DefederateLemmyMl

Or ctrl+w to close the fucking site and never come back.

Depending upon their genre and your city’s size, they may never come nearby you

The joy of living in a central, densely populated area of Europe … I’ve been able to see almost all niche bands that I’m into live.

The problem with that is that they are usually in tiny venues, often with no seating (some of us have issues with standing for a few hours straight), and absolutely terrible acoustics.

Not true at all where I live, except for the seating part sometimes. There are many small to midsized venues with ticket prices well below €50, and they all have way better accoustics than the large concert halls, and it’s a much more personal experience than in a >10,000 people venue because you can be way up close with the artists.

For example, these are all venues I’ve visited in recent years, I rarely paid more than €30 for a ticket:

• https://www.abconcerts.be (has seating)
• https://www.trixonline.be (no seating)
• https://www.deroma.be (has seating)
• https://www.hetdepot.be (has seating)
• https://botanique.be (no seating)
• https://www.effenaar.nl (no seating)
• https://www.013.nl (no seating)
• https://www.viernulvier.gent (no seating)
• https://www.doornroosje.nl (no seating)
• https://www.tivolivredenburg.nl/ (has seating)

Language is simply the intrafrastructure by which we touch another’s mind across space and time

And grammar is the tool we use to structure our thoughts into intelligible phrases, so that our words convey the correct meaning to our audience. Sure everyone makes grammar mistakes occasionally, but if you respect your audience, you should at least attempt to use proper grammar and graciously accept it as a learning opportunity when a mistake is pointed out.

Take a breath dude

Can you not please with the condescending language? Maybe you’re the one who should take a breath and read my post calmly. Anyway, the guy above me asked, I gave an answer to cover all the bases.

The default branch name of git isn’t that important to me either, I’ll manage with main or master. But at the same time it does irk me especially since this kind of language policing has become an industry wide trend, and it’s just a stupid thing done for stupid reasons. Am I still allowed to express why I find it stupid?

it’s trivial to change

It isn’t as trivial as you make it out. I’ve already encountered repos where there was both a main and a master branch, both with different commits, because some developer got confused, and it was a nice mess to untangle. But hey, let’s change some more stuff around for no good reason.

If there’s any chance it helps maintain a hostile workplace/industry

I can think of a lot of things that contribute to a hostile workplace, but the default branch name of git? Seriously? Even the people who pushed for this don’t actually believe that themselves.

Why care about Master at all?

I’ve already explained all my reasons, but I’ll reiterate. To summarize I basically have five main issues with it

1. The change was done in response to attempts at language policing and bullying by a vocal and militant minority. Giving into it is a form of appeasement towards an unreasonable demand.

2. The change retroactively modifies a terminology that was already agreed upon. Like, if git sprung into existence today, not many people would have an issue with it if they would call it main or trunk or primary from the get go. But that’s not what happened. Git was released in 2005 and it used master terminology. As a consequence, many existing repositories also use master. Now when someone is working with branches, like doing merges or pull requests, they suddenly have to remember: oh in this repository it is main, but in that repository it is still master. Or they have go out of their way to modify decade old repositories, potentially breaking all kinds of behind the scenes CICD stuff. Or they have to go out of their way to revert the default on all systems that they’re working on back to master. In any case, this change is a source of errors and wasted effort for zero net good.

3. It does no good in the real world other than making do-gooders feel good about themselves, and giving a capitalist entity some PR to appear more progressive than they are. We all still have masters, existing slaves are not freed, no historical wrongs of slavery or inequality are righted.

4. It’s a misguided change in this case because the word master in this context doesn’t even have a relationship to slavery. Just like a master degree you may hold, or a master key or a master recording of your favorite album have no bearing on slavery. Note that there are no “slave” branches in git.

5. Finally, in the case of git, master is simply more accurate than main because it carries a nuance (derivativeness) that main does not.

There’s no need for master terminology there

Nobody said there is a need, you could call it foo or bar and it would still work. It just that master more accurately describes what it is. Main for example does not describe a derivative relationship, master does.

Also, master in this context is totally unrelated to slavery so I could also just as easily say that there was no need to replace the existing terminology either. It doesn’t solve any real world problems of historic or currently existing slavery, and it doesn’t make anyone’s life better. The only reasons why it was done were appeasement and virtue signalling.

Is it not the main working branch

No it is not. On large distributed projects for which git was designed, you typically don’t directly work on main/master but you create a working branch to do your changes, and when they are ready you merge them to main/master.

There are many types of git workflows, but main/master usually contains the code that is deployed to production or the latest stable release and not some work in progress.

When you start a new project, do you open a new branch or create a whole new repository?

You have to define “project” for that.

• Is your project a change to existing code -> new branch, merge to main/master when done
• Is your project something new that stands entirely on its own? -> new repository

I’ve seen ‘Active / Passive’ used, that seems alright

That’s not always an accurate description though.

Consider a redundant two node database system where the second node holds a mirrored copy of the first node. Typically, one node, let’s call it node1, will accept reads and writes from clients and the other node, let’s say node2, will only accept reads from clients but will also implement all writes it receives from node2. That’s how they stay in sync.

In this scenario node2 is not “passive”. It does perform work: it serves reads to clients, and it performs writes, but only the writes received from node1. You could say that node2 slavishly follows what node1 dictates and that node1 is authorative. Master/slave more accurately describes this than active/passive.

There’s plenty of alternative terms to use without borrowing terminology from sexual roleplay.

Do I have news for you …

master over main

That one is the most stupid one too, because master in git doesn’t even refer to a master/slave relationship. It refers to a different meaning of the word master, namely “an original from which copies can be made”, as in master recording or master key. See 5b in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. And that’s how it’s used in git: any new branches are derived from master. Main just does not have the same nuance, because it does not imply a relationship between the branches, just that it’s somehow more important than the others.

But of course, the real reason it was changed is because for companies like github it’s easier to give in to the crazies who demand this than to fight them.

There are basically four positions you can take about this:

1. Jesus existed and was crucified
2. We can’t know, because there is no conclusive evidence, but I think (1) is more likely
3. We can’t know, because there is no conclusive evidence, but I think (4) is more likely
4. Jesus is a myth

I am on (2), as are most historians, and you put yourself on (1).

if it’s good enough for the majority of historians

It isn’t. Historians would love to have independent evidence of the existence and crucifixion of Jesus, but there isn’t… so most historians refrain from taking a position one way or the other. The ones that do have to make do with what little objective information they have, and the best they can come up with is: well because of this embarassing thing, it’s more likely that he did exist and was crucified than that he didn’t, because why would they make that up?

That’s rather weak evidence, and far from “proof”.

Not sure why you’d need more

Well for one because the more prominent people who have studied this have a vested interest in wanting it to be true. For example, John P. Meier, who posited this criterion of embarassment that I outlined in my previous comment, isn’t really a historian but a catholic priest, professor of theology (not history) and a writer of books on the subject.

There was a guy named Jesus that was crucified by the romans and all that. There is proof of that

There isn’t actually. The proof is basically: it’s embarassing that their cult leader got painfully crucified, so the early Christians and writers of the new testament wouldn’t have made that shit up.

Personally I find it rather unconvincing.

Pro tip: set a 40 minute timer on your phone as soon as you put the beer in the freezer.

How can air get heat saturated? i followed you thus far but its not like humidity, you can always add more heat

When the temperature of the air and temperature of the object you want to cool reach an equilibrium, no heat gets transfered anymore.

white-adjacent

You keep using that word as if it will somehow transform the color yellow into white and make your argument for you. It won’t happen. It’s yellow, and not just pale yellow but an extremely saturated and bright version of yellow. It is clearly not a natural skin tone of any race unless that person is very ill.

If you look at a white person’s skin tone, it’s not a saturated color and the hue is certainly not yellow. If anything, it’s pink. How you can arrive at “yellow = white-adjacent” just boggles my mind. There are literally billions of people on this planet who are not white and whose skin tone is closer to the yellow of a smiley face. You can call any color with sufficient luminosity white adjacent then. Bright blue: white-adjacent. Bright red: white-adjacent. Bright green: white-adjacent. Wee look at all those white-adjacent colors:

Anyway, I’m done with this discussion because I find you truly insufferable and I no longer want to spend my energy on it. If I can give you one piece of life advice: go find something worthwhile to get up in arms about.

yellow skin tone is clearly adjacent to whiteness and this was well established before aughts.

Not it was not and it still isn’t. The reason we think of the Simpsons as white is because the context makes it crystal clear that they’re a typical white suburban family, not because of their color. If Matt Groening had made Simpsons green, purple or blue we’d still think of them as white, and at the same time smileys and later emojis would still be yellow. At best there is some parallel evolution here in the sense that both Matt Groening and Harvey Ball both chose yellow for the same reason: because it is perceived as a bright happy color.

If you then associate yellowness exclusively with whiteness that’s purely a you thing, and honestly I find it pretty fucked up to see racial connotations like this in the most innocent things. Stop projecting your own prejudices.

emojis caught widespread support in the mid/late aughts

My argument is that bright yellow smileys have their own cultural lineage dating back to 1963, and it has nothing to do with skin color or race. Using these yellow smileys to express emotion in computer programs has been a thing since at least the mid nineties, not the mid/late aughts as you claim. The reason that it only appeared in the mid nineties and not earlier is technological and cultural. It has to do with the developing graphical and networking capabilities of computers around that time, and because smileys were popular in other aspects of culture around the same time. It has nothing to do with The Simpsons or other supposedly white cartoon characters.

The Simpsons came out in 88. You are saying most of the world got the Simpsons about half a decade later. I would say this proves the exact opposite of your point and that it is a huge world cultural phenomena. I’m shocked that I’m having the defend the Simpsons as one of the most important and impactful TV shows of all time.

My point is, I didn’t even hear about the Simpsons until I was in Uni, which puts it around 1995-ish, but I sure knew what a yellow smiley was.

Emoticon != emoji. Characters don’t have skin tone colors. The first emojis didn’t come out until 1999

I meant smileys really, because that’s what they were initially called. Emojis is a more recent retroactive rebranding/appropriation of smileys by Apple when they launched the iphone.

Anyway ICQ had yellow smiley faces 1996-ish. AIM had them 1997-ish. Yahoo!Pager, later Yahoo!Messenger, had yellow smileys in 1998. And MSN definitely had them in 1999.

And then there’s friggin minesweeper that had a yellow smiley face all the way back in 1992:

I guess they all watched too much Simpsons?

My point is that everyone, who is being honest at least, interprets the Simpsons as being white. Do you think they’re white?

Yes, from the context it’s crystal clear that they’re white, they could be purple or green and they’d still be “white”, but I think it’s not relevant in a discussion about emojis.

As I said, it’s no surprise the default emoji is closest to white skin. Even if that association comes from the Simpsons, emojis didn’t come out until decades after the Simpsons became a cultural mainstay.

My point is that yellow smiley faces have been a cultural mainstay independent of the Simpsons, and that you grossly overestimate the worldwide cultural impact of the Simpsons. Most of the non-US world didn’t even get the Simpsons on TV until the mid 1990s, while smiley face t-shirts and pins were all the rage in the late 1980s and 1990s. Source: I wore them myself when I was a kid, and from your comment I’m guessing you weren’t born yet.

And decades? The Simpsons started in 1989, while the first instant messengers already had smiley face emoticons in the mid 90s.

But emoji’s are not derived from the Simpsons. They’re derived from the yellow smiley face ideogram that originated in the 1960s, it was designed by the artist Harvey Ball.

It’s yellow, not because it’s supposed to represent whiteness, but because the company colors of the State Mutual Life Assurance Company it was designed for were yellow and black, and because it feels sunny, bright and positive. It’s an anthropomorphized representation of the Sun, and does not represent a human with a specific skin color.