|
|
|
|
|
by komali2
2195 days ago
|
|
Some are, yes. As I said in another comment, merely "avoiding offending black developers" isn't reason alone. It's about what actions an individual and a company can take to explicitly work against the normalization of racism, while acknowledging the implicit bias against, and lack of input from, minority people during the creation of these technologies. If you'd like an interesting example I heard from a POC photography friend - she wondered if default camera settings tended to dramatically underexpose when working with black people subjects, if more black people had been involved in early photographic technology development. |
|
Can you point to people telling their stories of how the common name for default Git branches affected them? All the people I've encountered advocating for changing "master" to something else in Git have been white (when there was any information to attempt categorizing people as PoC / not PoC).
> It's about what actions an individual and a company can take to explicitly work against the normalization of racism
In reference to disposing of "master" in Git, I interpret this as "We must do something; this is something; therefore, we must do it."
Yes, this history of film with regard to different skin tones is interesting. I think even more black people were involved, the most common "or default" film still would have favored lighter skin because there could be no one film that would be good for all complexions. Maybe having multiple stocks to choose from would have been more prevalent.