland FFS - but here we are, with credible proposals for installing new US military presence on Greenland being discussed. That's alarming.
> 4 years.
Bold of you to assume there will be elections in four years, that these elections will be anywhere close to fair, or that the people who voted for the 47th won't just vote for him (or his successor, assuming the 47th goes six-feet-under) again.
There has been no revolutionary change in governance since FDR. The federal apparatus has been tightening the screws with ever vaster and more expensive compendium of regulations and laws. End result, about the largest incarcerated population of the world.
The parties in power failed to unwind any of this so instead they got an unhinged strongman who promised to do it with a sledgehammer. Trump is a symptom rather than a cause.
The parties in power failed to unwind any of this so instead they got an unhinged strongman who promised to do it with a sledgehammer. Trump is a symptom rather than a cause.
Last I heard El Salvador was offering to help expand the prison population.
> The parties in power failed to unwind any of this so instead they got an unhinged strongman who promised to do it with a sledgehammer.
... and will do just the opposite of what he promised and they were hoping for. Recent news about how scientific grants are being retroactively reviewed for any signs of "woke" language - if that isn't a vast expansion of governmental authoritarian powers, I seriously don't know what is.
... and will do just the opposite of what he promised and they were hoping for. Recent news about how scientific grants are being retroactively reviewed for any signs of "woke" language - if that isn't a vast expansion of governmental authoritarian powers, I seriously don't know what is.
> We shouldn't be accepting even talking about the US annexing Greenland FFS
Genuine question: why? Expansionism may be out of style, but I don't see how it's inherently evil.
Genuine question: why? Expansionism may be out of style, but I don't see how it's inherently evil.
> Expansionism may be out of style, but I don't see how it's inherently evil.
Any society IMHO has the right to self-determination and self-sovereignty, as long as they adhere to at least the minimum standards of civilized societies aka UDHR - and the governments of those that don't even pay lip service to it should be fair game for everyone else to depose, we've seen the horrors of Syria, the new Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the genocides of Russia (against Ukrainians), Myanmar and China (Uyghurs and Tibetans) or the kleptocracy that was Gaza under Hamas, enough is enough and someone has to at least enforce the basic laws of humanity.
In the end, the people of Greenland should be the ones that have the say about what happens to their country, not the Americans, and for all I care the question if Denmark should have authority over Greenland should be seriously reconsidered as well given the atrocities of the last decades - among others, kidnapping children and forcibly sterilizing women [1].
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/greenland-denmark-relations-scandals/a...
Any society IMHO has the right to self-determination and self-sovereignty, as long as they adhere to at least the minimum standards of civilized societies aka UDHR - and the governments of those that don't even pay lip service to it should be fair game for everyone else to depose, we've seen the horrors of Syria, the new Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the genocides of Russia (against Ukrainians), Myanmar and China (Uyghurs and Tibetans) or the kleptocracy that was Gaza under Hamas, enough is enough and someone has to at least enforce the basic laws of humanity.
In the end, the people of Greenland should be the ones that have the say about what happens to their country, not the Americans, and for all I care the question if Denmark should have authority over Greenland should be seriously reconsidered as well given the atrocities of the last decades - among others, kidnapping children and forcibly sterilizing women [1].
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/greenland-denmark-relations-scandals/a...
2. 12+ years.
> 1. 4 years.
That's optimistic.
We put a business executive in charge of the federal government. There's no such thing as term limits or checks-and-balances in the mind of a business executive, just taking a good horse out of the race and inefficiencies. On the first count, if Trump's still in relatively good health, I could absolutely see him making that case for scrapping the term limit on the Presidency.
That's optimistic.
We put a business executive in charge of the federal government. There's no such thing as term limits or checks-and-balances in the mind of a business executive, just taking a good horse out of the race and inefficiencies. On the first count, if Trump's still in relatively good health, I could absolutely see him making that case for scrapping the term limit on the Presidency.
> On the first count, if Trump's still in relatively good health, I could absolutely see him making that case for scrapping the term limit on the Presidency.
He isn't. Even absent any impact that catching covid may have had on his body, he's visibly obese. More detailed reports on his health are hard to come by thanks to (a) that being private, and (b) the extremely noisy people who either want to demonise or deify him, but it's not unreasonable to think he's got a 25% chance of old age catching up with him fatally by the end of this term.
But if the term limits get scrapped, I wouldn't be surprised to see a return of Bush or Obama as alternatives. Or Bill Clinton. Bill, George, and Donald were all born in 1946.
(1946 was also the same year the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council started meeting. Coincidence, or the secret world government? Coincidence, obviously).
He isn't. Even absent any impact that catching covid may have had on his body, he's visibly obese. More detailed reports on his health are hard to come by thanks to (a) that being private, and (b) the extremely noisy people who either want to demonise or deify him, but it's not unreasonable to think he's got a 25% chance of old age catching up with him fatally by the end of this term.
But if the term limits get scrapped, I wouldn't be surprised to see a return of Bush or Obama as alternatives. Or Bill Clinton. Bill, George, and Donald were all born in 1946.
(1946 was also the same year the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council started meeting. Coincidence, or the secret world government? Coincidence, obviously).
They're aiming for "scrap term limits, but only for Presidents who have served non-consecutive terms". (Or it's all just "notice me senpai" from the soulless minions in Congress. Maybe both.)
[deleted]
> I could absolutely see him making that case for scrapping the term limit
They're already working on a constitutional amendment to allow a third term[0] and right wing lawyers have suggested that there are legal strategies Trump could try employing to stay in power. That along with Trump himself "jokingly" saying that we won't need to vote again if he's elected does not inspire confidence.
0: https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-propo...
They're already working on a constitutional amendment to allow a third term[0] and right wing lawyers have suggested that there are legal strategies Trump could try employing to stay in power. That along with Trump himself "jokingly" saying that we won't need to vote again if he's elected does not inspire confidence.
0: https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-propo...
Luckily a constitutional amendment has 0% chance of being ratified by enough states, even if they're somehow able to get a supermajority in both houses of Congress. Any legislation in that direction is just a distraction. It's the other strategies we need to watch more carefully.
Four years? Oh, honey...
Where do I put money on the MAGA-Nazis pulling a Putin on future elections? I suppose Putin isn't the first one to do rigged elections, somehow he's the only one currently in my mind.
Sadly Wikipedia doesn't have an article entitled "List of Rigged Elections"...
Where do I put money on the MAGA-Nazis pulling a Putin on future elections? I suppose Putin isn't the first one to do rigged elections, somehow he's the only one currently in my mind.
Sadly Wikipedia doesn't have an article entitled "List of Rigged Elections"...
I really do expect them to try. I am slightly hopeful that this clown show of an administration is too incompetent to pull it off. The judicial branch appears to be bought and paid for, so maybe my optimism is unfounded.
pc86(1)
pc86(1)
This seems just as ridiculous and frustrating as a few years ago, dropping whatever they're doing to remove "master" and "whitelisting" from the code. Different team, same silliness.
1. This is removing actual content, not just changing internal naming. "Children/Families affected by systematic discrimination/bias/exclusion" will simply no longer be able to find grants targeted at them.
2. The amount of effort being put into this is much higher than GitHub changing their default for new repos to "main"
2. The amount of effort being put into this is much higher than GitHub changing their default for new repos to "main"
> The amount of effort being put into this is much higher than GitHub changing their default for new repos to "main"
Sorry but that's bullshit. This is just deleting a few words from static content. The whole `main` thing required:
* Github (and Gitlab etc.) to make `master` configurable - an entirely new feature.
* All tooling that previously could assume a default of `master` now can't have a sensible default. You have to specify every time.
* Users to remember which one to use for every repo.
This is still causing me pain. Repos I use are about 50:50 split between `main` and `master`. I sure do love having to retype `git switch master` half the time I do it.
This is dumb, but it definitely is less effort than the dumb `main` change.
Sorry but that's bullshit. This is just deleting a few words from static content. The whole `main` thing required:
* Github (and Gitlab etc.) to make `master` configurable - an entirely new feature.
* All tooling that previously could assume a default of `master` now can't have a sensible default. You have to specify every time.
* Users to remember which one to use for every repo.
This is still causing me pain. Repos I use are about 50:50 split between `main` and `master`. I sure do love having to retype `git switch master` half the time I do it.
This is dumb, but it definitely is less effort than the dumb `main` change.
Having to keep track of what branch has been arbitrarily tapped as the trunk in a repo is not reasonably comparable to stripping Americans of recognition and rights.
The former may annoy some folks until they standardize or figure out a way to tag the repos. The latter is actively aiming to be detrimental to people in a large way, and unless stopped, will very likely succeed in that goal.
The former may annoy some folks until they standardize or figure out a way to tag the repos. The latter is actively aiming to be detrimental to people in a large way, and unless stopped, will very likely succeed in that goal.
I deal with the main/master brouhaha by using a script I wrote that determines the name of the appropriate branch:
(This is of course irrelevant to the topic of the top-level post.)
#!/bin/bash
git remote show origin | sed -n '/^ *HEAD branch: */s///p'
git switch $(git master)
(This is of course irrelevant to the topic of the top-level post.)
Ah neat! Might have to steal that. Let's just hope nobody decides that "origin" is racist too...
[deleted]
You didn't have to do this, there was no EO.
Ah so is there a way I can magically get everyone to go back to `master`?
To get *everyone* to magically go back would require *forcing me* to go back. Very few of the places I worked kept the default name anyway, for entirely unrelated reasons. Call the default branch "A" for all I care. Or "Release". Or "Primary". Or "Root".
Sure, I know the etymology doesn't go to what it sounds like, but even without any culture war stuff — and this is very mild, I view "not using 'master'" in this context as "being polite" — even without culture war stuff, what you're whinging about was already something people had to handle.
Sure, I know the etymology doesn't go to what it sounds like, but even without any culture war stuff — and this is very mild, I view "not using 'master'" in this context as "being polite" — even without culture war stuff, what you're whinging about was already something people had to handle.
So I am forced to deal with the main/master mess. That's what I thought. I don't know why you commented.
"Very few of the places I worked kept the default name anyway, for entirely unrelated reasons."
You already had the problem you're whinging about, even without any culture war.
And I really do mean it when I say you are 'whinging' here: of all the things people in software have to deal with, what something is called is among the more trivial.
A policy that strips people of money, even with good reason, is much more disruptive than "what's this called?", that you call this "bullshit" and *this* is your comparison? It's like a posh person in WW1 saying that their caviar being rationed is more important than the troops getting winter jackets.
You already had the problem you're whinging about, even without any culture war.
And I really do mean it when I say you are 'whinging' here: of all the things people in software have to deal with, what something is called is among the more trivial.
A policy that strips people of money, even with good reason, is much more disruptive than "what's this called?", that you call this "bullshit" and *this* is your comparison? It's like a posh person in WW1 saying that their caviar being rationed is more important than the troops getting winter jackets.
It isn't though. This is the beginning of wiping LGBTQ from any federal government concerns, grants, programs, health data, etc. It's been pretty obvious for the past 2 weeks that Trump doesn't care about the law, nor do his acolytes or GOP Congress members who have failed to stand up for the very role of the Congress as a check to Presidential and Judicial power. They passed these laws, the President has to go through them to make changes to them, not do end runs around the law disguised as Musk and his minions
Why should people get grants because of who they choose to sleep with?
Why should people not get specific needs cared for, to exist for instance, because of who they choose to sleep with? I think that question precedes yours in priority.
Could you give me an example of someone whose sexual preferences mean they are unable to "exist" unless they have a government grant?
A friend of mine got a stone thrown to his head because he was holding hands with someone from the same sex.
He barely survived and today, I think 10 years later, he still suffers from severe migraines and doesn't have movement in half his body.
And I wouldn't blame you if you didn't believe me. I sometimes also don't believe this happened, that that was just a bad dream. That we actually need laws to prevent people from killing each other just because.
He barely survived and today, I think 10 years later, he still suffers from severe migraines and doesn't have movement in half his body.
And I wouldn't blame you if you didn't believe me. I sometimes also don't believe this happened, that that was just a bad dream. That we actually need laws to prevent people from killing each other just because.
Because they're a usefully distinct group from the point of view of epidemiological studies.
Iirc, lgbtq removal involved removing gender studies and pages regarding sexual and women's health. It hadn't to do with grants
I use "git switch -"
Usually you're switching from a feature branch back to main or master anyway.
Usually you're switching from a feature branch back to main or master anyway.
Less effort on that repo? Sure. Less effort replicated over the entire US government? No, sorry, don't buy it.
... and the git changes were allowed to happen on a sane schedule.
Oh, and most of the people or projects affected by the git change got a choice.
... and the git changes were allowed to happen on a sane schedule.
Oh, and most of the people or projects affected by the git change got a choice.
> 2. The amount of effort being put into this is much higher than GitHub changing their default for new repos to "main"
The buck didn't stop with that useless piece of wokeism that, oh so curiously, didn't go after master degrees.
The funniest thing when red is in power instead of blue is how all the blue people pretend their crap was good and the crap of red is bad and how it's not about the action but about who does it.
The buck didn't stop with that useless piece of wokeism that, oh so curiously, didn't go after master degrees.
The funniest thing when red is in power instead of blue is how all the blue people pretend their crap was good and the crap of red is bad and how it's not about the action but about who does it.
Except that replacing "master" with "main" probably didn't affect the lives of people subject to systemic discrimination. This might do
I agree with the parent comment, but believe you have the more correct and important perspective in the current context.
They are both probably forms of overcorrection, this too far in the wrong direction where the former could have been too far in the more ideal direction.
Pandering is not as bad as discrimination, as you’ve pointed out.
They are both probably forms of overcorrection, this too far in the wrong direction where the former could have been too far in the more ideal direction.
Pandering is not as bad as discrimination, as you’ve pointed out.
It does not seem fair to me to exclude
or include people in financial aid programs based on the colour of their skin. Individual circumstances seems like a much fairer and much less divisive system.
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2686895-equality-equity-just... , hopefully this is still visible to the people in oppressed regimes..
This comments section seem to be full of the "Fuck Woke DEI" Maganazis and mentioning "systemic racism" will trigger them, but if you're still reading, look at George Floyd, in an alternate world, he'd be a wealthy person descendant of landowners, but in this reality, his grandparents' land was stolen, he grew up poor (and black) and ended up being yet another black-murdered-by-cop figure: https://dwkcommentaries.com/2020/10/08/a-moving-biography-of... . But snowflakes get triggered if there's an idea of better treatment for descendants of victims of systemic racism (another snowflake trigger word).
To the snowflakes: Hey, why care about all that, your continued violence has won you the ethno-supremacy fascism you wanted, where being white and incompetent doesn't matter, because you'll get that cushy job anyway!
This comments section seem to be full of the "Fuck Woke DEI" Maganazis and mentioning "systemic racism" will trigger them, but if you're still reading, look at George Floyd, in an alternate world, he'd be a wealthy person descendant of landowners, but in this reality, his grandparents' land was stolen, he grew up poor (and black) and ended up being yet another black-murdered-by-cop figure: https://dwkcommentaries.com/2020/10/08/a-moving-biography-of... . But snowflakes get triggered if there's an idea of better treatment for descendants of victims of systemic racism (another snowflake trigger word).
To the snowflakes: Hey, why care about all that, your continued violence has won you the ethno-supremacy fascism you wanted, where being white and incompetent doesn't matter, because you'll get that cushy job anyway!
I hope that this was valued in accordance to other values. Eg. A rich black kid in Washington probably wouldn't be eligible to receive this grants, while a poor white kid in Kentucky would. I also hope that "systemic discrimination" would take into account more than just skin color
No. This is the idiocy that continues to undermine any argument from free speech or forced speech. You cannot just agree with the language you like. You have to be able to live with horrible, horrid language that you detest and then, maybe, we can have some semblance of sense come back. Words don't hurt people. People do. Case in point, it is not words that are deleting those words. It is actions.
You are part of the problem. Yes. You.
You are part of the problem. Yes. You.
I'm not sure if I am understanding your message. You are trying to say that I should live without dei messages? If so, I live in a country where I basically lived half of my (pretty short yet, tbh) life without those kind of messages. I was too young to be offended by the lack of messages, I'm now grateful that there is a consideration for different backgrounds.
An example might be jobs postings, in computer science the tone used for the post might discourage more women to apply than man. Having a process to ensure this doesn't happen results in more women applying, but more men as well, the increase is just less than woman in %
I also not see an issue with changing a word that has a bleak history with one that hasn't, it doesn't remove anything from people
An example might be jobs postings, in computer science the tone used for the post might discourage more women to apply than man. Having a process to ensure this doesn't happen results in more women applying, but more men as well, the increase is just less than woman in %
I also not see an issue with changing a word that has a bleak history with one that hasn't, it doesn't remove anything from people
<< I also not see an issue with changing a word that has a bleak history with one that hasn't, it doesn't remove anything from people
I will be very blunt. You are simply wrong. Not just inaccurate, but wrong. Not technically wrong, but wrong. If it removes word, it removes something. And since "something" is far, far removed from 'not anything'. You are factually wrong. As in, you cannot get more wrong than you just did. Fucking QED.
I will be very blunt. You are simply wrong. Not just inaccurate, but wrong. Not technically wrong, but wrong. If it removes word, it removes something. And since "something" is far, far removed from 'not anything'. You are factually wrong. As in, you cannot get more wrong than you just did. Fucking QED.
It is changed, not removed. This time is removed. Honestly, I don't get your point. Mind your words jesus
Friend, if the word is 'changed' from X to Y, then word X ceased to be used in favor of word Y. In other words, word X is removed. I mind my words fairly carefully. The point is what I wrote in previous paragraph. I have only mentioned it thrice..
No, those are identifiers that appear only in code. It's an IDE or git rename with no impact on the product.
In this case, the engineers are changing the functionality of the product, not just changing code identifiers.
In this case, the engineers are changing the functionality of the product, not just changing code identifiers.
So whether you agree with the policy aims or not, wouldn't that mean this is actually productive work while trawling through git histories changing "master" to "main" is just a nonproductive waste of time.
Did you tax money fund any master->main branch renamings?
This could be seen as technical debt, inherited by the current administration. These changes should have never taken place.
I imagine some government agencies do use git so the answer is likely yes.
"Whether or not you agree with the policy aims, wouldn't this mean that the death camps are actually doing productive work?"
You can't ignore the policy aims when determining what is "productive" as productivity is directly to the end result. It's WORSE that this is productive vs non-productive.
You're "Tired of nazi comparisons" when... Musk did two Nazi Salutes! He brought the comparison on by doing a Nazi salute! Twice! You're the one who refuses to see a salute for what it is.
You can't ignore the policy aims when determining what is "productive" as productivity is directly to the end result. It's WORSE that this is productive vs non-productive.
You're "Tired of nazi comparisons" when... Musk did two Nazi Salutes! He brought the comparison on by doing a Nazi salute! Twice! You're the one who refuses to see a salute for what it is.
1) Were employees ordered to implement PRs to go through all code and auto-remove all mentions of "master" and "whitelist" from public facing code (not just internal identifiers).
2) False equivalency.
2) False equivalency.
> Were employees ordered to implement PRs to go through all code and auto-remove all mentions of "master" and "whitelist" from public facing code (not just internal identifiers)
Uhm, yes. Yes they were.
Here's one example:
https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2021/09/renaming-whi...
Uhm, yes. Yes they were.
Here's one example:
https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2021/09/renaming-whi...
We're talking about gov employees here
Ah so the morality of censorship depends on exactly who your employer is. Got it.
Nope; the OP's argument was that the previous administration did the same thing. Stay on track with the discussion.
I am on track. You've misread. They never said that the previous administration was responsible for the whole `master` thing.
> This seems just as ridiculous and frustrating as a few years ago, dropping whatever they're doing to remove "master" and "whitelisting" from the code. Different team, same silliness.
> This seems just as ridiculous and frustrating as a few years ago, dropping whatever they're doing to remove "master" and "whitelisting" from the code. Different team, same silliness.
TeeMassive(1)
Most places only changed that terminology on external viewable materials and the requests for removing terms from the code were just dumped in the backlog for some intern to maybe get to one day.
I could go pull my company's JIRA ticket and I guarantee you it hasn't been touched since 2020.
These companies were only going to do enough work for a PR win and nothing more.
I could go pull my company's JIRA ticket and I guarantee you it hasn't been touched since 2020.
These companies were only going to do enough work for a PR win and nothing more.
It's Microsoft. If they were serious they would have, say, refused to sell Office licenses to the worst-offending police departments. Instead they renamed master to main. If it was me (it's not, I'm a pasty white guy) I'd find it condescending. But it's also harmless, and shorter to type. It's not a hill I'm going to die on, and the false equivalency smacks of bad faith.
I agree. There is no way people being annoying about some possibly inconsiderate naming conventions is the same as malicious actors going out of their way to delete information.
I was just pointing out that the companies that changed terminology due to “wokeness” only did it for a PR. It was never an actual endorsement of progressive politics or whatever these dorks try to sell it as.
I was just pointing out that the companies that changed terminology due to “wokeness” only did it for a PR. It was never an actual endorsement of progressive politics or whatever these dorks try to sell it as.
Sorry if it came off like I wasn't agreeing. Whatever the progressive equivalent of greenwashing is. That.
In addition to what others have said about the very real effects on the people using these programs, one was mandated by the government, the other was companies being performative. There is a vast difference.
that was really stupid but mostly harmless, this will cause a lot of people to actually suffer
Welcome to the era of the Conservative Justice Warrior. They're deploying all of the same annoying and repressive tactics that got progressives booted from power with breakneck speed.
So in your world, rm and mv accomplish the same thing?
Removing racistly coded language isn’t ridiculous. There’s a reason we don’t use words like “negro” anymore, too.
You're completely right. It's a shame that instead of doing that people were worried about terms like "whitelist."
One is about a set of words which have no practical effect on function, the other is about an unelected apparatchik with questionable foreign links deliberately destroying the administrative and constitutional integrity of a superpower.
It really isn't a both sides situation.
It really isn't a both sides situation.
Oh sure, this is 100% the same..
Did you also complain when they made these changes in the first place?
The corollary is that they were very motivated to do so.
i cant imagine having my boss tell me to do this shit. i would quit
Some people still need to feed themselves and their families.
But if there was an option, they definitely should.
But if there was an option, they definitely should.
Having people with integrity quit is a secondary goal. And with the compliant people remaining, they can do a slippery slope, with the people thinking "Well I've already done X, X+1 isn't that much worse". Slash they'll absorb the Nazi propaganda as "acceptable".
Gas chambers when?
Gas chambers when?
If the people with integrity quit, they have less overall capacity. An alternative is to get your union to be political and strike over this shit. If you don't resist in some capacity, you are just helping them.
imagine being told to spend a week re-doing builds to rename "master" to "main"
These are not exactly equal. I'm not saying that I am particularly triggered by such titles (even when they apply to my family history, genealogy, etc) but there are some people who are and accomodating them is not a huge impact.
Changing the names back because you were upset that somone changed them in the first place, with the express knowledge that some people may be affected by this, is a dick move.
One of these moves is a virtue signal, yes, but it has no real impact once completed. This current move from 'main' to 'master' is designed to both virtue signal and to upset/piss people off/etc.
Changing the names back because you were upset that somone changed them in the first place, with the express knowledge that some people may be affected by this, is a dick move.
One of these moves is a virtue signal, yes, but it has no real impact once completed. This current move from 'main' to 'master' is designed to both virtue signal and to upset/piss people off/etc.
That was stupid, but not evil.
Everyone had to do the same shit with the master->main thing
Here is a way to monitor these changes in real-time: https://play.clickhouse.com/play?user=play#U0VMRUNUIGNyZWF0Z...
The SQL query:
The SQL query:
SELECT created_at, 'https://github.com/'||repo_name||'/issues/'||number AS url, event_type, actor_login, repo_name, title FROM github_events WHERE match(title, '\\bDEI\\b') ORDER BY created_at DESCWait... HOW?!
A concurrent parallel in the private sphere: I see today that all the pride/heritage weeks or months have disappeared from my Google Calendar.
Digging into Settings (on desktop web) reveals options to turn on "Regional" and "Global religious" holidays e.g. "Start of Ramadan" -- but apparently no way whatever to recover the disappeared -- not even via menu button "Browse calendars of interest".
Digging into Settings (on desktop web) reveals options to turn on "Regional" and "Global religious" holidays e.g. "Start of Ramadan" -- but apparently no way whatever to recover the disappeared -- not even via menu button "Browse calendars of interest".
How it was done when GitHub didn't exist yet - my uncle's story about his time in the school in USSR : Children, open the history book at page 54, you see the photo titled "Soviet Marshal, Hero of Revolution ...". Now take the ink bottle and pour the ink over that photo as he is an enemy of the people.
It's still that way in China -- I saw high school or college textbooks with pages glued together or removed.
Seems like it's just a PR for removing it from the government website?
Also, looks like they're adding a deletedAt field and soft deleting items in the database rather than hard delete.
Also, looks like they're adding a deletedAt field and soft deleting items in the database rather than hard delete.
> Seems like it's just a PR for removing it from the government website?
As a new crash priority ordered from outside by people who have probably never heard of the project. Not disruptive or anything. That's definitely how you manage a large organization.
Oh, and this particular "PR" does nothing to aid anybody or improve anything. There's that, too.
> Also, looks like they're adding a deletedAt field and soft deleting items in the database rather than hard delete.
Protecting themselves in case it gets rolled back, I imagine. When you get toddlers in charge, you can expect new "crash priority" rule changes on a daily basis, so you learn to prepare.
As a new crash priority ordered from outside by people who have probably never heard of the project. Not disruptive or anything. That's definitely how you manage a large organization.
Oh, and this particular "PR" does nothing to aid anybody or improve anything. There's that, too.
> Also, looks like they're adding a deletedAt field and soft deleting items in the database rather than hard delete.
Protecting themselves in case it gets rolled back, I imagine. When you get toddlers in charge, you can expect new "crash priority" rule changes on a daily basis, so you learn to prepare.
The word "just" there is doing a lot to gloss over the absurdity of government workers ordered to censor the word 'equity' instead of doing actual work.
Good. The racism under the guise of DEI was insane.
I struggle to connect what's described in this article to preventing racism. Care to explain?
In itself not much. But that’s what the executive order to remove DEI is about, and this isa symptom of it.
I think meritocracies are good, and racism in all forms are bad.
I think meritocracies are good, and racism in all forms are bad.
Say there are two kids: little Billy and little Cody.
Billy has been pampered all his life. He was from a rich family who gave him everything, including the best education. He had ample free time to be a kid. He was personally escorted to school on a horse and had private tutors on call. His final grade was 80/100.
Cody lived in the slums. His family barely got money to eat most days. Cody had to work to help support his family but through struggle was still able to attend school. He had to do his homework on the bus. His life was full of hardship and out of necessity he did little else than work and study. His final grade was 79/100.
One day they both apply for the same job. The employer says “Well, grades don’t lie. I’m sorry Cody, but I’ll hire Billy”.
How is that a meritocracy?
The goal of these initiatives is not to give an unfair advantage to other groups, it’s to even the playing field and combat the systemic bias. If you are truly for meritocracies and are able to see past what’s right in front of your nose, you’ll realise the status quo is inherently racist. To live in a true meritocracy you have to mitigate multiple generations of harm.
Billy has been pampered all his life. He was from a rich family who gave him everything, including the best education. He had ample free time to be a kid. He was personally escorted to school on a horse and had private tutors on call. His final grade was 80/100.
Cody lived in the slums. His family barely got money to eat most days. Cody had to work to help support his family but through struggle was still able to attend school. He had to do his homework on the bus. His life was full of hardship and out of necessity he did little else than work and study. His final grade was 79/100.
One day they both apply for the same job. The employer says “Well, grades don’t lie. I’m sorry Cody, but I’ll hire Billy”.
How is that a meritocracy?
The goal of these initiatives is not to give an unfair advantage to other groups, it’s to even the playing field and combat the systemic bias. If you are truly for meritocracies and are able to see past what’s right in front of your nose, you’ll realise the status quo is inherently racist. To live in a true meritocracy you have to mitigate multiple generations of harm.
> He was from a rich family who gave him everything, including the best education. He had ample free time to be a kid. He was personally escorted to school on a horse and had private tutors on call.
> His family barely got money to eat most days. Cody had to work to help support his family but through struggle was still able to attend school. He had to do his homework on the bus. His life was full of hardship and out of necessity he did little else than work and study.
Cool narrative building, but this information should not matter for the employer, because that particular employer selects candidates based on grades - I see no issues with it
Your comment is also implies that a kid from a rich family should have higher grades, but it's flawed - who has more motivation to achieve something?
Also between "rich" and "poor" families there are a lot of kids from "medium" families, what about them?
> His family barely got money to eat most days. Cody had to work to help support his family but through struggle was still able to attend school. He had to do his homework on the bus. His life was full of hardship and out of necessity he did little else than work and study.
Cool narrative building, but this information should not matter for the employer, because that particular employer selects candidates based on grades - I see no issues with it
Your comment is also implies that a kid from a rich family should have higher grades, but it's flawed - who has more motivation to achieve something?
Also between "rich" and "poor" families there are a lot of kids from "medium" families, what about them?
> but this information should not matter for the employer
Of course it should. And for society too. Because it shows that under very different adversities, the person with significant hurdles was able to reach the same effective level as someone with none. It shows that one of them can overcome problems, while the other you don’t know.
If one sprinter is able to sprint over a clear open field in 20 seconds, and another is able to sprint the same distance in the same time in a muddy swamp, are you really going to argue those are equivalent?
> Your comment is also implies that a kid from a rich family should have higher grades
No, what it says is that it’s easier to achieve a goal when obstacles are removed for you. The grades are a metaphor, it’s an analogy.
> who has more motivation to achieve something?
Motivation isn’t an infinite resource. Every hurdle is a new opportunity for someone to give up because they can’t take it anymore. In case it wasn’t clear, Cody ended up failing anyway.
> Also between "rich" and "poor" families there are a lot of kids from "medium" families, what about them?
Yes, what about them? I made an analogy in a short internet comment to illustrate an idea, no one would have read a dissertation filled with subjective and hard to parse minutiae.
Of course it should. And for society too. Because it shows that under very different adversities, the person with significant hurdles was able to reach the same effective level as someone with none. It shows that one of them can overcome problems, while the other you don’t know.
If one sprinter is able to sprint over a clear open field in 20 seconds, and another is able to sprint the same distance in the same time in a muddy swamp, are you really going to argue those are equivalent?
> Your comment is also implies that a kid from a rich family should have higher grades
No, what it says is that it’s easier to achieve a goal when obstacles are removed for you. The grades are a metaphor, it’s an analogy.
> who has more motivation to achieve something?
Motivation isn’t an infinite resource. Every hurdle is a new opportunity for someone to give up because they can’t take it anymore. In case it wasn’t clear, Cody ended up failing anyway.
> Also between "rich" and "poor" families there are a lot of kids from "medium" families, what about them?
Yes, what about them? I made an analogy in a short internet comment to illustrate an idea, no one would have read a dissertation filled with subjective and hard to parse minutiae.
At the risk of repeating another comment, the problem is that DEI proponents don't care about socio-economic status or family struggles, they care about race and whether or not you're from a "historically marginalized community" for certain specific definitions of "marginalized" and "historically."
If the rich kid was black and the poor kid was white, proponents of DEI would point to the poor kid getting hired as clear-cut evidence of systemic racism against the black kid.
If the rich kid was black and the poor kid was white, proponents of DEI would point to the poor kid getting hired as clear-cut evidence of systemic racism against the black kid.
This presumes the existence of systemic bias in the first place, not to mention the fact that overt racism and sexism is the way to overcome that.
In any DEI conversation you end up with people making convoluted examples like the one you gave. Nobody is getting a job based on a 80 vs. 79 on a single exam. It's farcical. What you end up with at the end of the DEI road is making promotion, hiring, and firing decisions based on immutable characteristics of people. Okay if you really, really think that being a descendant of a slave from 300 years ago puts you at a material disadvantage today, argue to have public services available to verified descendants of slaves regardless of racial identity, and regardless of current socio-economic status.
But DEI doesn't want to help descendants of slaves. It wants to help black and brown people whether they're actually impacted or not, and it wants to avoid helping white and asian people even if they are at a socio-economic or educational disadvantage. You can't tell me with a straight face that a white person who could verify they have family lineage of slaves from the 1700s would be included as a minority in any DEI program. Look at any conversation where newspeak like "white-passing" is used unironically and this blatant racism is on clear display.
In any DEI conversation you end up with people making convoluted examples like the one you gave. Nobody is getting a job based on a 80 vs. 79 on a single exam. It's farcical. What you end up with at the end of the DEI road is making promotion, hiring, and firing decisions based on immutable characteristics of people. Okay if you really, really think that being a descendant of a slave from 300 years ago puts you at a material disadvantage today, argue to have public services available to verified descendants of slaves regardless of racial identity, and regardless of current socio-economic status.
But DEI doesn't want to help descendants of slaves. It wants to help black and brown people whether they're actually impacted or not, and it wants to avoid helping white and asian people even if they are at a socio-economic or educational disadvantage. You can't tell me with a straight face that a white person who could verify they have family lineage of slaves from the 1700s would be included as a minority in any DEI program. Look at any conversation where newspeak like "white-passing" is used unironically and this blatant racism is on clear display.
My comment was not an example, it was an analogy. It was purposefully exaggerated to drive a point, and I feel that was quite clear. It’s absurd to call an obviously made up story “farcical”.
What you are doing is conflating my point—which was to illustrate that true merit is more than what you see on the surface—with other conversations you’ve seen somewhere and attacking those. You’re arguing against something, but not any point I made.
What you are doing is conflating my point—which was to illustrate that true merit is more than what you see on the surface—with other conversations you’ve seen somewhere and attacking those. You’re arguing against something, but not any point I made.
You're completely right that I kind of got off track there and thank you for calling me out on it. But in this comment I think you're conflating merit with potential.
If we're comparing those two hypothetical people, the one with the lower score clearly has more potential as they overcame all those obstacles and did almost as well as the one who had a ton of advantages. But if (and I'm not saying this is an objectively good goal) you want to hire strictly off of merit, you hire the 80 because 80 > 79. If you want to hire on potential, it's a pretty clear choice to hire the 79.
Not every job needs to be 100% merit-focused, but some should. A pretty good, and IMO relevant, example would be basically any job in the national defense / intelligence circles. We should not care what obstacles you had to overcome to get that 79, if someone else got an 80 they're the ones that should be working at the CIA/NSA/whatever.
But there are plenty of jobs where potential is as important or more so than merit. That's part of why there's no such thing as the "two equally qualified candidates" thing that both sides like to use as examples so much.
If we're comparing those two hypothetical people, the one with the lower score clearly has more potential as they overcame all those obstacles and did almost as well as the one who had a ton of advantages. But if (and I'm not saying this is an objectively good goal) you want to hire strictly off of merit, you hire the 80 because 80 > 79. If you want to hire on potential, it's a pretty clear choice to hire the 79.
Not every job needs to be 100% merit-focused, but some should. A pretty good, and IMO relevant, example would be basically any job in the national defense / intelligence circles. We should not care what obstacles you had to overcome to get that 79, if someone else got an 80 they're the ones that should be working at the CIA/NSA/whatever.
But there are plenty of jobs where potential is as important or more so than merit. That's part of why there's no such thing as the "two equally qualified candidates" thing that both sides like to use as examples so much.
Plot twist: Billy is black and Cody is white, so you want Cody to get double discriminated against here. Which is what we see in reality, poor white men are the least represented in higher studies, even less than poor black men.
No, not “plot twist”. A meme does not validate an argument. I don’t want anyone to be discriminated against, though it’s telling that’s what you took from it.
The point of the comment is not to argue for discrimination, but to point out there is more to merit than what’s immediately in front of your face.
The point of the comment is not to argue for discrimination, but to point out there is more to merit than what’s immediately in front of your face.
Consider that you are a shareholder of the employer, or a customer of the employer, or a fellow employee. Wouldn’t you prefer that the employer hire the best candidate for the job regardless of their background?
It’s unfortunate that Cody had a rough life, but it’s not the job of his employer to help his. They aren’t a charity after all.
I also don’t know where racism played into your example at all so it’s weird you bring it up. It seems to be entirely about SES.
It’s unfortunate that Cody had a rough life, but it’s not the job of his employer to help his. They aren’t a charity after all.
I also don’t know where racism played into your example at all so it’s weird you bring it up. It seems to be entirely about SES.
this is baloney.
first, what is "personally escorted to school on a horse" supposed to be? and if he had private tutors, why did he only get 80%? and, regardless of the background, is not 80% still objectively better than 79%?
second, your example is about financial inequality. rich vs. poor. you're trying to paint a picture of a spoiled rich kid vs. a grubby gritty motivated poor kid.
but DEI is about "your color defines your opportunity" not your wealth. well, yes some races/color are over/under represented in rich/poor. but that converse is not necessarily true for individuals - an individual being a particular shade does not imply his privilege.
what happens when Billy is a wealthy minority and Cody is neither? and rich minority Billy got a 65% and Cody got a 95%? do you still give the job to Billy? because in the past people that looked like Cody were evil to people who looked like Billy? we cannot solve inequity by creating more of it.
If you are truly for equality and are able to see past what’s right in front of your nose, you’ll realize life is inherently unfair. But promoting literal racism is not going to make up for multiple generations of harm. by punishing those who had nothing to do with that harm. based on the same racism that led to the harm.
first, what is "personally escorted to school on a horse" supposed to be? and if he had private tutors, why did he only get 80%? and, regardless of the background, is not 80% still objectively better than 79%?
second, your example is about financial inequality. rich vs. poor. you're trying to paint a picture of a spoiled rich kid vs. a grubby gritty motivated poor kid.
but DEI is about "your color defines your opportunity" not your wealth. well, yes some races/color are over/under represented in rich/poor. but that converse is not necessarily true for individuals - an individual being a particular shade does not imply his privilege.
what happens when Billy is a wealthy minority and Cody is neither? and rich minority Billy got a 65% and Cody got a 95%? do you still give the job to Billy? because in the past people that looked like Cody were evil to people who looked like Billy? we cannot solve inequity by creating more of it.
If you are truly for equality and are able to see past what’s right in front of your nose, you’ll realize life is inherently unfair. But promoting literal racism is not going to make up for multiple generations of harm. by punishing those who had nothing to do with that harm. based on the same racism that led to the harm.
> How is that a meritocracy?
Because the person with the better score was chosen.
> The goal of these initiatives is not to give an unfair advantage to other groups, it’s to even the playing field and combat the systemic bias.
If that is the goal then improve the schooling, make it easier to do homework in a better environment etc. Forcing employers through the law to hire people they wouldn’t if given a free choice is not meritocratic nor helpful more generally.
Because the person with the better score was chosen.
> The goal of these initiatives is not to give an unfair advantage to other groups, it’s to even the playing field and combat the systemic bias.
If that is the goal then improve the schooling, make it easier to do homework in a better environment etc. Forcing employers through the law to hire people they wouldn’t if given a free choice is not meritocratic nor helpful more generally.
> Because the person with the better score was chosen.
Merit: the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.
Having a high score isn’t on its own meritorious. If two people achieve the same thing but one of them was being propped up while the other was being pushed down, the latter showed more skill.
> If that is the goal then improve the schooling, make it easier to do homework in a better environment etc.
Yes, all of those things should be done too. But when not being handwavey and dismiss, one realises change takes time, must be done in steps, and approached from several angles.
Merit: the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.
Having a high score isn’t on its own meritorious. If two people achieve the same thing but one of them was being propped up while the other was being pushed down, the latter showed more skill.
> If that is the goal then improve the schooling, make it easier to do homework in a better environment etc.
Yes, all of those things should be done too. But when not being handwavey and dismiss, one realises change takes time, must be done in steps, and approached from several angles.
The only objective metric given was a score, that is literally merit.
In the simplistic example (necessarily so, that’s not a criticism of it) there is not much more to go on. You can assign merit to doing homework on the bus etc, but the fact is that both those boys went into an exam at the end and one scored more than the other.
I love an underdog but that doesn’t wipe away objectivity either.
In the simplistic example (necessarily so, that’s not a criticism of it) there is not much more to go on. You can assign merit to doing homework on the bus etc, but the fact is that both those boys went into an exam at the end and one scored more than the other.
I love an underdog but that doesn’t wipe away objectivity either.
Why has hacker news turned into politics central :(
Because software engineers are being asked to perform political decisions.
Software engineers who work for the federal government are being told (not asked) to follow a lawful executive order from a democratically elected President.
They don't really have a choice in the matter.
They don't really have a choice in the matter.
"I was just following orders" is not an excuse to most moral people who learn from history. Soldiers cannot commit war crimes because their superior offices tell them to. Federal workers swear an oath on the Constitution to defend it from enemies both foreign and domestic.
You skipped right over the "lawful executive order" and "democratically elected" parts of my point pretty conveniently, there.
"I was following orders" is not a justification for committing crimes, but "I don't want to" is not a justification for not following lawful orders.
If you have actual reason to believe removing "DEI" from a drop down list on a website is not a lawful order, I would love to hear it. But you don't, which is why you're talking about soldiers and war crimes and trying to frame this as "an enemy...domestic" and not talking about what it is - changing text on websites.
"I was following orders" is not a justification for committing crimes, but "I don't want to" is not a justification for not following lawful orders.
If you have actual reason to believe removing "DEI" from a drop down list on a website is not a lawful order, I would love to hear it. But you don't, which is why you're talking about soldiers and war crimes and trying to frame this as "an enemy...domestic" and not talking about what it is - changing text on websites.
Nobody had a problem following orders in the last administration to fire container-ship loads of people.
whatabout whatabout whatabout
Being told to remove DEI wording is not comparable to a war crime, please engage in a serious discussion and leave the hysteria at the door.
Yeah this is really not the right article to complain about such a thing lol
Because of the inauguration a couple weeks ago. That's how it goes. Don't worry, it will settle down.
And also: There are an unusually larger number of actual HN angles going on in this particular new administration. This article is clearly relevant to this forum, and so is the recent Wired article about the DOGE employees.
And also: There are an unusually larger number of actual HN angles going on in this particular new administration. This article is clearly relevant to this forum, and so is the recent Wired article about the DOGE employees.
Because it is part of the world
Because tech bros and companies keep shoving themselves into politics. You’re complaining at the wrong end.
Should have been here 4, 8, 12, and 16 years ago.
src/migrations/20250122205314-definitionally-dirty-work.js Is funny.
And renamed, somebody got yelled at.
Find and replace "Equity" with "1337"?
It would be interesting to see folks align on new words to mean the same thing.
based redditors are now in control of trillions of critical infrastructure. surely this will go well and not result in untold damage and predictable backfire
Such people were already banned from Reddit for thought crimes
Okay 404, its evil that you put a fake hair on the github screenshot lmao...
Side note, I really don't give a single shit what anyone thinks about Diversity equity and Accessibility initiatives (though, I do think being opposed to requiring businesses to have wheel chair ramps and such, comically cruel) I don't know how anyone can support having 18 year old randoms having access to Federal databases and direct access to the governments pocket book, and support going far past judicial processes to illegally gut the minuscule, nearly non-existent, social safety nets that we do have. Idk how anyone in their right mind can say the wealthy deserve a trampoline, and everyone else can't even get a safety net.
Side note, I really don't give a single shit what anyone thinks about Diversity equity and Accessibility initiatives (though, I do think being opposed to requiring businesses to have wheel chair ramps and such, comically cruel) I don't know how anyone can support having 18 year old randoms having access to Federal databases and direct access to the governments pocket book, and support going far past judicial processes to illegally gut the minuscule, nearly non-existent, social safety nets that we do have. Idk how anyone in their right mind can say the wealthy deserve a trampoline, and everyone else can't even get a safety net.
I can support a diverse (young) and diverse (unknown, hired from the outside) team.
If the database is so insecure that anyone from Texas can just walk in, I would hope we find a way to secure our data.
I would assume a full audit is taking place. If not then demand it. We cannot allow people to spend our taxes without oversight.
If the database is so insecure that anyone from Texas can just walk in, I would hope we find a way to secure our data.
I would assume a full audit is taking place. If not then demand it. We cannot allow people to spend our taxes without oversight.
Please don't lump accessibility in with DEI. Accessibility is a noble goal that most everybody agrees with. DEI is, at best, an extremely divisive thing that millions of people disagree with and voted against.
Lumping them together is an attempt to save DEI by attaching it to A when they have nothing to do with each other. DEI is very new and A has been around for quite a long time at this point.
Lumping them together is an attempt to save DEI by attaching it to A when they have nothing to do with each other. DEI is very new and A has been around for quite a long time at this point.
The Remove DEI project the article has an open pr to revert the changes: https://github.com/HHS/Head-Start-TTADP/pull/2617
Would have been nice if the article mentioned that.
What does the "paranoid = true" flag in there do?
Here's a thought: laid-off tech workers should encript every database and hold the keys for ransom. Or just until these jokers are nullified.
After years of nonsense complaints about non-existent “cancel culture” and “censorship” campaigns, here we have the real thing happening right in front of our eyes. Literal “forbidden” words being deleted from government documents and already-published material. This is truly disgusting, disturbing, and vile.
> non-existent “cancel culture”
Wow I've never heard anyone deny the very existence of cancel culture before. Or is this some kind of semantic distinction-without-a-difference?
Wow I've never heard anyone deny the very existence of cancel culture before. Or is this some kind of semantic distinction-without-a-difference?
“Cancel culture” as a distinct novel thing doesn't exist; ostracism of people that diverge from a group’s values has existed forever, “cancel culture” is just a name applied to it by those indulging in certain beliefs that had previously been unquestionably dominant after they had become sufficiently controversial that those opposed to them were a significant-enough group that the ostracism that that previously dominant group had previously applied to its opponents sometimes had substantial impact in the other direction.
> “Cancel culture” as a distinct novel thing doesn't exist
Remember that something being a culture is about pervasiveness and normalization. It's not a mob harassing your employer because you posted photos with the wrong brand of political attire; it's it being culturally acceptable for a mob to harass your employer because you posted photos with the wrong brand of political attire.
Sure people protesting things is old, like you say. As are groups deciding to not associate with certain people.
But that is not in fact the same a nominally-impartial authorities encouraging protests for the purpose of having an excuse to impose a hecklers' veto on things they don't like.
And it is not the same as targeted harassment of anyone outside the ostracising group who doesn't bow to their demands.
Remember that something being a culture is about pervasiveness and normalization. It's not a mob harassing your employer because you posted photos with the wrong brand of political attire; it's it being culturally acceptable for a mob to harass your employer because you posted photos with the wrong brand of political attire.
Sure people protesting things is old, like you say. As are groups deciding to not associate with certain people.
But that is not in fact the same a nominally-impartial authorities encouraging protests for the purpose of having an excuse to impose a hecklers' veto on things they don't like.
And it is not the same as targeted harassment of anyone outside the ostracising group who doesn't bow to their demands.
> Remember that something being a culture is about pervasiveness and normalization. It's not a mob harassing your employer because you posted photos with the wrong brand of political attire; it's it being culturally acceptable for a mob to harass your employer because you posted photos with the wrong brand of political attire.
And, and that's been true forever; in fact what is attributed to cancel culture is mild compared to what has been socially acceptable within living memory for displays of political wrongthink, what changed is that that comparatively mild social consequence became acceptable against the side which had previously only been the giver but not receiver of socially acceptable consequence for noncompliance with their norms.
And, and that's been true forever; in fact what is attributed to cancel culture is mild compared to what has been socially acceptable within living memory for displays of political wrongthink, what changed is that that comparatively mild social consequence became acceptable against the side which had previously only been the giver but not receiver of socially acceptable consequence for noncompliance with their norms.
It exists in the same sense that "pie attack culture" exists. Some people certainly have been pied in the face, so how could you deny that "pie attack culture" exists?
> Some people certainly have been pied in the face, so how could you deny that "pie attack culture" exists?
By not being obtuse enough to conflate "this has happened at least once" with "this appears to be widely considered culturally acceptable".
By not being obtuse enough to conflate "this has happened at least once" with "this appears to be widely considered culturally acceptable".
"Culture" means that it has become common and normalised. If there was a big uptick in pie attacks then sure, but there hasn't.
The word got used to mean everything from "complaining about a bystander using a rude word on twitter" to "finally prosecuting somebody after enough credible rape allegations went public".
It’s kind of lame that these guys are blacklisting words based on some master list. Normally these things get grandfathered in but I guess they’re just blindly following orders after getting sold down the river. It seems like an insane waste of manpower if you ask me. I’d hate to be the low man on the totem pole slaving away at this kind of bitchwork and getting ragged on by the bossman if I missed a word.
Why didn't you use the n-word as well?
Also, do you really think it's the same? I mean, the parody you wrote with what's actually happening?
I don't support any of this reactionary nonsense, but there are certainly lists of forbidden words that grew along with the DEI movement. Of course they were forbidden for different (I'd say better) reasons, but it was ultimately also asserting power through control of language.
> the DEI movement.
"DEI" is not a movement, it is just a rebranding of Affirmative Action to emphasize the goals and break the association with (long explicitliy illegal, but often popularly associated with Affirmative Action) quota systems.
"DEI" is not a movement, it is just a rebranding of Affirmative Action to emphasize the goals and break the association with (long explicitliy illegal, but often popularly associated with Affirmative Action) quota systems.
I don't recall AA coming with affinity groups and explicit celebration and centering of differences.
How much of that accompanied foreign dissolution of Congressionally-mandated institutions?
How much of that was actually removed in a crash effort, and how much was just fliers saying "please use this other word in the future"?
It's almost like the "free speech warriors" were never being intellectually honest or actually making good faith arguments, but instead pretending to make arguments in order to frustrate, irritate, distract, and waste people's time.
"..The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward..."
- Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf (1925)[deleted]
Seems like there are more important things to do than code clean up
Indeed - doesn’t seem very “Efficiency” based does it.
Well, it went too far in one direction and now it’s gonna go too far and the other direction and I guess the only people we have to blame and the only ones who care are the ones who cared
What I don't seem to understand, and I haven't found anything about, is this: How did Elon Musk and his staff obtain log-in credentials to the databases? Or log-in credentials for anything, especially given that the people in-charge were not willing to cooperate? And after all this purging is done, can't the databases be re-loaded from the backup-tapes?
It's sort of hard to piece it together because there's not a ton of transparency about what's going on. However, there have been a number of well-sourced stories on access at the Treasury Department. David Lebryk, who previously oversaw the payments system, was placed on administrative leave after refusing to cooperate. It only takes one person to say yes.
And reloading databases isn't simple if you have to account for legitimate changes that have occurred post-backup. Given that we're talking about some of the core software that runs our government, I'd be extremely nervous about the whole thing.
And reloading databases isn't simple if you have to account for legitimate changes that have occurred post-backup. Given that we're talking about some of the core software that runs our government, I'd be extremely nervous about the whole thing.
This particular story isn't about Elon's team - the PR is authored by the regular project maintainers, presumably in response to the executive orders that are flying around right now.
The “people in charge” ie career government employees who refused to comply were walked out by security and fired. The political “people in charge” are lackeys of Trump and Musk, and they’re the ones who insisted on handing over the credentials.
Probably some version of this (with threats instead of drugs): https://xkcd.com/538/
The new Treasury Secretary gave them to him. Or Trump did. It's not complicated, it's just a coup.
I'm sure how the government functions on a technological level qualifies for "things hackers might find interesting," but the comments on these Trump/DOGE-reactionary threads are really disappointing. Too many of them are just signaling the author's ideological affiliations without adding anything substantive/curiosity-inspiring.
If someone sharing their view on an issue isn't curiosity-inspiring to you, isn't that mostly
an indication of your own incuriosity
"Land of the free" != "Forbidden words & phrases".
"Forbidden words & phrases" is a pragmatic way to express "how to follow orders at this moment", but it's not an apples-to-apples comparison against worldview-level ideals like "land of the free". One could just as easily say that removing phrases like "final solution" is against freedom -- which it clearly isn't.
AlexandrB(7)
maest(3)
So when we have to use main instead of master everyone is fine with it but now it's bad to purge words?
I think this is great news. Well done Trump & co.
I think this is great news. Well done Trump & co.
This is false equivalence. Not using the phrase master was meant to create a more inclusive environment.