Rule35

Trans people do have all human rights - your gender expression does not change your access to your other rights.

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.

Leave a message for the president explaining that his website's instructions are broken (and that it's literally easier to contact him than a webmaster).

> For a lot of these websites it would necessitate a lot of manual work

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.

Both involve expecting people to respect foreigners and their language.

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.

People (usually by their native language) can't all hear and pronounce all sounds equally well.

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.

A guy I work with has 'balls' in his name. Yes, he and management expect people to keep their mouths shut.

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...

> but please don't sound so hard done by because people are thinking about how other people feel.

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?

Did he ... do anything ... that is racist? Like, ban blue people from medical service? Refuse to play Foxes and Hounds with green people?

Because then you wouldn't have to say allegedly.

It seems more like WallStreetBets' thing. Pay the islanders to build a giant statue to a Doge.

I feel that all of the protections let us chase the problems into smaller areas. Rust's unsafe doesn't eliminate unsafe code, it just means you put it in a small auditable area.

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.)

HN is more defensive about some companies than others. The F and G of FAANG mostly.

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

Perhaps the rule is "charge all customers - active at rate X, dormant at rate Y".

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

> You are trying to dilute the impact the racist history of US has had on minorities via the justice system.

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.

You'd make the camera reach out to a signing server for the user's signature. You'd even sign the whole photo, not a hash supplied by the camera, to give you (via the server) a chance to verify the image was correct.

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.