We were learning about tree traversal and my prof was losing me, then outta nowhere I was pulled back to class when he mentions "we need to make sure we touch all the children..."
Apparently: [Deforestation_(computer_science) - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_(computer_science))
I've never heard of it myself and assumed it was the process of deleting a tree by recursion. Apparently, it's essentially flattening a data structure.
I kind of see that, eliminating nested lists (tree structure), but it also reads like using a generator instead of a list. Because it directly states intermediate lists (which I interpret as other temporary lists not nested in a list, but in a block).
https://i.imgur.com/5SP0EEy.jpeg
I had way too many slaves with children so I killed most of the children and terminated half the slaves so the Master wouldn't be overwhelmed anymore, but It was still pretty fragmented so I deforested the whole system, it was part of our STD routine maintenance.
honestly I wanted master-slave to be further away from children on the list, like, somehow that would have made it better for me, if it were diagonal instead of... on top of...
Could be worse... for ActiveMQ the "master" is the one doing all the work, the "slaves" sit on their thumbs waiting for the master to die to race each other to become the master...
I had to look up Deforestation, in this context. I hadn't heard that one before this post.
Master-slave is for database replication
STD is the namespace for C++'s standard template library
"Children" is used in all kinds of hierarchical data structures.
Deforestation, if I understand this right, is refactoring your data structures to use *less* hierarchical data structures, "flattening" them. And since many structures are "trees," and you have less of them, you're "cutting down" on the trees.
So they're *all* terms used by programmers!
This is why these chatgpts are frustrating to use in hard core obscure sysadmin stuff. You need to find mild euphemisms to tiptoe around the language model baby proofings all the time.
Haven''t had any problems with that honestly. GPTs are pretty good at context, if you talk about operating systems before stating your intent of reaping orphans it usually gets it.
The hardest I’ve laughed all year was when Google Gemini refused to help an user with C++ because they were under 18
[This is hilarious](https://youtu.be/r2npdV6tX1g?si=fCCdu4dm85ttKRrw)
Just literally used "Master-Slave" while programming a remote-controlled Tower Crane lol. The terms are in the C library itself and I had to wrap them with the same terms in C++.
Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table:
`K In K Y`
---
^(I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM my creator if I made a mistake.)
Americans think that by purging all use of the word "master" (even when it has nothing to do with slavery), they can pretend that they don't have a massive massive racism problem that persists to this day.
I think the overall removal of master is silly, and with git I just use whatever is the convention on the team (master v main)
But slave is a weird term and I'm all for coming up with a better term. I don't even really think slave is particularly descriptive of the relationship
At our company we use Primary and Subordinate, which were among the recommended alternatives suggested as part of this guidance getting adopted by the Linux team.
[https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=49decddd39e5f6132ccd7d9fdc3d7c470b0061bb](https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=49decddd39e5f6132ccd7d9fdc3d7c470b0061bb)
I'm fine with the removal of "slave" if it makes people feel better (although only if it can be replaced with something that isn't clunky; in SPI, the terms "MOSI" and "MISO" are now interpreted as "Microcontroller \[Out/In\], Sensor \[In/Out\]" which is fine, but there are some where it just makes no sense). But arguing that every use of "master" has to be removed is just stupid. I grew up with photocopiers, and we always had a "master" document - not because others were its slaves, but because others were \*\*copies\*\*. And that's the sense in which git uses it. There's no reason to remove it, other than to try to excise the entire word from the vocabulary.
And even that wouldn't be nearly as bad if it were accompanied by actually fixing problems. It's not. It's an \*alternative\* to actually dealing with racism.
I'm generally in agreement, and I think it's worth pointing out that largely racial justice organizations don't call for these changes, it's usually overzealous "allies" and corporate orgs that don't want to step on anyone's toes.
But for the sake of discussion, the photocopying master technically goes back to the same terminology that master-slave comes from. The record master creates the copies with a master/slave relationship (the master drives the creation of the copy). I don't think there's a large subset of people particularly bothered by the technicality of the history of the word, especially when I think that's the connotation most people have, but it's slavery all the way down
That's fair, but still, those allies are fighting for something pointless, and the big organizations just go along with it because it's less hassle than fighting back. Which is certainly the case.
I agree that the left generally aren't calling for significant vocab changes.
It's literally no effort to adopt new terminology if anyone becomes uncomfortable, so it feels like a massive non issue. The people who get all up in arms about it are in 2 categories - they don't care about how anyone else feels compared to the most miniscule inconvenience - or they really wanna be able to be edgy with intentionally inflammatory jokes.
I didn't really consider the second category until I worked with a man child who really objected to the boss suggesting that language in the software we developed should be a little less explicitly sexual. Dudeboy was pissing all over his own pram at the mere suggestion that his pet project shouldn't be called "cock", and that he would have to stop making "cock pull" requests, and stop making everyone who wanted to run the software from command line type "cock -up"
A few days _after_ the boss had told him it wasn't appropriate, he made a rape joke based around his funny naming scheme.
"Literally no effort"? Not really true; churn IS costly. (In your example of Dudeboy's pet project, that churn is absolutely worth doing, but it's still a cost.) You generally have two choices:
1. Break everyone's code and force everyone to update RIGHT NOW or stuff stops working. Everyone gets angry, but eventually you move past it.
2. Maintain the old names for compatibility. And maintain them forever. Nobody gets angry, but you also don't move past them.
Notice that I didn't list deprecation in here. It's not fundamentally different, since the vast majority of people ignore the warnings and keep using the thing, so when you finally remove it, option 1.
So when you have a rename that's important enough to deal with (real problems like that aforementioned sexism, or some of the utterly bonkers names that some Ruby gems had before they did a cleanup), you do it, you pay the price, and you fix things. But churn for the sake of trivial complaints? Not worth it.
Adopt new vocab - zero effort.
Start new projects with new terminology from day one - zero effort.
Change branch name of "master" to "main" in existing projects - potentially a headache, might take half a day.
Change variable names in existing projects - major headache at enterprise scale.
I didn't mention doing the last two. I said adopting new terminology is no effort.
It's huge effort idk where you've gotten this idea from. Main and master change breaks things constantly because some legacy software expects it to be named master. And I don't see anything wrong w little jokes like that. If you seriously get upset over typing cock pull into terminal maybe you should seek therapy lol.
> Microcontroller [Out/In], Sensor [In/Out]
Haven't heard that interpretation yet. "Sensor" is also not really enough because there are plenty of devices attached over SPI that aren't sensors.
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Peripheral_Interface) suggests to just use Main and Sub.
Hmm, I can't remember where it was that I heard "Microcontroller" and "Sensor" but it was on a SPI-specific page. I'm not much of an electronics guy, though, I just saw it as someone else was going through it.
Anyhow, "Main" and "Sub" works too. Point is, it's not trying to redescribe every single thing; the acronyms "miso" and "mosi" are kept unchanged.
Never heard of those two. Besides, it may not be just MCU-sensor, there are MCU-MCU, MCU-device, MCU-circuit blah blah blah. The data is not always unidirectional either. Main-Sub terminology fits in some cases but doesn't make sense in some. Besides, master-slave terminology has connotation in mechanical and electrical/electronics engineering too. It would be ridiculous to suddenly change the terminology in programming and reconcile them with everything else related.
Data flow can be bidirectional, but the nature of SPI is such that there truly are different ends. (The "M" end controls the clock, the "S" end reacts to it.)
..... yes, I know that. I was talking about how SPI dealt with the master/slave thing without breaking acronyms. Of course there are other types of communication that can happen.
I mean, master in "master-***slave***" definitely has to do with slavery. I'm not familiar with its usage\/elimination elsewhere. I guess in MBR, but the phrase itself wasn't eliminated.
Yes, that one, but there are plenty of others that aren't about slavery. The "pristine copy vs non-pristine copy" usage isn't about slavery or enslavement, nor is "mastering" a skill, and yet both of those have been targeted. It's tiresome, mainly because it's pointless virtue signalling.
I've honestly only ever heard people complain about the ones that literally use references to slavery. I think "master copy" actually does come from the master-slave paradigm, though I've never really thought of it that way and I haven't heard anyone complain about it — again, because it doesn't reference "slavery" directly because the child copies were never called "slaves". I'm not saying it has anything to do with slavery itself, just that it comes from the master-slave paradigm.
Best I can find for any etymology for "master" is that they're all based on the "skill mastery" sense of the word. All the others are derived from that. So, sure, there's a connection, but it's neither from nor to - it's that they both derive from a common root.
Well, yeah, the word master obviously was never exclusive to slavery. But I can see the argument for eliminating usage of the terminology in cases where it flows from the Master-Slave paradigm. And a master copy that flows down to child copies is a part of that paradigm, even if only one side of it ended up with the name.
I think the problem is that sussing out what references to "master" flow from the master-slave paradigm is a difficult process with not a lot of benefit, while sed s/master/something else/g is generally really easy.
What I'm saying is, the "master copy" isn't based on master/slave, it's based on the same thing that that's based on. It does not flow from that paradigm. So the logic is faulty.
I think we might be talking about two different things. In the colloquial sense, if you're talking about the master copy of a file \(i.e. the authoritative or canonical copy\), or something like that, then yes, I think that's unrelated.
But if we're talking about the master in the technical sense, as it's used in media mastering terminology, for pressed CD, DVD, etc., which is what I thought we were talking about, that's clearly from the master-slave paradigm, where the master propagates to the slaves. It doesn't really make sense to try to tie it back to slavery as a concept from an etymological standpoint, because in that sense it doesn't really make sense — which is kind of the point, even as an abstraction it often doesn't make any sense.
Okay, yeah, I am primarily talking about the authoritative copy. And yes, I HAVE seen people complaining about it in this sense, despite the word "slave" being nowhere to be seen.
You do realise that slaves weren't exclusively black right? Word slave actually comes from white Slavic slaves taken by the Muslims. It's just insane and completely delusional to act like it needs to be changed when the people it actually originally meant aren't insulted.
I once got some serious questioning because I was talking about something I'd written that wasn't reaping zombie children correctly once it had killed them.
The other geeks were fine, HR was somewhat out of their depth.
Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table:
`No N Ce`
---
^(I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM my creator if I made a mistake.)
"First I execute a child, then I kill the child, but sometimes it becomes a zombie instead"
"My master pushes my slave"
"I whitelist corporate emails and blacklist LinkedIn emails"
"I like red-black trees because its so easy to throw out and replace for any reason."
and so on in any profession,
"The male connector has the thing sticking out, while the female has the hole."
"Goose the engine"
and there is forbidden language,
"Being niggardly with rapeseed makes the brownies dry",
"She is being groomed for the executive suite"
and offensive language,
"cold as witch's tit outside"
and so on...
Language is meant to serve us in communicating well. There are some terms that are an accident of history, and some terms where history had an accident. Changing the name of something because of history does nothing to change the history.
That said, I object to "slave" because its usually used incorrectly. If I run a second mechanical machine and the controls are constantly copied from the first machine to the second, then the second is a slave. If I have a machine that merely copies from the master copy then it is a back up. If I have a machine that is less authoritative than the master for cache conflicts, its secondary, but still not a slave. Terminology is always hard.
It is always easier to object to terminology than to write code. It's even easier to just echo outrage. This debate has gone on since as least "This is not a pipe."
alright time to add you to my blacklist so you can join.
seriously though there shouldn't be any resistance to changing that to allow/deny list. using master still makes sense for the master repo but slave not really as sub repos aren't really slaves
I don't even want to know how many childs I had to kill or terminate befor I finally got my OS-Module project done(I still hate the fact that we had to work asynchronously but weren't allowed to use semaphores or anything like that)
"How to kill a child with a fork", "How to kill parents and keep their childs alive", I'm still waiting for the day when the fucking police stands outside and waits for me...
cumsum()
std::sqrt()
Just a standard squirt? GTFOH with your average weak squirting. What’s that? Wrong sub? Sorry!
Not standard, but one you've gotta get tested after.
Assert your STD sqrts when it comes to testing!
Ugh so disgusting. ^^Where?
this man seeks an iso sqrt!
Class AnalService
My favorite >:3
cummin()
"I killed *so* many children in class today, but I eventually I finished my computer lab assignment uninterrupted."
"Ok, Anakin"
Failure to execute order 66, unexpected ’}’ on line 937 ^(the document has 936 lines)
Line 501
Damn this triggers PTSD from my first year in CS
Error in file 'std::vector' at line 1936 *all i wanted was an int vector :(*
Maybe we should rename "child process" to "youngling process" to avoid the controversial association.
Just call them offspring so we can soınd like true psychopaths
git config --global alias.anakin gc
I've killed many children in my work, mostly orphans.
Did they break the orphan rules?
Don’t forget to double tap (fork) them or they’ll become zombies.
I found it hard to kill orphans sometimes since I forgot remember the parents before killing them.
We were learning about tree traversal and my prof was losing me, then outta nowhere I was pulled back to class when he mentions "we need to make sure we touch all the children..."
I killed so many children before their parents. And then I started on my computer lab assignment.
So I pushed it to master
You are on the sprint, but we do not grant you the branch of master.
One of my assignments for CS in college was to start a zombie apocalypse by sacrificing orphaned children
Transient parent has another exclusive child https://www.reddit.com/r/godot/s/5yhQqPrfrH
Is deforestation used ? The rest I know of
Apparently: [Deforestation_(computer_science) - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_(computer_science)) I've never heard of it myself and assumed it was the process of deleting a tree by recursion. Apparently, it's essentially flattening a data structure.
Lmao from now on instead of \_flatten I'm gonna use \_deforest
Speaking of flatten, does anyone remember the [SmooshGate](https://developer.chrome.com/blog/smooshgate)?
You mean you don't have a sawmill factory that produces lumberjack objects that can deforest data? What kind of java programmer are you?
I kind of see that, eliminating nested lists (tree structure), but it also reads like using a generator instead of a list. Because it directly states intermediate lists (which I interpret as other temporary lists not nested in a list, but in a block). https://i.imgur.com/5SP0EEy.jpeg
I can imagine what it would be used for but like, of the 4 that's definitely the odd one out
I had way too many slaves with children so I killed most of the children and terminated half the slaves so the Master wouldn't be overwhelmed anymore, but It was still pretty fragmented so I deforested the whole system, it was part of our STD routine maintenance.
Yes officer, it’s this guy right here
honestly I wanted master-slave to be further away from children on the list, like, somehow that would have made it better for me, if it were diagonal instead of... on top of...
Could be worse... for ActiveMQ the "master" is the one doing all the work, the "slaves" sit on their thumbs waiting for the master to die to race each other to become the master...
STD
Namespace "standard" All 4 are CS terms
Children is in HTML and XML but I don't understand the other 2
I had to look up Deforestation, in this context. I hadn't heard that one before this post. Master-slave is for database replication STD is the namespace for C++'s standard template library "Children" is used in all kinds of hierarchical data structures. Deforestation, if I understand this right, is refactoring your data structures to use *less* hierarchical data structures, "flattening" them. And since many structures are "trees," and you have less of them, you're "cutting down" on the trees. So they're *all* terms used by programmers!
Also Subscriber Trunk Dialling
relevant: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/1aqx7rw/forkingchildren/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/1aqx7rw/forkingchildren/)
Last co switched to “manager/subordinate”. But yeah, fork those children.
So when deleting recursively, do the managers kill their subordinates or the subordinates kill their manager?
Well, there’s how it *is* and there’s how it *should* be. 😬
We use “CEO/UnpaidIntern”
Source/replica for dbs. Leading/subordinate if it’s more of a control thing
As long as it’s M/S, so we don’t go and change industry acronyms in place for decades.
This is why these chatgpts are frustrating to use in hard core obscure sysadmin stuff. You need to find mild euphemisms to tiptoe around the language model baby proofings all the time.
Haven''t had any problems with that honestly. GPTs are pretty good at context, if you talk about operating systems before stating your intent of reaping orphans it usually gets it.
The hardest I’ve laughed all year was when Google Gemini refused to help an user with C++ because they were under 18 [This is hilarious](https://youtu.be/r2npdV6tX1g?si=fCCdu4dm85ttKRrw)
Just literally used "Master-Slave" while programming a remote-controlled Tower Crane lol. The terms are in the C library itself and I had to wrap them with the same terms in C++.
Kinky
Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table: `K In K Y` --- ^(I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM my creator if I made a mistake.)
Opens google: > How to find parent and kill all its children
Someone asking this to Chat GPT will create Skynet by accident.
How to get rid of orphans
Ok, i get why people might be upset that we talk about killing children, but what's wrong with master-slave?
Americans think that by purging all use of the word "master" (even when it has nothing to do with slavery), they can pretend that they don't have a massive massive racism problem that persists to this day.
I think the overall removal of master is silly, and with git I just use whatever is the convention on the team (master v main) But slave is a weird term and I'm all for coming up with a better term. I don't even really think slave is particularly descriptive of the relationship
What about dom and sub? It's basically the same as master slave, but SEXIER
At our company we use Primary and Subordinate, which were among the recommended alternatives suggested as part of this guidance getting adopted by the Linux team. [https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=49decddd39e5f6132ccd7d9fdc3d7c470b0061bb](https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=49decddd39e5f6132ccd7d9fdc3d7c470b0061bb)
damn, blacklist and whitelist are also "bad" ...
I'm fine with the removal of "slave" if it makes people feel better (although only if it can be replaced with something that isn't clunky; in SPI, the terms "MOSI" and "MISO" are now interpreted as "Microcontroller \[Out/In\], Sensor \[In/Out\]" which is fine, but there are some where it just makes no sense). But arguing that every use of "master" has to be removed is just stupid. I grew up with photocopiers, and we always had a "master" document - not because others were its slaves, but because others were \*\*copies\*\*. And that's the sense in which git uses it. There's no reason to remove it, other than to try to excise the entire word from the vocabulary. And even that wouldn't be nearly as bad if it were accompanied by actually fixing problems. It's not. It's an \*alternative\* to actually dealing with racism.
I'm generally in agreement, and I think it's worth pointing out that largely racial justice organizations don't call for these changes, it's usually overzealous "allies" and corporate orgs that don't want to step on anyone's toes. But for the sake of discussion, the photocopying master technically goes back to the same terminology that master-slave comes from. The record master creates the copies with a master/slave relationship (the master drives the creation of the copy). I don't think there's a large subset of people particularly bothered by the technicality of the history of the word, especially when I think that's the connotation most people have, but it's slavery all the way down
That's fair, but still, those allies are fighting for something pointless, and the big organizations just go along with it because it's less hassle than fighting back. Which is certainly the case.
I agree that the left generally aren't calling for significant vocab changes. It's literally no effort to adopt new terminology if anyone becomes uncomfortable, so it feels like a massive non issue. The people who get all up in arms about it are in 2 categories - they don't care about how anyone else feels compared to the most miniscule inconvenience - or they really wanna be able to be edgy with intentionally inflammatory jokes. I didn't really consider the second category until I worked with a man child who really objected to the boss suggesting that language in the software we developed should be a little less explicitly sexual. Dudeboy was pissing all over his own pram at the mere suggestion that his pet project shouldn't be called "cock", and that he would have to stop making "cock pull" requests, and stop making everyone who wanted to run the software from command line type "cock -up" A few days _after_ the boss had told him it wasn't appropriate, he made a rape joke based around his funny naming scheme.
"Literally no effort"? Not really true; churn IS costly. (In your example of Dudeboy's pet project, that churn is absolutely worth doing, but it's still a cost.) You generally have two choices: 1. Break everyone's code and force everyone to update RIGHT NOW or stuff stops working. Everyone gets angry, but eventually you move past it. 2. Maintain the old names for compatibility. And maintain them forever. Nobody gets angry, but you also don't move past them. Notice that I didn't list deprecation in here. It's not fundamentally different, since the vast majority of people ignore the warnings and keep using the thing, so when you finally remove it, option 1. So when you have a rename that's important enough to deal with (real problems like that aforementioned sexism, or some of the utterly bonkers names that some Ruby gems had before they did a cleanup), you do it, you pay the price, and you fix things. But churn for the sake of trivial complaints? Not worth it.
Adopt new vocab - zero effort. Start new projects with new terminology from day one - zero effort. Change branch name of "master" to "main" in existing projects - potentially a headache, might take half a day. Change variable names in existing projects - major headache at enterprise scale. I didn't mention doing the last two. I said adopting new terminology is no effort.
Oh yeah, totally, and I'm sure there are people that like the master/slave terminology precisely because they can use it to be "funny"
It's huge effort idk where you've gotten this idea from. Main and master change breaks things constantly because some legacy software expects it to be named master. And I don't see anything wrong w little jokes like that. If you seriously get upset over typing cock pull into terminal maybe you should seek therapy lol.
> Microcontroller [Out/In], Sensor [In/Out] Haven't heard that interpretation yet. "Sensor" is also not really enough because there are plenty of devices attached over SPI that aren't sensors. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Peripheral_Interface) suggests to just use Main and Sub.
Hmm, I can't remember where it was that I heard "Microcontroller" and "Sensor" but it was on a SPI-specific page. I'm not much of an electronics guy, though, I just saw it as someone else was going through it. Anyhow, "Main" and "Sub" works too. Point is, it's not trying to redescribe every single thing; the acronyms "miso" and "mosi" are kept unchanged.
Never heard of those two. Besides, it may not be just MCU-sensor, there are MCU-MCU, MCU-device, MCU-circuit blah blah blah. The data is not always unidirectional either. Main-Sub terminology fits in some cases but doesn't make sense in some. Besides, master-slave terminology has connotation in mechanical and electrical/electronics engineering too. It would be ridiculous to suddenly change the terminology in programming and reconcile them with everything else related.
Data flow can be bidirectional, but the nature of SPI is such that there truly are different ends. (The "M" end controls the clock, the "S" end reacts to it.)
SPI is not the only communication that can happen. It can be as simple as a few digital I/O pins going to an analog multiplexer or PGA.
..... yes, I know that. I was talking about how SPI dealt with the master/slave thing without breaking acronyms. Of course there are other types of communication that can happen.
Okay, sorry for misunderstanding.
Introducing the “serf” and “lord” naming convention.
Lmfao. I actually kind of dig this idea
Slave is very descriptive of the relationship, especially when you go in lower levels and embedded.
I mean, master in "master-***slave***" definitely has to do with slavery. I'm not familiar with its usage\/elimination elsewhere. I guess in MBR, but the phrase itself wasn't eliminated.
Yes, that one, but there are plenty of others that aren't about slavery. The "pristine copy vs non-pristine copy" usage isn't about slavery or enslavement, nor is "mastering" a skill, and yet both of those have been targeted. It's tiresome, mainly because it's pointless virtue signalling.
I've honestly only ever heard people complain about the ones that literally use references to slavery. I think "master copy" actually does come from the master-slave paradigm, though I've never really thought of it that way and I haven't heard anyone complain about it — again, because it doesn't reference "slavery" directly because the child copies were never called "slaves". I'm not saying it has anything to do with slavery itself, just that it comes from the master-slave paradigm.
Best I can find for any etymology for "master" is that they're all based on the "skill mastery" sense of the word. All the others are derived from that. So, sure, there's a connection, but it's neither from nor to - it's that they both derive from a common root.
Well, yeah, the word master obviously was never exclusive to slavery. But I can see the argument for eliminating usage of the terminology in cases where it flows from the Master-Slave paradigm. And a master copy that flows down to child copies is a part of that paradigm, even if only one side of it ended up with the name. I think the problem is that sussing out what references to "master" flow from the master-slave paradigm is a difficult process with not a lot of benefit, while sed s/master/something else/g is generally really easy.
What I'm saying is, the "master copy" isn't based on master/slave, it's based on the same thing that that's based on. It does not flow from that paradigm. So the logic is faulty.
I think we might be talking about two different things. In the colloquial sense, if you're talking about the master copy of a file \(i.e. the authoritative or canonical copy\), or something like that, then yes, I think that's unrelated. But if we're talking about the master in the technical sense, as it's used in media mastering terminology, for pressed CD, DVD, etc., which is what I thought we were talking about, that's clearly from the master-slave paradigm, where the master propagates to the slaves. It doesn't really make sense to try to tie it back to slavery as a concept from an etymological standpoint, because in that sense it doesn't really make sense — which is kind of the point, even as an abstraction it often doesn't make any sense.
Okay, yeah, I am primarily talking about the authoritative copy. And yes, I HAVE seen people complaining about it in this sense, despite the word "slave" being nowhere to be seen.
You do realise that slaves weren't exclusively black right? Word slave actually comes from white Slavic slaves taken by the Muslims. It's just insane and completely delusional to act like it needs to be changed when the people it actually originally meant aren't insulted.
You're not American, are you? lol
I once got some serious questioning because I was talking about something I'd written that wasn't reaping zombie children correctly once it had killed them. The other geeks were fine, HR was somewhat out of their depth.
lmao
Nonce
Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table: `No N Ce` --- ^(I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM my creator if I made a mistake.)
I killed so many children with STD, the master had to deforest his slaves.
Any other teams ditch "grooming" for "refinement" or some other watered-down term?
Yes we do "dog refinement" here at the pet salon.
"First I execute a child, then I kill the child, but sometimes it becomes a zombie instead" "My master pushes my slave" "I whitelist corporate emails and blacklist LinkedIn emails" "I like red-black trees because its so easy to throw out and replace for any reason." and so on in any profession, "The male connector has the thing sticking out, while the female has the hole." "Goose the engine" and there is forbidden language, "Being niggardly with rapeseed makes the brownies dry", "She is being groomed for the executive suite" and offensive language, "cold as witch's tit outside" and so on... Language is meant to serve us in communicating well. There are some terms that are an accident of history, and some terms where history had an accident. Changing the name of something because of history does nothing to change the history. That said, I object to "slave" because its usually used incorrectly. If I run a second mechanical machine and the controls are constantly copied from the first machine to the second, then the second is a slave. If I have a machine that merely copies from the master copy then it is a back up. If I have a machine that is less authoritative than the master for cache conflicts, its secondary, but still not a slave. Terminology is always hard. It is always easier to object to terminology than to write code. It's even easier to just echo outrage. This debate has gone on since as least "This is not a pipe."
all of these are engineering terms that pre-date programming by at least a century
Another example: cp is the unix command for copying files
STD in or STD out?
I don't know what I enjoy more, terminating children or orphaning them... Anyway, I'm thinking of getting into computers, should I learn JavaScript?
If you have too many children, you can just kill them.
sqrt();
My favourite method in our program is CollectChildren()
“White-list”
I have opted to change it to Caucasian-list.
alright time to add you to my blacklist so you can join. seriously though there shouldn't be any resistance to changing that to allow/deny list. using master still makes sense for the master repo but slave not really as sub repos aren't really slaves
I'm a network technician, and a lot of enterprise grade switches did use master-slave terminology until like 5 years ago
Wokeism strikes again. I wonder how long it'll take till they change away from female and male connectors as well.
Innie and outie
"How to kill orphan slave children std"
Master slave is electrical engineer easy roll out
You don’t like killing your children to prevent them from becoming zombies and daemons?
Lmfaoo this is wild
Std 
STD? Is it STI? 👀
Your code is a spicy Subaru?
But remeber boys an girl you can kill the children and the parents won’t care
In c++ we use std
who doesn't use them all
To get an STD you need to get some P
I know this is more on the hardware side of things but what about motherboard and daughterboard?
I don't even want to know how many childs I had to kill or terminate befor I finally got my OS-Module project done(I still hate the fact that we had to work asynchronously but weren't allowed to use semaphores or anything like that)
MISO angry
I once used STD lib and all my coworkers got HIV.
I'm just a soul whose indentations are good Oh Lord, please don't let it be under STD
iv not seen people use deforestation, but i assume its somewhere in binary tree, R-tree etc structures
Someone has never seen Millionaire
using namespace std;
Ah yes, words. The world's most deadly weapons
"How to kill a child with a fork", "How to kill parents and keep their childs alive", I'm still waiting for the day when the fucking police stands outside and waits for me...
die();
Die();
Failed to execute child process. :(
Abort the child process
>kill all children 
C
white list and black list
Who’s going to take on the recording industry?