Is there any indication or reason why they would want to block LGBTQ+ content? Haven't both companies been very vocal supporters of LGBTQ+ in the past?
Every time I have to do something complex related to home renovation, book keeping etc I wish there was a platform for this. Often you don't want to engage a firm for a week, you just need some advice, but you are happy to pay a healthy hourly fee for it.
It's not the "access" to those books that gave you an edge, 95% of children would be completely uninterested in those books. As you know, today 100% of Western children have free and instant access to the best math teaching material you could imagine, right from the phones, but math grades keep falling.
No, I am very far from agreeing with you. I am saying that if you keep all other conditions the same, you will still see vast differences in the ease of understanding mathematics. This is borne out both by science - there is strong consensus that intelligence is highly heritable, and everybody's experience.
So even if we limit "aptitude" to a strictly genetic sense, it will still explain most of the difference in math ability at 7. All other factors related to growing up will add up to less than half of that.
Regarding practice compensating for genetics, I am not talking about having more supportive parents or more demanding pre-school, I am talking about Asian level hardcore drilling. That can certainly make up for most of the difference, at least when it comes to basic mathematics. But that means that the concepts that a child with math aptitude will pick up in 5 minutes will take 5 hours of drilling for another child.
Pretending to care? I am not saying I care about communist symbols, I am saying it would be absurd if I did, I wasn’t in the war. And yes I agree that all the people that pretend that the word ”master” is an issue are behaving badly. It’s pointless virtue signaling by proxy.
I really don’t understand this cope. It’s scientifically established that intelligence is highly heritable, especially the analytical kind. It also agrees with experience, we all know people who have a very hard time understanding mathematics, while others sail through it.
Of course it’s not fair, life isn’t fair. But the good news is that you can quite easily compensate for lack of aptitude with more work, and that is most definitely the case for mathematics, up to and including undergraduate level.
I grew up in Sweden where everyone goes to the same kind of pre-school, that does very little math teaching. Still, the difference in aptitude when we started school was significant. But we all know this.
Asian families, for sure. But that’s doesn’t explain that vast chasm we all observed between non-Asians in school growing up. Why not just accept that it’s possible to be born with an aptitude for math?
It's not weird at all, and it's the same in all languages. Some of the countries are very new, or the speakers of the language only came in contact with it recently. Then it's more likely they will use a country-related term. If on the other hand you have been in contact with the people for hundreds, or thousands of years, long before modern nation states, you will probably be using a tribal name for them, like Dane or Swede.
It is usually easy to understand if you just look into it.
Do you think anyone would take that seriously? I sure hope anyone I associate would just laugh and presume that I'm joking. It just isn't reasonable to be that sensitive. It certainly isn't adaptive, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was something about it in DSM.
> Using "chairman" to describe a position implies that it's occupied by a man.
No, obviously not. A "chairman" can just as well be a woman. What it does imply is just that _historically_, chairmen were mostly men. You might object to the word because its etymology reveals a past where men occupied these roles, but it is not true at all that the word today implies anything about the sex of the person.
> That exact type of usage is when I use "they" to refer to a person of indeterminate gender, e.g. someone to be hired.
Yes, if you are giving instructions to the guard at the front, telling him (sic) to "let them in", that is the traditional, organic usage. Which is distinct from the politicised usage where you either know that the candidate is a woman but still say "them", or its a person that considers herself "non-binary" and insists that you use gender neutral language. Those two situations are different from the traditional usage.
>Further, its use is quite restricted - it doesn't admit all the inflections and noun-verb agreements that "he" and "she" do.
I agree with all your arguments, but just want to point out that this is not actually true. "Indefinite they" does inflect just fine. "Who attacked you, did you see them? No, but they dropped their gun." etc.
That is of course awful in every way, but I really wonder, isn't the real problem that there are bad people? I think we can agree that people who are heartless enough to bully a vulnerable person like that, they will not stop just because a new euphemism is promoted. So how does it actually help? I can understand that if you are being called a slur, you want that slur to go away, but if it's going to be replaced by another slur, what is actually achieved?
If you had ancestors that were slaves in the 1800s and for that reason want to avoid any word that looks like "master", even if used in a different meaning, then by all means go ahead and change your git branch name, that's your business, as silly as it is. I only object if you want to project this absurdity on others, and make THEM change THEIR branch names.
I personally have much closer ancestors, that were tortured by the communists within living memory. What if I told you that for this reason the word "comrade" triggers me? Or in analogy with the github situation, if I asked people to stop wearing Che t-shirts? Would you say that was reasonable, or a sign of insanity?
As I said, "allow list" is more descriptive if you don't know the word whitelist in the sense that it's easier to guess its meaning the first time you see it. My point is that this is not generally considered important, just look at 100 random words, most of them would be hard to guess the exact meaning of, even if like me you studied classical languages.
No it doesn't. It's just historical accident. If you look around you will notice that some demonyms are based on the country name, some or not. It doesn't correlate with it being pejorative. "Italian" or "Congolese" are not more pejorative than "Frenchman". They are just newer, because the countries are newer.
Not that any normal person thinks that there is anything negative with "some sort of preference for the country as country, to the degree that a person defines themselves by it". It's politically quite extreme to see that as "pejorative".
"Allow list" is only more "descriptive" to someone that doesn't know what whitelist means. It is generally not considered a problem if you can't guess the meaning of a word from how it looks, most words are like that.
Why does there have to be a slave just because there's a master? That is just one very specific meaning of the word, out of several dozen, and in the git context it was pretty clear that it wasn't used in that sense, but rather something like "master copy". So the master to main renaming thing was especially silly.