From what I have read I suspect this may have been an intentionally created incompatibility. They wanted dual boot to be inconvenient. As a user, that is not the sort of design I want.
But if the user prefers some other bootloader instead of Microsoft's or Apple's, then all bets are off. The idea of the "primary" OS being something other than Microsoft's or Apple's is not contemplated. For me, the non-GUI OS is the primary OS and the GUI OS is something kept around out of necessity, only used occasionally.
> It's way less painful these days if you're using UEFI.
Interesting. My experience has been the opposite; I've had much more issues with UEFI than I ever had using BIOS, even when after disabling Secure Boot in the settings.
I collect every book that I come across, and I can't count the number of times it's been helpful (one month, or five years later). It doesn't matter if you can't remember the book after a week, fzf is here to help you. If you got interested in a new topic (like the aforementioned Rust), press Ctrl+T and type "rust".
Or you can suppress the impulse and skip getting the book, then either forget the site altogether, or visit it five years later and find that it got shut down four years ago.
There have been plenty of instances where you could get lifelong legal ownership of something very valuable only if you got it at a certain time, and that time often ends abruptly without warnings.
Idiocy would be an anecdote my father told me in the mid-90s about his workplace trying to implement the same spirit with a naïve global search-and-replace, leading very quickly to a company-wide invitation to an “African-American tie dinner”.
Its a decision I tend to respect (would actually never though of this myself). I don't think it patronizes the users in contrast to the decision like mentioned in the OP. Awareness of language is not all bad as it will influence us subconsciously. We seemingly did not need the term much in the 80s with the ending of the cold war, so IMHO it is not a huge loss: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=whitelist&year...
Without mentioning other connotations, IMHO the rise of computers have in places supported discriminating (ie. 0 vs 1) culture, because that is simply what computers can do best. If just renaming terms changes changes this can in fact be doubted.
I am actually not so happy about the consequences of hiding URLs to people. This will also change how we will perceive the Internet but IMHO not for the good. And here the motivations are not as clearly communicated here. It might actually hide some of the beautiful heterogenity and complexity of the Internet to the average user also with unforeseeable consequences.
I'm not against the effort just because "block-list" and "allow-list" are more speaking and self-evident in their meaning. Insinuating that "black-list" and "white-list" are somehow racially charged terms is the idiotic part.
Changing from blacklist and whitelist to blocklist and allowlist is one of the many small things we can do that makes our black colleagues feel seen, heard, and welcome in our workplaces. I support it. No one thinks changing language is enough to eliminate the systemic racism oppressing black people in the US. Eliminating that will require work and personal change. If you can't even stop using black to mean negative in the workplace and substitute it with more accurate words - the new words are clearer - then you likely are not prepared for the real work ahead. I personally refuse to work for any company that is not committing to that work.
Why would anyone be offended by blacklist?
Would they be also offended by the color black? Or maybe dark mode, that is getting popular?
Or maybe offended by the fact that most pages on the web have light/white theme?
This is getting ridiculous (together with github ditching the name "master" - https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1271253144442253312), maybe it is the result of too much working from home recently - people create problems where there are none.
What is even more funny is the fact that those changes are proposed by white guys without any complains from the black folks.
There is a qualitative difference between your examples and “blacklist”. Dark mode is about color. The color black is a color. Light mode is a color’s brightness. A widely used white background is a color. I don’t think any reasonable person objects to using terms about color to refer to colors. Black objects are black, red objects are red, etc.
But “blacklist” is entirely different. “Blacklist” uses a color term to describe the acceptability of something. It relates a value judgment to a color. I don’t know the history of the term, but I can easily see how it could be at least somewhat offensive.
None of this is to say that the term “blacklist” is problematic or should be discouraged, but your argument about it doesn’t hold water.
Black is also not a color, but the light not being reflected or emitted or let through. Hence the blacklist, it doesn't need to have judgement or historically loaded meaning.
I think there is an insidiousness to our language that can help to stabilise social discrimination, and most of us (white/black, male/female) are unaware of it.
Dark mode doesn't have negative connotations. A 'blacklist' is negative selection, as opposed to a 'whitelist' which is positive selection. I didn't even realise this until I came across, and, on reflection, I agree that this is a simple change in the right direction.
Because of its etymology and history [1] for starters:
n.
also black-list, black list, “list of persons who have incurred suspicion,” 1610s, from black (adj.), here indicative of disgrace, censure, punishment (attested from 1590s, in black book) + list (n.). Specifically of employers’ list of workers considered troublesome (usually for union activity) is from 1888. As a verb, from 1718. Related: Blacklisted; blacklisting. [32]
"It is notable that the first recorded use of the term occurs at the time of mass enslavement and forced deportation of Africans to work in European-held colonies in the Americas."
> Or maybe dark mode
Dark mode is not used in a negative way like "blacklist" or "blackballed". And it accurately describes exactly what happens. Unlike "blacklist" which is an inaccurate idiom that relies on "black" being used to mean "bad". So no, I doubt "dark mode" would offend anyone.
> Why would anyone be offended
You could start by learning about microagressions [2]. This one covers "blacklist" specifically. And was presented by a black man if that helps you with credibility.
> This is getting ridiculous
I agree that systemic racism has gone on for far too long. Even conservative four star US generals are starting to say we need big changes in society.
> What is even more funny is the fact that those changes are proposed by white guys without any complains from the black folks.
You are wrong. Just as one small counter-example the presentation I already cited that discusses "blacklist" was made by a black man. Anecdotal, but my black friends have sent me many resources recently about how to become a better anti-racist. Our diversity initiative at my current client is being lead by a black employee. This is coming from oppressed black people who have been very visibly protesting injustice for over two weeks now for the most recent injustice. And for decades actually for anyone who has been listening.
It's worth noting that "blacklist" is awful because it's origins are in British history, having to do political assassination and conspiracy. Amongst a bunch of very Caucasian parties.
The "black" is not racial but metaphorical, as in "the absence if light". The connection to dark-skinned folks is accidental through the science of optics. Light being good and darkness being bad is part of most (all?) monotheistic culture. To excise them all would include considering much art, culture, and even holy texts insensitive. It's overkill, especially when there are more pressing reforms to pursue.
There's a nice confluence where basically all parties win by eliminating "blacklist" from benign contexts, but the original violence is not racial at all. Religious and political, sure.
In case I am not clear, if we want to be on the side of education, accurate history, and truth, we should not assume racist history and intention everywhere. In this case, it's an entirely different form of tyrrany, violence, and bigotry, but we should be careful about appearing overzealous and under-informed.
> It's worth noting that "blacklist" is awful because it's origins are in British history,
> The connection to dark-skinned folks is accidental through the science of optics.
Both of these are an oversimplification that leaves out other context and other history.
The first recorded use of the term "blacklist" occurs at the time of mass enslavement and forced deportation of Africans to work in European-held colonies in the Americas.
> To excise them all would include considering much art, culture, and even holy texts insensitive.
That is a strawman. No one is suggesting to eliminate all historical uses of darkness meaning bad. What we are talking about is very specific: words that are very commonly used in a modern work setting, and that have clearer alternatives.
> The connection to dark-skinned folks is accidental.
It far too convenient that "black" continued to mean evil in the midst of widespread dehumanization and slavery for it to be purely accidental.
Consider also that the Latin word "niger" had many of the same figurative senses ("gloomy; unlucky; bad, wicked, malicious"). Another accident?
But if it were accidental - and I think that would be near impossible to prove - many microagressions are accidental.
> we should not assume racist history and intention everywhere
That's another strawman. Where was that assumption made? Besides the fact that much of modern Western history is racist.
Racism against black people in the US has survived for well over 200 years. Thanks much in part to lack of intention. Clearly, it's not enough to have absence of bad intentions. We tried that, and it is not working.
I would appreciate citations for your claims about racial origins for the term. Wikipedia does not mention any such thing in either the article for blacklisting nor in the disambiguation for the word blacklist.
There is also this quora answer from an apparent Yale linguist specifically saying blacklist does not have racial origins, mentioning other phrases like "black sheep" that are only racial in inference, not especially in implication.
I also disagree that microaggression can be accidental, though I do think reflexive actions can betray racial attitudes. But that lies typically in instinctive actions like purse-clutching, not in formation of artistic or other creative devices like Stevenson's black spot, Tolkein's Black Gate, or the various incarnations of "black swan".
To reiterate, I am actually fine getting rid of the term blacklist given it's very negative history, but it's a stretch, and counterproductive, to racialize the term. That sort of overreach plays into the hands of people like Trump, who are not afraid of portraying these movements as unhinged.
“In the black” is a positive business term signifying profitability, as opposed to “in the red.” Is this just words, or words to hurt Native Americans? Side note, if we all change from blacklist to blocklist and such, I don’t mind and it likely is a better term. I just want to point out that black != bad.
If you can't even stop using black to mean negative in the workplace and substitute it with more accurate words - the new words are clearer - then you likely are not prepared for the real work ahead.
I'll also add the problem is not imaginary. Microagressions are a well documented and well studied category of racism. You can find many studies with supporting evidence. While you might choose to critique the scientific rigour of existing studies, you would have to do that with your own counter evidence, and not with a dismissive "it's imaginary". You could start here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/174569161982749...
The white:black :: good:evil dichotomy has been open to criticism since one group of people labeled themselves white and another group of people black. That was when the colors became politicized.
You’ll have to think and decide for yourself whether this is idiocy. I, for one, do not. The master/slave thing is stupid. The master branch in git is idiotic. Whitelist and blacklist, I can do without.
Yeah I think the master for git comes from mastering/master-image/master-tape which comes from the master = main/leading definition which doesn't necessarily imply a connection to master/slave. The black/white list seems to be more out of a day/light/dawn = good/pure/safe and night/dark/dusk = bad/corrupt/dangerous theme common to many cultures.
Either way though, can't really go wrong with more descriptive/functional names.
I've been doing IF for the past five years or so (after "discovering" it by myself) and lost about 30 kg in the process. I am a bulk eater and I still "binge" periodically. The kinds of food that I binge on have changed greatly though, and that's what worked for me. I switched to simpler food: non-starchy grains like buckwheat, kidney beans, vegetables and fruit, and this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(dairy_product) . I dropped almost every kind of processed food (I am not an American though, and we never had the same level of dependence on processed foods anyway). I can't even eat sugar and candies anymore, they overflow my senses and taste like crap.
Except that Skype non-accidentally routes your calls through Microsoft's servers, and it was originally a P2P application. End-to-end encryption too started being "complicated", "unfeasible" and "unnecessary" after they acquired the company. Thanks, but no thanks.
But that's exactly the point, others do things more transparently and if you don't like them you're at least in a better position to make an informed decision. Plus there's a major difference between Microsoft and China. Take the current article for example.
You're willing to hand-waive all of the many, many proven, and intentionally hidden major issues with Zoom but you suddenly become worried that Skype works as advertised, poorly as that may be? Would you apply the same principle to your food and taking the one that lies on the label about dangerous ingredients? Or do principles change with accounts?
Awesome. Now try it at a client's off-site location with hardware and terminal locked down by someone else's IT department while you're trying to troubleshoot their connection.
Sure, it's a good command to know, but completely apropos of nothing. A command line alias is not at all an alternative to typing "what's my IP" into google, something that even my mom could do.
Since you're a gentoo user, you probably already know that, but have you tried using compressed memory like zswap? I find that I very rarely swap out to disk since I enabled it (and tuned to my needs):
"even on feature phones"? It was perfectly possible at least back in the early 2000's. Where I'm from, we've gone through a lot of different IMs over the years, including XMPP (which I was a big fan of, but started to despise because it had such terrible support for mobile clients). Many J2ME clients had pretty advanced features like group chats and file transfers.
I live in a city with a vandalism problem. People throw benches into the river, break glass panes, and perform other similar feats just for the fun of it. Oh, and the ubiquitous designer drugs ads on every damn wall.
Well, it _was_ a problem until the government put cameras on every street corner and the police started tracking down and punishing every one of the vandals.
How would gun ownership help with this? I look out of a window at 2 AM and see a couple of guys destroying a bus stop. Should I grab my gun and start shooting at them?
The guns are more of a equalization of power. The right loves guns, but would they if they knew every liberal had twice as many guns as they probably have?
Why would they? According to Microsoft and many third-party developers who don't know any better, PC and Windows are the same thing.
It's way less painful these days if you're using UEFI. No thanks to MS though.