Some parts of it are very reasonable, but others seem insane to me. "Sanity-check" is hardly ableist language in my opinion, and neither is "dummy variable".
I agree with the intentions here, but this goes a bit too far for me.
> Although there might also be nonviolent interpretations for these terms, avoiding their use prevents unintentional harm that might be caused by the violent interpretations.
I can’t even try to imagine what someone would do if you suggested they “bit banged” an interface.
What's interesting to me about all the "bad" examples in that section is that they don't match how people actually use those terms. At all. You don't "sanity check" a polished, should-be-perfect release candidate. You sanity-check a half-baked napkin sketch. And so on.
A bit tangential, but can anyone recommend a forum for productively debating the logic/ethics underpinning this kind of policy?
I'm deeply skeptical about lots diversity initiatives. But it's hard to find a place where I can subject my views to good scrutiny without also risking unemployment.
The evershifting and arbitrary nature of these standards is a guarantee that you will eventually fall afoul of it, face a kangaroo court trial in the DEI star chamber, and be burnt at the stake for your "crimes".
You can try and avoid it. It will come to you. The best place and time to fight it is right now. But you don't need to oppose it, you just need to not submit to it. [1]
> The evershifting and arbitrary nature of these standards is a guarantee that you will eventually fall afoul of it, face a kangaroo court trial in the DEI star chamber, and be burnt at the stake for your "crimes".
there's a theory (from slate star codex originally, i think), that these things are evershifting on purpose, as they serve as a class/education marker. you've got to be smart enough and sufficiently in-touch with the right kinds of people to figure out how the standards are/will change.
I agree with the intentions here, but this goes a bit too far for me.