Random Thread

[Raphael]

Might she simply have not noticed? Patisseries here sell a lot of different things, and it’s easy to overlook products you don’t know about.

Possible.

[Ares Land]

I'm a bit confused about the age of éclairs as an invention. Wikipedia claims they date to the 19th century. However, I met with my Mom today, and we ate some stuff from a bakery, including éclairs, and she asked why they're called "éclairs", and I said that they're from France, and she said that when she was in France, which was, I think, in the 1960s or 1970s, she didn't come across any.

I'm pretty sure the éclairs were there

[Raphael]

Do I get this right that, with the way scoring in tennis works, you can lose a match even if you scored more often than your opponent, because you won a smaller number of games in landslides while your opponent won a larger number of games just barely?

[bradrn]

Do I get this right that, with the way scoring in tennis works, you can lose a match even if you scored more often than your opponent, because you won a smaller number of games in landslides while your opponent won a larger number of games just barely?

I’m not sure I fully understand the way you’ve phrased this… could you perhaps give a concrete example?

(Also, are you entirely sure you haven’t confused ‘points’ and ‘games’?)

[Raphael]

I’m not sure I fully understand the way you’ve phrased this… could you perhaps give a concrete example?

(Also, are you entirely sure you haven’t confused ‘points’ and ‘games’?)

I don't think I've confused the two, but I can't be sure.

Let's see if I can think of an example for a best of three match.

Player A wins 4 games in the first set without Player B ever scoring anything in any of those games.

Player B wins 6 games in the first set, each of them after they had gotten to deuce.

Same in the second set.

If my math is correct, Player A scored ((4 x 4) + (6 x 3)) x 2 = 68 times, while Player B scored (6 x 5) x 2 = 60 times, and Player B won.

What I want to know is, is there any flaw in the above?

[bradrn]

Let's see if I can think of an example for a best of three match.

Player A wins 4 games in the first set without Player B ever scoring anything in any of those games.

Player B wins 6 games in the first set, each of them after they had gotten to deuce.

Same in the second set.

If my math is correct, Player A scored ((4 x 4) + (6 x 3)) x 2 = 68 times, while Player B scored (6 x 5) x 2 = 60 times, and Player B won.

Yes, this looks correct to me.

[Raphael]

Yes, this looks correct to me.

Thank you.

[Travis B.]

(Yes this post is years late by this point.)

You guys have probably heard about how some people (e.g. GitHub) have been pushing for replacing the original name of the master branch in git with a "main" branch, ostensibly because the name "master" is racist because it evokes slavery, even though in git there is no such thing as a "slave". So when people point out the existence of things such as master copies and masters' degrees and ask whether we are going to rename those too, they have often gotten the retort "well you should listen to Black people".

So some of those people asked actual Black people, and the responses they have gotten back have generally been along the lines of that it is that it patronizing and even insulting for White people to presume that Black people cannot tell apart a master branch and slavery and thus that they would get offended by something that has no relation with actual slavery.

And this is without considering how replacing "master" with "main" or like is often thought of by detractors as mostly performative, as being more about looking anti-racist in an easy (and mostly empty) fashion rather than actually doing anything real about racism.

So what are your guys' view of this?

[Raphael]

And this is without considering how replacing "master" with "main" or like is often thought of by detractors as mostly performative, as being more about looking anti-racist in an easy (and mostly empty) fashion rather than actually doing anything real about racism.

So what are your guys' view of this?

I think it's generally better, when in doubt, to err on the side of being less (potentially) offensive rather than more (potentially) offensive, unless you think you have really good reasons to do things differently. Yes, that might be criticized as "performative", but I'd say it's simply doing the minimum. Doing the minimum is not enough, of course, but IMO not doing the minimum is worse.

(Before anyone contrasts the previous paragraph with all the things I've said before that some people might have found offensive, yes, I am willing to offend people when I think I really have to, that is, when the alternative would be abandoning ideas that are really important to me. But when that's not the case, I generally try to avoid offending people.)

[Raphael]

Different topic: If doctor shark's birthday known to the board software is accurate, let me wish a very Happy Birthday to doctor shark!

[doctor shark]

Different topic: If doctor shark's birthday known to the board software is accurate, let me wish a very Happy Birthday to doctor shark!

Thank you, and it is correct. :)

[WeepingElf]

A happy birthday to you from me, too!

[Travis B.]

Happy birthday doctor shark!

[alice]

In a previous job, one set of system designers replaced "master" and "slave" with "whisky" and "teapot".

IMHO "slave" is probably questionable, "master" rather less so.

[Raphael]

In a previous job, one set of system designers replaced "master" and "slave" with "whisky" and "teapot".

Kettle and teapot would have made more sense, IMO.

[keenir]

Have a great and safe birthday, Doctor Shark!

[Travis B.]

And this is without considering how replacing "master" with "main" or like is often thought of by detractors as mostly performative, as being more about looking anti-racist in an easy (and mostly empty) fashion rather than actually doing anything real about racism.

So what are your guys' view of this?

I think it's generally better, when in doubt, to err on the side of being less (potentially) offensive rather than more (potentially) offensive, unless you think you have really good reasons to do things differently. Yes, that might be criticized as "performative", but I'd say it's simply doing the minimum. Doing the minimum is not enough, of course, but IMO not doing the minimum is worse.

(Before anyone contrasts the previous paragraph with all the things I've said before that some people might have found offensive, yes, I am willing to offend people when I think I really have to, that is, when the alternative would be abandoning ideas that are really important to me. But when that's not the case, I generally try to avoid offending people.)

I have heard this argument, that "one might as well do the minimum", but fundamentally the fact that saying that Black people might be offended by something that actual Black people, as opposed to Black people as imagined by White people, are not offended by is in and of itself offensive to Black people is good reason to not make such changes.

If the name was originally "main", or, say, per Subversion tradition, "trunk" I would say stick with it. but since the original, traditional name in git is "master" (like a master copy, without any implications of there being a "slave") I am set on sticking with "master" for my own repos for this reason regardless of what GitHub tries to push.

(At work I do use "main" because that is what we use for all our repos, and I am not going to use "master" because that would introduce differences between repos regardless of what I think of "main".)

[bradrn]

IMHO "slave" is probably questionable, "master" rather less so.

I tend to agree with this. On its own, ‘master’ has many meanings, most of them innocuous; ‘slave’, not so much.

Of course, if someone does tell me that ‘master’ offends them, I’ll change it. This is something I don’t care strongly about, and if changing the terminology makes someone feel better, then that‘s good.

[xxx]

the only way not to offend anyone is to shut up,
it's funny to see how we come to establish a Newspeak without Big Brother,
and how it's perhaps even more effective,
maternalism is undoubtedly more powerful, and insidious, than paternalism...

[Raphael]

Of course, if someone does tell me that ‘master’ offends them, I’ll change it. This is something I don’t care strongly about, and if changing the terminology makes someone feel better, then that‘s good.

Exactly.