But that's not even what "master" means in git. There is no "slave" branch.
I think you're trying to cherry-picking debatable examples as strawmen. The central argument was not that some inclusive terms may or may not extend to all applications. The central argument being made in this thread by anti-inclusiveness proponents is that each and every single proposal to use terms that are not racist or bigoted should be rejected, regardless of their suitability.
In addition, I don't see anyone even try to argue that "master" branch is suited of even makes sense, while alternative terms such as "mainline", "development", "production", or even "release" are extensively used.
> The «master» to «main» change was totally unnecessary and B.S. imho.
Sorry, but it's obvious that you are. This discussion is not about Git but about Tesla's history of harassment, racism, and overall bigotry, and the thread you're commenting on is clearly about the usage of inclusive language instead of legacy non-inclusive terms. I feel you're playing dumb and disingenuous to pretend it's suddenly about Git, which is really not cool or contributing positively to the discussion.
HN reguarly deviates off into tangentially related comment threads. _This_ discussion is about git master/main, although the parent one isn't.
> legacy non-inclusive terms
Love a good game of "spot the American". Thankfully, you're not authoritive on the english language and don't get to pick what is "legacy".