Notion encourages busy-work and I'm tired of it - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/diesdas-direct/notion-encourages-busy-work-and-im-tired-of-it-b1e049edb663 <comment><USER2> I recommend against using Notion for the simple reason that they managed to make _text editing_ lag. I didn't know that was even possible with today's processing power.</comment>


NYPD is encouraging citizens to upgrade to iOS 7 - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/Hoffm/status/381564392602480640/photo/1 <comment><USER2> The NYPD seems really obsessed with preventing stolen iPhones. Why is this?

<comment><USER3> Soooo many muggings (even killings) in NYC are for iPhones. Just iPhones. I've read safety announcements that reported muggers who literally gave back the victim's phone once they realized it wasn't an iPhone.</comment></comment>


The Future of Remote Work - <AUTHOR> https://utopia.fans/networks/the-future-of-remote-work/ <comment><AUTHOR> What would you prefer? Continue working from home or you're missing the office already?</comment>


Google and the Myth of Universal - <AUTHOR> http://books.google.com/books?id=rc19MRhlUEgC&dq=google+and+the+myth+of+universal+knowledge&pg=PP1&ots=Qydq4nTeeB&sig=yrBagWZDWCM2lil6RSmmd2bqTaA&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26q%3DGoogle%2Band%2Bthe%2BMyth%2Bof%2BUniversal%2BKnowledge%26btnG%3DSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail <comment><AUTHOR> I found it ironic that a book that raises issues and concerns with Google's digitization of material available in public libraries, itself digitized on Google Books.</comment>


The Thing That Goes Beep - <AUTHOR> http://blog.crone.su/2015/08/the-thing-that-goes-beep.html <comment><USER2> I was hoping that this was a commentary on the cost of healthcare, making a clever reference with the headline to this lovely Monty Python skit: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arCITMfxvEc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arCITMfxvEc)</comment>


Intel PR allegedly sent out a "call us before you write" [about AMD Ryzen] mail - <AUTHOR> https://semiaccurate.com/2017/02/22/amds-ryzen-7-1800x-beats-intels-i7-6900k-half-price/ <comment><AUTHOR> "This last bit may explain why Intel PR sent out a last-minute "call us before you write" email to most of the press, but not SemiAccurate, after hours last night."

So nothing but a rumor at this point, but considering what Intel did in the past I'm at least inclided to believe it.</comment>


Scientists engineer mice genomes to lengthen their lifespans by 30 percent - <AUTHOR> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/science/scientists-say-they-can-reset-clock-of-aging-for-mice-at-least.html?referer=https://pay.reddit.com/r/science/comments/5ijdkz/in_the_first_attempt_to_reverse_aging_by/ <comment><USER2> tldr for biologists out there. They made a transgenic mouse line of doxycycline inducible Yamanaka factors in progeria (LAKI) background. Too high induction lead to mortality and teratomas, which is known. They cyclicly induced the Yamanaka factors and found it reversed signs of aging (prolong lifespan by ~30%)

<comment><USER3> Thanks so much. I don't know why news headline writers are so insistent on bullshit, when they could have taken a cue from you and said 'gene therapy increases mouse lifespans by 30%,' which would have been just as short and interesting but vastly more honest.

<comment><USER4> Not quite. The actual article title is far more correct than either the clickbait headline or your headline:

"In Vivo Amelioration of Age-Associated Hallmarks _of Progeria_ by Partial Reprogramming" ( _my addition_ )

<comment> bjelkeman-again But that is really hard to understand for a non-specialist. Means nothing at all for me.

<comment><USER4> Well, I'm quite sorry to hear that, but the paper was written for specialists, and its results are primarily interpretable by and relevant to specialists. Why exactly it made it into a press release and news articles is completely inexplicable when analyzed within the bounds of the work.

<comment><USER5> A popular science, or even general news type reviews of current research are very valuable. However, in the unavoidable simplifications, they do need to keep the main findings correct, not expand into outlandish claims for clickbait

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Its very noisy to read these 'blip' articles, rather like following the stock ticker blow by blow ...

Its wonderful that we see these interesting reports every week, but as a non- specialist you never how it will impact human longevity, and when.

What I'd like to read is a well considered "state-of-longevity-science" report - by someone not Aubrey DeGray (give the man a medal) but equally cognizant, perhaps more conservative - that actually explains and weighs the torrent of advancements as they happen and gives them some context.

What is the likely impact of crispr, of rosveratrol, of telomere-foo, of gene- therapy, of blood cleansing, of stem-cells on logevity in 10 / 20 years ? Where and why should we rationally allocate research money ? What is likely to benefit Alzheimers patients in the 5 year term ?

Its the kind of state of play you need updated on a monthly basis, due to the pace of progress.

Does such a report already exist ?

<comment><USER7> To my knowledge no such report exists. The only answers you'll find will come from reading dozens of articles like this one over a long span of time, mixed with reading "primary sources" (put in quotes because as often as not those sources may be trying to sell you something).

While I am not qualified to put together a comprehensive report, I've been following this subject with some interest for a while, first as a skeptic, and now as someone who believes that not all of these people are completely full of hot air.

Even with my change of heart, I'd still bet against anything in your list other than crispr having any quantifiable impact on longevity in the next decade, and even then the first applications will be specific to particular age-related diseases.

Something resembling a more full "maintenance approach" to preventing aging and age-related disease may be within reach within 20 years, but I'd bet against that, too. Sticking my finger in the air and guessing, I'd say that such a complete overhaul of medicine is at least 50 years away. Although I should stipulate my guess is only that pessimistic because I'm biased towards thinking that such advances won't be made in my own lifetime because, hey, it rarely hurts to be a pessimist.

<comment><USER8> The main problem now is delivery of such gene therapies. Crispr is pretty limited.

And human in vitro modification is taboo also wrapped in politics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Summary of pro death arguments re: longevity progress

      Fairness
        Only rich people will get it. (no tech has ever done this.)
        Better to give money to the poor than science. (family,city,state,nation, has proven local investment beats foreign.)

      Bad for society
        Dead people make more room for new, other people. (consider going first.)
        Run out of resources (live people discover/extract/renew better than dead or nonexistant)
        Overpopulation (colonize the seas, solar system, or have a war.)
          Stop having kids
          Worse wars (nukes are more dangerous than having your first 220 year old person in 2136)
        Dictators never die (they die all the time and rarely of age)

      Bad for individual
        You'll get bored. (your memory isn't that good, or your boredom isn't age related)
        You'll have to watch your loved ones die. (so you prefer they watch you?)
        You'll live forever in a terrible state. (longevity requires robustness.)
        Against gods will (not if he disallows suicide, then it is required.)

More people make more progress faster. I'm glad my parents didn't decide the world would be prettier or work better without me in it. Einstein, Bell, Tesla, Da Vinci etc, still alive and productive would be nice. You're literally asking for others to die out of your fear. The burden should be higher. Have courage. If living longer sucks, we'll know 100 years from now, and decide then. First 220 year old in 2136 unless you know how to make one faster than 1 year per year? And that's if you added 120 years to a 100 year old person starting TODAY.

Man up, save your family, save yourself.

Disclaimer: I'm half way done with a book on this topic. Mail me if you're interested. Scivive on the most popular email service.

P.S. Curing aging isn't immortality. You die at 600 on average by accident, and if the parade of imaginary horribles comes true, even earlier.

<comment><USER10> How about: bad ideas get to remain in power for much longer, because the generations of administrators/voters/executives that enforce them don't turn over.

Death ensures adaptation. For example, climate change denying oil barons have done much damage to the world, but we can take some comfort in the knowledge that they will soon die (or at least retire) and that their successors will probably be a little more enlightened. It may be too late by then, but at least it will happen.

>Run out of resources (live people discover/extract/renew better than dead or nonexistant)

One resource we are running out of is housing in economically productive areas, and it's not for lack of ingenuity, but by choice. The choice of the established, whose grip on power you propose to extend. Similarly, there is plenty of food to go around, just not enough value to trade for it in some parts of the world. What we're missing is not farming methods, but economic systems and power structures to implement then.

>You're literally asking for others to die out of your fear

The currently powerful, propertied generation is in a position to hold onto that power and property forever, via compound interest and seniority. If the current crop of 60-year-olds gets to be 600, the age of majority for voting will be 540 by the time they get there. And we will never outspend them on anything; even 20 years is a significant head start on saving and investing.

If they continue in their policies of environmental destruction and the monopolization of critical resources, like the underdevelopment of city land on aesthetic grounds, then we might not just be _asking_ them to die, but going to war to claim those resources (and the helms of government, business, etc) for the young, to manage in different ways.

Not to get too bogged down in the specifics of particular issues, but age- related death does ensure a peaceful transition of power towards people more concerned with the present era's challenges and realities, rather than trying to, i.e., save the jobs of the last century or the sexual morality of the one before it.

Maybe age doesn't come to them soon enough to prevent the damage, but it does mitigate it.

<comment><USER11> _How about: bad ideas get to remain in power for much longer, because the generations of administrators /voters/executives that enforce them don't turn over._

But also: you can have people with literally double or more experience, working on your hard problems. You also have a government that will look out much further into the future, because they will see the outcomes themselves.

<comment><USER10> Sure, but. Look at the state of the world 600 years ago, and imagine that the people at the helm were starting to hand over power just now.

I think the world would look a lot more like it did 600 years ago. Perhaps more moral by some standards, but probably also unable to replicate a technological breakthrough like the eradication of aging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The consequences of longer lifespan to social order are unimaginable. Even increase by dozen of years may result in wars and chaos, especially if the treatment will not be available to everyone. From where I stand it seems that relatively little resources are spent on the research of consequences of longer lifespan compared with the discussions we have about friendly/enemy AI, machines replacing jobs, universal income and other social order changing themes. While I am not saying scientists will stumble upon immortality tomorrow, a serious increase in lifespan may happen relatively soon.

<comment><USER13> > Even increase by dozen of years may result in wars and chaos

Care to explain? I don't see why humans living on average a dozen years longer would inevitably lead to "wars and chaos" and a breakdown of social order. Indeed, we saw lifespans increase by two dozen in the last 80 or so years and nothing happened at all.

The usual arguments about overpopulation don't seem to apply to developed countries; if anything it's the opposite. So what's the big deal? And why do you assume that any negative externalities created by life extension technology are inherently unfixable?

<comment><USER14> I don't think it's fair to say nothing happened at all.

Aging populations, coupled with low birth rates, are causing difficult political problems. In my country (UK) pensions are the biggest government expenditure next is healthcare, which the elderly use the most. This obviously has to be paid for so you have two options, raise taxes or increase immigration. Our government chose to increase immigration and a lot of people didn't like that so the government blamed the EU, this went on for a while and brexit was the eventual response.

So the chaos is already here, war might be hyperbole but a war caused by something is not unimaginable and ageing populations would be a contributing factor.

I feel there is an increasing level of bitterness directed towards the old. The government panders to them for easy votes which takes public spending from the young and my gut feeling is having policies that cater for the old is not healthy for the long term success of of a society.

<comment><USER15> The solution is to raise the pension age. Just politically difficult.

Raised pension age vs longer life, fairly obvious choice.

<comment><USER16> This is already a potential social problem with there being a link between deprivation and life expectancy. Increasing the retirement age may result in the poorest likely receiving no pension.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A Scientific American article on the same research with a useful comment here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13187302](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13187302)

Interesting bits:

"In living mice they activated the four genes (known as "Yamanaka factors," for researcher Shinya Yamanaka, the Nobelist who discovered their combined potential in 2006). This approach rejuvenated damaged muscles and the pancreas in a middle-aged mouse, ... "

"... These (other) approaches can reverse some aspects of aging, such as muscle degeneration—but aging returns when the treatment stops, he adds. With an approach like the one Belmonte lays out in the new study, theoretically "you could have one treatment and go back 10 or 20 years," he says. If aging starts to catch up to you again, you simply get another treatment."

</comment><comment><USER18> Paper:

[http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(16)31664-6](http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674\(16\)31664-6)

Caveats:

1) Doing anything to the aging of cells in culture has next to nothing to do with what goes on inside aging tissues, or where it does that is heavily dependent on the details. The article doesn't tell you enough to decide, so you should look at the paper.

2) Doing anything that attenuates the effects of an accelerated aging phenotype, actually usually a DNA repair disorder, almost always has nothing to do with aging as it happens in normal individuals. You can hit mice with hammers, and then evaluate the effects of a hammer-blocking cage, but that doesn't tell you anything about aging - and for exactly the same reasons. This is generally true except when it is isn't, and that depends on the fine details. Again, go look at the paper.

3) The interesting experiment is the one in which pluripotency-inducing factors are upregulated in a normal mouse, but temporarily. This is the thing that people have looked at in the past and said, well, turning on widespread transformation of somatic cells into pluripotent stem cells sounds like a really bad idea. Cancer seems the likely outcome, and that has in fact been demonstrated in a couple of studies in mice, but there is also the point that your central nervous system rather relies upon maintaining the fine structure it has established in many cases, such as data stored in the brain. Running in and randomly reprogramming any CNS cells that take up the vector or the pluripotency signals seems like a bad idea on the face of it.

So on the whole it is fascinating that a good outcome was produced in the normal mice, analogous to the sort of thing that has been produced via stem cell transplants and telomerase gene therapies. But I'd still want to see what happens to the mice over the long term after that, and would expect cancer.

</comment><comment><USER19> > The technique, which requires genetic engineering, cannot be applied > directly to people, but the achievement points toward better understanding > of human aging and the possibility of rejuvenating human tissues by other > means.

Still a ways off for human use but definitely interesting research.

<comment><USER20> You have to understand all the rich people in the world are scared of death and will pay anything to avoid it for as long as possible. So if aging can be reduced or cured we will be able to do it and probably relatively soon.

And this quest is as old as civilization, maybe even older:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang)

"He ruled until his death in 210 BC after a futile search for an elixir of immortality"

<comment><USER21> > all the rich people in the world are scared of death and will pay anything > to avoid it for as long as possible

This is generally true of poor people as well.

<comment><USER20> Yes, but poor people can't pay. That's why they can't solve anything. Google can spend a billion dollars on this. Multiple billions can be easily spent on this. And it's a great time for that. So much excessive capital. So many millionaires and billionaires. All going to die. What can scientists do to help them?

<comment><USER22> We're looking for extended life for some people, without being able to guarantee a regular life for all.

What a world.

<comment><USER23> Old people are expensive. If the people on Medicare were as healthy as the average 50-year-old, it would basically solve Medicare's long-term funding problem. If it cost, say, $100K every 10 years, it'd be worthwhile to give it to everyone for free.

Edit: checked numbers. There are about 40 million Americans 65 or older, and Medicare spends about $600 billion/year, for average annual spending of $15K each.

<comment><USER9> 50% of your lifetime medical cost occur in your last year of life. Old people aren't expensive, unhealthy and nearer death people are expensive. Delaying that last year of life by remaining robust is very profitable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Every life extension discussion derails into debates about foreverness; and therein lies the problem: humans of all backgrounds (even today) are dropping dead of health problems at 60 years of age. Thus, foreverness is science- fiction with our current understanding. Baby-steps first perhaps? Regardless, many agree foreverness is not possible - and if it was - I would not want it.

<comment><USER25> It's a red herring anyway. The valid question is, would you prefer to remain alive today? You're free to answer in the negative at any time, but it would be nice not to have the decision taken from you by mere biochemistry.

<comment><USER26> The valid question is actually would you prefer to be healthier today. Aging affects everyone's health (perhaps after a certain age) whether they currently realize they have some acute condition (such as cancer or imminent death) or not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> There shouldn't even be a debate between people who approve of reversing aging and those who do not. Whoever doesn't approve... when the treatment will finally be available... just don't use it! I'll use my freedom of decision and my money to extend my life, thank you! If you want to die, go ahead.

</comment><comment><USER28> What I don't understand, is that with ageing billionaires everywhere, why isn't anti-aging the most funded thing in the world? Or is it?

<comment><USER8> They perceive the field as moving too slow to reap the benefits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> See also [http://www.sens.org/research/publications?research_themes_ti...](http://www.sens.org/research/publications?research_themes_tid=253)

</comment><comment><USER29> METFORMIN also does the same [http://qz.com/431663/scientists-want-to-treat- aging-like-a-d...](http://qz.com/431663/scientists-want-to-treat-aging-like-a- disease-and-they-already-have-drugs-for-it/) and [http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21704788-fight- cheat-...](http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21704788-fight-cheat-death- hotting-up-adding-ages)

<comment><USER8> Currently probably the most impressive treatment, yes. But it is not patented, so no company can go out and make a killing off it ;-)

Much better than the second best, statins.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Original submission: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13189220](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13189220)

</comment><comment><USER30> Next thing you know, we will be getting email spam to buy Yamanaka Factor.. look 30 years younger just take this pill!

</comment><comment><USER31> Lets hope so!

<comment><USER21> Careful what you wish for. Aging and death are woven deeply into the fabric of society, indeed, into the fabric of life itself. Old growth needs to be periodically swept away to make room for new growth.

The only logically possible outcome of immortality is that sooner or later the entire biomass of the planet is consumed by immortals, at which point all growth must stop. Imagine being the last person born into such a world, doomed forever to be the youngest, least experienced, least powerful member of a static society where no one ever ages and no new people are ever born. Is that really a life you would want to lead?

<comment><USER32> > _The only logically possible outcome of immortality is that sooner or later > the entire biomass of the planet is consumed by immortals, at which point > all growth must stop._

You seem to be using the word "immortal" in some kind of fantasy meaning of "it keeps living forever no matter what". That's very clearly impossible.

Revise your definition to state instead: "keeps living indefinitely unless prevented by accident or disease, or is killed on purpose". Now see how your conclusions change.

Preventing and/or reversing aging is definitely good. If too long a life becomes a problem for some reason and you feel burdened by it, that's easily dealt with, just get a piece of rope, find a tree, and solve your own "problem".

> _Is that really a life you would want to lead?_

Your reaction is typical for a surprisingly large number of people. It's just a strategy to deal with the uncomfortable outcome of your own death, nothing more. To be able to cope with that, many people end up believing all sorts of bizarre things, such as "death is part of life", or "you don't want to live in that kind of world". Bullshit. You're just brainwashing yourself because otherwise you'd find the prospect of mortality intolerable.

An attitude that's a lot more honest is to recognize that aging and death are things we ought to fight, even though as of right now we're losing that battle.

<comment><USER21> > You're just brainwashing yourself because otherwise you'd find the prospect > of mortality intolerable.

As someone who has suffered from suicidal depression and recovered from it, I am intimately familiar with the subjective sensations both of feeling like death would suck, and feeling like it would be desirable. Your subjective sensation that death sucks has nothing to do with the objective truth, it's just a reflection of the fact that genes that build brains that think that death sucks tend to reproduce better than genes that build brains that think that death is awesome. This does not change the empirical and theoretical fact that death is in fact an integral part of life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Related reading: Misspent Youth and the Commonwealth Saga by Peter F. Hamilton. A series of sci-fi books where "rejuvenation" technology plays a significant role, its impact on society and human risk taking.

</comment><comment><USER34> Clicks on interesting hackernews post > prepares self for opposing negative comment > aaand first comment.

</comment><comment><USER35> What actually happened to the lady who did this telomere prolonging experiment on her self?

</comment><comment><USER36> It is what the rich want to hear, so there is money in saying it.

</comment><comment><USER37> what amazing time to be alive :)

</comment><comment><USER38> been hearing this since dawn of humanity. next.

<comment><USER39> world is flat as well. next.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Mightier and bloody wars will not be caused than when we finally figure out how to cure ageing.

<comment><USER41> Why? Any other thing we have invented has generally reduced war by increasing resources available to all, at least since industrialization. There are a few exception, but they were generally intended to be weapons, it seems hard to imagine an aging based weapon.

<comment><USER42> Weren't the world's bloodiest wars conducted after the advent of industrialization? The 20th appears to be the bloodiest century.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll)

<comment><USER43> It appears that way, but remember that the 20th century is also the most populous century. As a fraction of the total population killed, the 20th century is (probably) the most peaceful.

<comment><USER41> It is by a large margin. Those two wars might have fearfully awesome, but the fact that there are so many years of peace makes the 20th century the most peace Century we have completed: [http://www.hsrgroup.org/docs/Publications/HSR2013/HSR_2013_P...](http://www.hsrgroup.org/docs/Publications/HSR2013/HSR_2013_Press_Release.pdf)

Add onto that on many levels both wars were enhanced by scarcity... Germany want more in both, the assassination of the Archduke was encouraged on by a poor economy, Hitler couldn't have rose to power without a major economic crisis, there were so many failings in production and trade that might have prevented or mitigate either war.

Not aging and not dying will certainly be an economic boon. People can work longer, experts can more deeply master their fields and there will be less loss in passing knowledge down to successors. So economic production will rise and almost certainly faster than it does with aging and death.

Then the emotional factors in war and death... If people stop dying and live to see one war, they just might carry those lessons for the rest of lives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> What we need right now is more babies and young people and less old people.

Babies make everyone around them happy.

Old people are racist and suffocatingly repetitive. They never have any new ideas and spend all their time in the past. They're the brakes on progress.

Life is all about novelty. Let's have new people in this world.

</comment><comment><USER45> Between the theory that cybernetically augmented humans will become the "hard AI" of science fiction and signs that a cure for aging is nearly here, I would feel a lot more comfortable if we all started having a public debate about the limits we will set on metahumans.

A cybernetically augmented human might gain an intelligence completely alien (and hostile) to us non-augments. And an immortal-except-for-catestrophic- accidents could amass an unseemly amount of wealth and control over non- immortals over their long lives - moreso than the elites of today could dream of.

My concern about those that metahumans will hold such disproportionate power and they'll quickly get bored. Idle hands are the devil's playthings after all, and they could really make life difficult for the rest of us.

I want to see what a many-hundreds of years healthy life will be like and live many lives, but I do not want to have implants or devices that warp my mind/memory. I want to stay human, just minus the frailties. I'm hoping that these evolving new technologies sort neatly into two buckets: those that enhance but still retain the essential (limited) human experience, and those that seek to obliterate and replace the human experience (so that I know which ones to avoid.)</comment>


What are some good resources to learn about Quantum Computing? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Quantum computing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing)

Quantum algorithm: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_algorithm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_algorithm)

Quantum Algorithm Zoo: [http://math.nist.gov/quantum/zoo/](http://math.nist.gov/quantum/zoo/)

Jupyter notebooks:

* QISKit/qiskit-tutorial > "Exploring Quantum Information Concepts" [https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/QISKit/qiskit-tutorial/b...](https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/QISKit/qiskit-tutorial/blob/stable/index.ipynb)

* jrjohansson/qutip-lectures > "Lecture 0 - Introduction to QuTiP - The Quantum Toolbox in Python" [https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/jrjohansson/qutip-lectur...](https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/jrjohansson/qutip-lectures/blob/master/Lecture-0-Introduction-to-QuTiP.ipynb)

[http://qutip.org/tutorials.html](http://qutip.org/tutorials.html)

* sympy/quantum_notebooks [https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/sympy/quantum_notebooks/...](https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/sympy/quantum_notebooks/tree/master/notebooks/)

[https://github.com/topics/quantum](https://github.com/topics/quantum)

krishnakumarsekar/awesome-quantum-machine-learning: [https://github.com/krishnakumarsekar/awesome-quantum- machine...](https://github.com/krishnakumarsekar/awesome-quantum-machine- learning)

arxiv quant-ph: [https://arxiv.org/list/quant- ph/recent](https://arxiv.org/list/quant-ph/recent)

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt- quantcomp/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/)

Also has a list of open access papers at the bottom</comment>


A simple Unix daemon in Python - <AUTHOR> http://www.jejik.com/articles/2007/02/a_simple_unix_linux_daemon_in_python/

<comment><USER2> The wisdom of having your daemons daemonize themselves is debatable. I think it's better, for a variety of reasons, to run them from a supervisor which can handle things like logging and signal handling.

</comment><comment><USER3> Can someone explain why he forks the process twice? The url in the comment doesn't work.

<comment><USER2> "Under SVR4, some people recommend calling fork again at this point and having the parent terminate. The second child continues as the daemon. This guarantees that the daemon is not a session leader, which prevents it from acquiring a controlling terminal under the SVR4 rules. [...]"

(That's from p417 in my first edition copy of Stevens. The page number and/or the text may be different in the second edition.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Something that bugs me about Python is that code like this is distributed on random blogs instead of on some central repository like the CPAN. It's a shame to make people cut-n-paste code into their applications.

Also, I'm conflicted on whether or not I would want to globally change the behavior of a process in a class. setsid, "close STDIN", etc. affect the entire process, not just an instance of the class.

I prefer the Perl approach:

<http://search.cpan.org/~ehood/Proc-Daemon-0.03/Daemon.pm>

At least it's clear that the entire process is affected.

<comment><USER5> There's no reason you can't do this 'classless' in Python.

I've seen similar Python code that takes the Perl approach, as well as code where the 'daemonizer' is a function that takes a function (which is the main event loop of the daemon) as an argument.

In this case it's a design, not a language decision.

<comment><USER4> _There's no reason you can't do this 'classless' in Python._

Sure. At that point in my comment, I was no longer comparing languages, and merely commenting on the implementation of the linked article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The class is using /tmp for PID files. This will break your service on power outages or kernel crashes, as when your service is starting they won't be able to tell they weren't properly stopped, as all files in /tmp are cleared on reboot.

/var/tmp is the appropriate location for PID files.</comment>


The Ultimate Guide to Writing Functional Specifications - <AUTHOR> https://email@example.com/functional-specifications-6e1093102e76#.4obpit1mr <comment><USER2> "Functional" tends to have a more narrow meaning when discussing software requirements and specifications. The meaning is usually restricted to business logic requirements and non-functional requirements are issues relating to implementation such as performance, extendability, and ease of maintenance.</comment>


Twitter is dropping coding terms like 'master' and 'slave' - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-dropping-coding-terms-master-slave-2020-7 <comment><USER3> Social media corporations make millions and billions by catering to manipulate - and often darn right evil - advertiser needs, spying and tracking users for them. And then they want to be all moral by playing identity politics and excising inappropriate language.

This sounds like an attempt to divert the public attention during the Corona + police violence crises the US is currently undergoing.

... and all of this is not to say what I think about the use of these terms. I'm of two minds about that actually.

</comment><comment><USER4> Our team had someone who's an orphan. We try to avoid using the term because a joke became a pretty sad lunchtime when they revealed the fact afterwards.

Words have different impact to different people. It doesn't cost us anything to use "isolated" node rather than an "orphan" node, but it made the dev feel less excluded.

<comment><USER5> Well I'd argue this is part of life.

If I'm a muslim who doesn't drink alcohol, and people I'm working with keep talking about having a beer and "what? you really don't drink". Does that mean everyone should stop drinking alcohol?.

Yes different words have different meanings, but once you start tinkering with this, where do you draw a line in the sand?

When I read the tiltle the first thing I thought about was "Man in the middle" attacks which belongs to the security field. How do you rename this? "woman in the middle"? doesn't this sound sexist? wouldn't some guys use this to have sexist jokes with their female colleagues and make matters worse?

I'm genuinly thinking out loud here.

<comment><USER6> Exactly. Anything can trigger emotions. The difference is emotional management, or not. Letting bad emotions stifle you may reduce your outcomes, but we can't always expect others to save us.

Racism and discrimination is real, but we shouldn't conflate them with unfair powerstructures. We need to level the playing field and speak up against bullying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 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 - <USER2> 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?

<comment><USER8> "Grandfathered" comes from from laws passed in the late 1800s and early 1900s to disenfranchise black people. States created new restrictions on voting but exempted descendants of people who had been allowed to vote before black people were allowed to vote. You could vote if your grandfather could, in other words. The exemptions came to be called grandfather clauses.

<comment><USER9> Words change and I wish people would let bad definitions just fade away

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I used to think stuff like this was ridiculous. It's just a database, who even cares?

However, now I'm all for it.

What has changed? Over working in tech for a while, I noticed some patterns in my coworkers' behavior. I noticed that the same people who didn't switch over to saying "primary" and "replica" back in 2015-ish, and when it started becoming more common, and in fact, _actively ridiculed it_ (just like I did) were the same people who would casually say things like "Oh those Indians screwed it up" while talking about problems with an overseas helpdesk. They didn't even consider that I, as someone of Indian descent who was apparently "all right" in their view would be offended by this (Note: when the screwup was, say, due to people from our TX helpdesk, they would never say "Oh, those Texans screwed it up"). Oh, and I never heard this kind of stuff from the few women or PoC in our office.

Now I can easily see how at least one black coworker would be offended by these people animatedly discussing how the "slave" is not correctly following the "master", and how it might affect their work day, week, or month in a really bad way.

In general I have seen that people who think more about the language they use and how it might affect others seem to make better, _nicer_ coworkers. That's really the primary reason I support these changes now.

<comment><USER11> > Note: when the screwup was, say, due to people from our TX helpdesk, they > would never say "Oh, those Texans screwed it up"

I can't speak for everyone everywhere, obviously - all teams are different and have their own attitudes - but I did some work in India with a tech support team and the phrase "the American's screwed it up" was used a reasonable amount in the cases we looked at.

For whatever it's worth - which, again, isn't much other than to say that any individual (you, me, etc.) experience isn't a set rule, at least one my U.S. team the women (including PoC) complained about the India team's work significantly more often than the men, though I think this was because some of the men happened to interact more with the India team and so got to know them a bit better (there were exceptions in all directions, but I'm just saying majorities here).

I think it has much less to do on both ends with any kind of actual bias and more with the ease to blame the team "over there" as opposed to people next to you - people blamed teams in other parts of their own building (U.S. and India alike) just as quickly/often as ones overseas.

<comment><USER10> I'm not at all opposing complaining about another team's work. If it's not up to scratch, complain by all means! I have lots to complain about regarding our accounting department, for instance.

> at least one my U.S. team the women (including PoC) complained about the > India team's work significantly more often than the men,

Yep, I don't see a direct contradiction here? Complaining is fine, using race/nationality-specific language is not.

Perhaps I should make it emphasize that the thing I disliked was using generally reductive term "Indians" which is much wider than the subset they are referring to, which is the specific set of people employed by their company who are working out of India. It could have included you, for instance! (even though my guess is that you're not Indian).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This feels like a pretty empty symbolic change.

<comment><USER13> not if some people consider it offensive. that alone is a sufficient reason to support this change, even if you don't think it's necessary.

<comment><USER14> Why does that offend anyone? Its just a terminology to describe behaviour of two components.

It doesn't endorse or propagate slavery. I have never heard of an argument that HDDs have masters and slaves so people should too.

If I kill a child thread, does it mean I am 'pro choice' now?

Does creating white-list or black-list makes me become racist?

Those are just word, meaningless and powerless. What really matters is context and intentions, a social nuance that it seems like was thrown out with bath water long time ago.

<comment><USER15> > Its just a terminology to describe behaviour of two components.

It does? I mean, I've used a lot of hard drives and never had one whip another or resell it to punish a friend for disobedience. I've also never heard of an enslaved person being put in charge after the plantation master died.

Insisting on using inaccurate terms when better ones exist is a political stance which raises questions about the motives behind putting so much effort into opposing something which costs you nothing.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, the amount of energy arguing about not changing the terminology; which can be changed to better reflect what it is, is mind boggling.

I can understand arguing what terminology should be used instead. Those arguments tend to be way more civil discussions and don't last long, and a way better set of terminology is set.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, that's a much better conversation because it often flushed out that the same terms were being used for things which weren't quite the same (hot failover, read-replica, etc.) and someone who has more experience with one tool won't think a different one works the same way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Names change all the time. Leader / follower and primary / secondary are better for a lot of things, anyway. Even ignoring the social issue, master and slave are not great terms for how they are used. Frankly, I find it disturbing that so many developers are so attached to the master and slave terminology. It's like the tech industry's version of the confederate flag.

<comment><USER18> > Frankly, I find it disturbing how attached so many developers are so > attached to the master and slave terminology.

I was about to write that too. I'm not quite sure if I find the change necessary - but who am I to raise my word against it. I'm a white guy, it is obvious why master/slave has negative connotations and that's enough for me to let them decide.

I just listened to a podcast about "whiteness studies" maybe that enforced my opinion on this - but why would I - a white guy - would want to criticize this discussion. Be open, be welcome, accept diversity is a main rule in many projects. Why would I not want to change something that others consider harmful(especially something as simple as wording)

<comment><USER19> > it is obvious why master/slave has negative connotations

how? it only represents a kind of relationship (a terrible one, yes) between people. But it's only a historic terminology.

Killer is a word that, following that logic, has negative connotations and it is used when people say "that's a killer feature". Stopping using those terms won't make past events to disappear. At worst, they'll be forgotten, making it possible for history to repeat itself.

<comment><USER10> Killer and master/slave are very different. "Killing" has rarely singled out one specific ground of people and subjugated them for centuries. In cases where it has, you _don 't use the word_. Imagine naming a program that kills a bunch of processes on a box "holocaust".

But let's run with "killing" for a bit. If, hypothetically, you had a coworker whose family was murdered by a serial killer, wouldn't you be careful about using "He _killed_ it out there" and similar terms around them? Or do you sit around logically proving why the context is different?

<comment><USER19> Those are fair points but I still don't think we are helping anyone with this over-protection. Would you hesitate to say that expression without knowing that coworker's background? Should he/she be offended when there isn't malicious intent behind those words? It looks to me more sensible and a better long term solution to help this person to deal with his/her emotions instead of trying to change everybody around them.

<comment><USER18> > Would you hesitate to say that expression without knowing that coworker's > background?

Ok. But. The discussion is about specific expressions almost everybody knows, not just random words. One of those words is `slave`.

> It looks to me more sensible and a better long term solution to help this > person to deal with his/her emotions instead of trying to change everybody > around them.

I think this only applies to situations in which one specific person has specific triggers who are e.g. tight to an psychological trauma...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Full list in a text form:

      * Whitelist -> Allowlist
      * Blacklist -> Denylist
      * Master/slave -> Leader/follower, primary/replica, primary/standby
      * Grandfathered -> Legacy status
      * Gendered pronouns (e.g. guys) -> Folks, people, you all, y'all
      * Gendered pronouns (e.g. he/him/his) -> They, them, their
      * Man hours -> Person hours, engineer hours
      * Sanity check -> Quick check, confidence check, coherence check
      * Dummy value -> Placeholder value, sample value

</comment><comment><USER21> Why are people failing to grasp that languages have context? Twitter, GitHub and others are clearly lacking some "mastery" of language semantics, such as homonyms.

Perhaps we should be lobbying for better English education? Nah screw that, let's adopt a simplified version of the English language that removes any emotion or chance of ambiguity... I'm sure an author came up with a candidate language in the late 40s

</comment><comment><USER22> This seems like public grandstanding and virtue signaling to me, but not too surprising coming from tone deaf Silicon Valley elites.

</comment><comment><USER23> How much of this sort of thing (including the hiding/removing of "problematic" TV/films) is being done/encouraged to draw attention away from the defund the police/better social services message?

Making BLM seem asinine looks like a fairly easy/standard psyop move.

</comment><comment><USER24> More important than this change of terminology, I think it's good that Twitter decided to donate ten million dollars to NGOs fighting slavery around the world (it's still prevalent, especially in Africa and Asia)

[https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/data/maps/#prevalenc...](https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/data/maps/#prevalence)

</comment><comment><USER25> When I read defenses of these moves online, usually it is acknowledged that these terms, when used in the context of engineering, do not have a relationship to human subjugation. However, the arguments offered at that juncture are:

a) _Every little bit helps_ : If we can help eradicate injustice even in a tiny way, such as by using more inclusive language, and it's not unreasonable to implement, why not?

b) _We need to cut ties with a problematic past to improve_ : If we want a world with equity for all, we must voluntarily let go of heritage that binds us to a world without equity.

I have many problems with these arguments. (If I have not steelmanned them sufficiently, please suggest improvements).

First, it is not true that the current strategy is reasonable to implement. A solution is reasonable if the effort needed to implement it does not outweigh the impact of the problem. A reasonable solution is to use "leader / follower" yourself and gradually encourage people away over time at their own discretion: a low-effort solution for a low-impact problem. An unreasonable solution is to risk production impact and breaking changes (as in third-party tooling that relies on the `master` convention in git), creating more work for everyone - all so slightly different language can be used. Doc changes are a great low-effort solution if you really want to do this.

Second, the claim that improvement cannot occur without cutting ties is a bit of a switch-and-bait. People will defend "improvement is not possible without change", and then morph that into "improvement is not possible without disassociation". There is some merit to this latter claim in some contexts - for example, in cases of domestic abuse - but that does not make it universal. We can keep the past around, but eliminate its ability to impact the present, which is "improvement with change". I think the "master / slave" convention and its history have done this adequately, since everyone agrees that no reasonable person would associate the term now with an endorsement of slavery or oppression.

These two points put me firmly in the camp of "necessary changes are good, but this particular change is unnecessary".

</comment><comment><USER26> I don't understand why there's so much pushback against the moves to remove terminology like master/slave from IT.

It makes people uncomfortable and it's such a small change.

And it's just software, go use sed or whatever to rename it.

Why be disingenuous and say stuff like "oh I guess racism is solved now!" Or "GitHub changing the default branch name for new projects is going to break everyone's CI-CD pipelines!"?

<comment><USER27> > I don't understand why there's so much pushback

Many reasons, including a very (distorted) US centric view of the world, going overboard with emotions instead of rationality (words are generally tied to context), and now people have to walk on eggshells or they'll lose their jobs if they speak the "wrong" word.

<comment><USER26> You can't talk about rationality whilst talking about a country centric view.

Rational actions are defined by the society that judges it.

Twitter is an American company.

If you feel like you have to "walk on eggshells" then maybe you're not a cultural fit for the company.

If you're working at a company like Twitter, GitHub etc. Then you should have some pretty good career mobility.

These companies aren't the only ones in the world.

If you want to work at a place that will push back against changing master / slave terminology then there's a sizable amount of people that feel the same way.

<comment><USER27> I'm not sure what your first few points have anything to do with the discussion, not to mention being incorrect (rationality is not objective as you're implying). This irrational SJW movement is not limited to a few companies, but is taking over the US in general. It's another form of oppression.

<comment><USER26> I think you didn't understand what I was stating.

I stated that what is rational is subjective of the context of the culture.

You don't have a right to a job, it's not oppression if people do things you don't like that don't impact your life.

Using "SJW" unironically? How is it taking over the US when the majority of government is socially conservative?

You're effectively parroting the majority opinion and acting like the victim.

"I gotta walk on eggshells, if I say the wrong word they'll fire me"

<comment><USER28> You are effectively telling someone if they don't like it leave. This is actually quite offensive in itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> So "grandfathered" is considered offensive now by the idiotic pc crowd? What's next? Where does this stupidity stop?

<comment><USER30> When I was a teacher, there was a distinct group of kids who always pushed the boundaries to see how far they could. They presented endless reasons for why they wanted to do what they wanted to do, with no regard for how ridiculous they sounded. They were smart and creative, and knew what they were doing was unwelcomed. They just wanted to see how far they could push the teacher. That's exactly what this feels like. It doesn't stop, until we put our foot down. It doesn't have to be nasty, but it doesn't require we entertain weak arguments about people's psychological comfort demanding we change behavior either on the defensive about how we are not oppressive.

<comment><USER29> Yup. This stupidity will backfire badly. In the latest list they are essentially destroying the language itself by removing gendered pronouns. How do I wish Spanish without them? Or phrases like "you guys" which is gender neutral. Frankly, these people are hurting the cause as much as racists and sexist people are, maybe even more. This will not be supported but anyone with a brain and frankly neither will their original causes. This idea that people need to feel "safe" and therefore others should modify their speech is mad. The only response to such idiots is to tell them off, to say "fuck you idiots" and ignore them. I think it does have to be nasty indeed because these morons have shown time and again they do not listen to reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The terms are gross and by no means necessary, but changing them also does not do anything to improve anyone's life. It's an empty, performative gesture unless accompanied by a lot of bigger structural and organizational changes at Twitter. You can't just "tada, we fixed racism."

<comment><USER32> These terms are actually quite precise describing a relationship between two technical systems.

I have yet to hear other words having the same precision.

Btw.: Imho no ethnic group has a sole claim to the victimhood role as historical slavery. To name a few examples of that:

* My (white, European) ancestors were slaves of the Romans. * My (white, European) ancestors were slaves of the same (white, European) (here noble) ancestors. * My (white, European) ancestors were holders of (Jewish) slaves.

So should I ask for the removal of this word from regular, technical use? I do not feel that way.

<comment><USER33> It's almost like it's not really about slavery or racism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> What about 'robot' and 'bot'? The word robot means 'slave worker'.

How about payment providers supporting Mastercard? Maybe we ought to stop accepting Mastercard payment, unless they rebrand to Equalitycard.

<comment><USER35> > The word robot means 'slave worker'.

Do you have the source for this? I'd be very surprised if this was the meaning of the word at the time Karel Capek used it. The world robot comes from slavic word robota which means work or hard work.

<comment><USER36> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R). That's the play that introduced it and it's looking like the word means "forced labour" rather than just "work". Which you could say is slavery.

<comment><USER35> This might be the historical meaning of the word but it's certainly not the meaning of the word today and I'm doubting it was the meaning of the world at the time of the author.

Take this as an example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotnik_(1894%E2%80%931939)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotnik_\(1894%E2%80%931939\)) This newspaper was first published around the time of the authors life. It has no connection to the slavery just to the labour and labourers.

<comment><USER37> You cannot be serious about your argument while still being supportive of these changes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I just sold an internet product I built that contains both "Whitelist" and "Blacklist" rules.

I didn't think anything of it at the time. I added the names a few years ago.

However I also grew up in the 80s and Dukes of Hazard was still a popular enough television show that I was specifically not allowed to watch it by my mom for reasons I did not understand at the time. [1]

As far as changing language of the rules in the product I built, or would build I have no problem using something neutral.

Software developers are used to deprecated language. Function and class names are changed for any number of reasons, sometimes just because they are inconvenient to spell.

If some people feel that Master Slave, or Blacklist Whitelist constitute micro aggressions, then why put up a fight to switch to neutral language?

Just deprecate the syntax and return the narrative and focus to problems developers can overwhelmingly agree are getting in the way of establishing a more inclusive developer community. [1] [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is- dukes-of-hazzard-reall_b_7...](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/is-dukes-of- hazzard-reall_b_7725078)

<comment><USER39> > I just sold an internet product I built that contains both "Whitelist" and > "Blacklist" rules.

Fuckit, lets be done with language all together ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> This master - slave debate is at least 10 years old. And I have the same questions now:

\- ofc master slave relationship between human beings is wrong, but are we not allowed to "abuse" and "subjugate" IT systems? I mean that's kind of their purpose if you ask me. It's wrong to beat somebody but it's not wrong to beat a carpet.

\- what is the purpose of removing those words? Is it like pretending these relationships don't exist?

\- who benefits from the removal of the terms and in what way exactly? How is the world getting better by doing this?

<comment><USER41> IMO if you take your own argument to its logical conclusion, you can see that it falls apart easily. If someone launched a project in 2020 where you "lynch" a process to remove it and engage in "gassing" a connection pool to close all connections, then it's blatantly obvious why such terms are problematic, despite the terms only being slightly removed from master/slave.

<comment><USER42> Eh. If I was managing a network with a ton of machines I needed to be able to turn off and on together (not that farfetched from what I'm currently doing), I'd probably label the scripts 'resurrection' and 'genocide'. Apt and descriptive.

I think the difference is you chose words more emotionally charged, which isn't the point here.

<comment><USER41> I'm curious what you would do if a new hire/junior programmer joined your team and asked you to change the name of the script because their parents were killed in a genocide and they would prefer not to be reminded every time they had to run the script?

Would you be empathetic and spend three seconds renaming it or fight them tooth and nail on principle?

Why would people so strongly resist practicing some pre-emptive effortless empathy toward people who have gone through similar things related to a small handful of specific words?

<comment><USER43> I'm open to changing any problematic wording if it came from someone that was genuinely offended by it.

However I am opposed to blanket changes like the one in this article not because of the wording itself but because the change is coming from the PR department as opposed to any actual minorities that might be offended by these words.

<comment><USER41> 1\. People who speak up are often putting their jobs at stake, especially in the US where people can (and often are) fired for almost anything. We shouldn't have to ask anyone; it's so not a big deal to search and replace some text to a more neutral term.

2\. I've met plenty of people who felt uncomfortable about specific jokes being made, words being used and did not feel comfortable for speaking out for various reasons. In at least one case the person explained that it took years before they were able to make the transition from feeling demeaned by a term and being able to understand and articulate exactly why it was demeaning.

We can be proactive and emphatic. There's no good reason people have to be so insanely motivated to fight against something that barely has any effect on their life but that might improve things for others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> MASTERCARD - enslaves millions of people. When will its name change?

<comment><USER39> Masters degree ... Master copy, master key, heck we can go all day. People who support this are not thinking clearly.

<comment><USER45> You gave three examples where master means expertise on the field, not ownership over someone.

<comment><USER39> Ehh, was Twitter or anybody else using it to mean ownership over someone?!!?!?!?! I mean in that case it is a crime we are talking about and just renaming actual enslaving of humans to something else won't fix it. so ... I mean ... what even are we doing here/

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> GoDaddy will break records when they sell maincard.com

</comment><comment><USER47> What a creative way to virtue signal. This way you don't have to do anything that has any positive impact for any single person. But you can tell all your white friends about it.

People need to read a history book. 'Master' has nothing to do with 'slavery.' 'Slavery' has a long history going back thousands of years. No race has any particular right to be offended. Romans had slaves of every color.

And if you are a person who gets upset when you see the word "master" you need to seriously consider becoming an adult.

<comment><USER48> I think the problem here is that fighting these PC efforts just reinforces the egos of those who champion it because 1) it gives them more "enemies" to righteously battle against and 2) they're currently winning.

As an old school liberal with subversive tendencies, maybe the right way to throw a monkey wrench into these language policing efforts is by _reductio ad absurdum_ or killing them with kindness. Push every possible thing that's offensive into these lists, particularly targeting terms common in business parlance. "double-blind testing"? Offensive to people with low vision. TTYs in Linux? Sounds like a NSFW word. "Pros and cons"? Offensive to inmates who have served their sentence. It's not even "in bad faith" (the ultimate modern thought-terminating cliché); do it fully and sincerely in line with their desire to eliminate all possible offense. Just totally fill up their PC dictionary with stuff until it becomes clear that it's impractical to eliminate all possible avenues of offense without being reduced to grunts and gestures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Do these people realize we're all still slaves of the State via taxation (among other things)?

<comment><USER32> In what way is taxation slavery?

<comment><USER49> Taxation is slavery because it is forced ultimately at gunpoint. The government basically claims ownership of a significant part of (the fruits of) your labor. You cannot refuse, which makes you their slave, having to do what they dictate. A 'citizen' is essentially another word for property of the state, i.e. a slave. In the future they'll probably also object to the use of that word like they do for master/slave, not realizing the names change but the result stays the same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm not saying I agree with it - but metaphors matter. It's easy to imagine certain design patterns being associated with offensive stereotypes. How much do we have to extend 'master' and 'slave' before the metaphor crosses a line? The introduction of a 'boat' class or a 'chain' class? Of course the underlying technology isn't offensive but we're attaching our human social context to it.

At least no one has a problem with the underlying patterns themselves! That would be a doozy.

</comment><comment><USER51> Those terms are a bit archaic. They should change them to BillionaireITOligarch and MillinealGigWorker.

</comment><comment><USER52> Primary, secondary. Problem solved. Need more, well English has it.

Anyone arguing against this is just pissing against the wind -or worse.

Move on. Were supposeto be the people who adapt and change the fastest.

<comment><USER7> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> To the cynics: how would you feel about this change if your great grand parents were slaves, lived in shackles and got whipped regularly and called the person whipping them "master"?

<comment><USER7> 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".

<comment><USER53> That's a good argument</comment></comment></comment>


Intel's neuro guru slams deep learning: 'it's not learning' - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/intels-neuro-guru-slams-deep-learning-its-not-actually-learning/ <comment><USER2> Between the autoplay ad video, the modal popover, the request for notification privileges, the fixed topbar with ads, the interstitial ads, and the huge sidebar ads, I couldn't get past the first sentence.

</comment><comment><USER3> Gee, that read a lot like a story from a tech version of The Onion.</comment>