So anyone saying 'trans people deserve basic human rights' is actually saying something else, like about access to women's spaces. That disingenuous advocacy of one thing to get another thing through under the table is more activist than principled. In a company or otherwise.

Yes, but ... That's work they brought on themselves by not doing the right things in the easy way. Sure, once they're there, there is a lot of work to come back but that should be used as a reason to not use those frameworks in the first place.

Some accessibility is like adding alt-text. It adds work. But almost everything else is just not abusing the browser and is generally done simply by following the recommendations. And not trying to live on the bleeding edge.

There's a difference of magnitude, in that one is a guy's name and the other is a guy's project's name. But no, I don't see a fundamental difference.

If you can't reliably pronounce my name and it'll sound like a bad word when you try, then you should say what you can say safely. I don't care enough that I want you nervous or slowing down a meeting. But if you expect me to change my name to what you could say I would not.

You trying your best is okay, you requiring me to lower the bar so you can succeed is not okay.

Anyways, yes we could require him to change his name because it's distracting. That would be one thing to do. It's the solution suggested by people in this thread...

They aren't though. This isn't about the poor (theoretical) coq-sayer, this is about the righteousness of the name decriers. If you can't point to a real victim we're better off assuming there isn't one and that you're just trying to look hip.

> any other name, idiom, or figure of speech that offends, embarrasses or diminishes others?

Sure, if it did actually diminish people someone would take you seriously. If the product was named after a slur, actually referencing it, and rudely. Like "TheMick, a project to track alcoholism".

But who is hurt by the concept that words in one language sound like different words in another? And is the speaker of the first language to blame or the speaker of the second who hears a dirty word? Allocate blame here, that we may smite the wicked.

> I guess you don't find it embarrassing so you don't see the problem

Even if I did I'd be hard pressed to tell some French people that they have to change because of my sexual puritanism. Is the left into forcing America's sexual mores on people again this week?

Because then you wouldn't have to say allegedly.

Similarly, some part of the system remains imperative. The network card at least, will always resend a packet. The goal is to pass around idempotent messages except for the very leaves.

For instance, instead of an endpoint 'email(customer, data)' you might have 'email_or_report_on_send_status(customer, data)' and the later endpoint would check the cache for (customer, data) and merely report the previous results if it found them.

I agree though, this stuff used to keep me up at night and eventually I've grown more natural about not mutating things unless I mean it. (This phrase sounds like a comic-book villain.)

Edit: Even mentioning the rule to someone who asked can bring out the haters.

And then the question adds state, "as of yyyy/mm/dd, which customers were more than $30 into credit?"

Hasn't anyone told you that you learn more with questions than assertions?

No. I'm saying that the language used is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Regardless of all the stuff you mentioned, which is true, the system is still a benefit.

You should not go out of your way to further weaken trust in the system that has benefitted those minorities you mention more than it has hurt them. Especially as you are presumably not those groups, you should be careful not to wreck what they have. (You may not be aware, but white 'progressives' often speak for people of color. Their messages sound like ones of support initially, but because these people are often merely social signaling the rhetoric can often prove harmful to people who have to live with it.)

> [...] all disproportionately impact minority groups compared to Caucasians

Some minorities, yes. Others, no. Deeply troubling to the white v black narrative is that Nigerian immigrants often do very well in the USA, even when Americans don't know if they're american-descendants-of-slavery or not.

But yes, ADoS do have it rough. If you want to support someone though, vague "minorities" is not how you do it.

> Per the Innocence Project, 70% of the cases

You can't use that stat in that way, presumably they picked the most egregious cases which would be the poorest, etc.

Or, you'd adapt a hardware wallet to do the same. Either way, there'd be two devices from two manufacturers, communicating over a transparent protocol.

imho the thing to do is take OPs suggestion, Paradox should make gay-marriage possible but have people refer to it in variable ways. Some egalitarian societies can call it marriage, others sodomy, etc. And then add other cross-cultural restrictions too, where civilizations may not recognize bi-religious or bi-racial marriages for various reasons.

In other words don't minimize the issue, lean into it in a CK way, deeply and unsettlingly.

It varies from acceptance of an adult just being trans, of trans babies, of schools preaching medical transition without parent approval, and of issue of bathroom usage and sex-segregated prisons.

Regardless of the political questions presumably Swedes are fairly liberal about someone's personal choices.

Actually, it probably is somewhat. I hate paying money but that my taxes go to useful things makes it bearable. I hate sucking up to a guy in a uniform but that he also arrests murderers makes it less infuriating.

But moreover, that's not the issue brought up originally, which was net damage to a group. The implication was that the justice system harmed minorities and as a group that's simply not true.

Also, the language used is trying to borrow outrage. Harmed minorities? No, harmed the poor. Many of whom were minorities. But there are rich racial minorities too.

Attempted murder, and arson of occupied structures. Far worse than the capitol riot.

Also, who the violence was directed at. In DC most of the rioters were unarmed and fought with police. In Portland and LA many protestors were armed and fought passing citizens, attacked drivers, etc. Police don't "deserve" to be hit, but they sign up knowing that the job can get rough. Random old ladies protesting the vandalism of their building shouldn't be hit but the justice mobs feel free to hurt anyone.

Seriously though, especially with individuals, why shouldn't you use all the information available, if it produces results even an iota better than blind acceptance (and for most people, their empathic-sense does)?