ikeyany

America is not literally a third world country. The expression "The US is a 3rd world with a Gucci belt" means that it is an extreme outlier for a 1st world country. The opposite is true in that China is an extreme outlier for a developing country.

Per 100,000 people, the US has 655 of them in prisons. The UK, Canada, France, Italy, Germany, and Japan have 140, 114, 100, 98, 75, and 41 respectively.

I always enjoy Noah Smith's articles. Great read.

> With its high housing costs, poor infrastructure and transit, endemic gun violence, police brutality and bitter political and racial divisions, the U.S. will be a less appealing place for high-skilled workers to live

The above is a "concern" but it's not quite an "urgent issue" within the tech world. Cries to bring our public transportation into the 21st century go unheard (we can all afford to drive a nice car to work, so no need for urgent change), along with cries to improve educational standards for those who aren't upper-middle class (just pay for better schooling or simply move to a nicer neighborhood, no need for urgent change). Racial disparities and police brutality generally go ignored until there is overwhelming proof (well it looks like the only ones getting it bad are people who seem to deserve it, no need for urgent change). And then there's health care, which is tied to your employment (but if you have a nice gig compared to the masses, why would you want anything to upset the status quo?).

Perhaps the threat of industry moving away for good will be an incentive to take notice.

"The US is a 3rd world country with a Gucci belt."

Are you really not allowed to scrutinize sensitive topics?

You honestly can't say "Can we talk about appropriateness of the word blacklist? It doesn't seem as harmful as other terms."

What company do you work for?

Don't algorithms dictate what content shows up on HN?

There are plenty, such as the influence of religion and customs instilled by people in the past. Many people are assigned these cultural norms from childhood.

For example, the normalized Western image of something like a caucasian Jesus or a caucasian Santa Clause influences ways of thinking and who we see as our cultural betters.

As mentioned earlier, you're absolutely missing out. Some of the best satire simply cannot be effectively conveyed in a one-liner, or even text:

https://www.theonion.com/in-the-know-situation-in-nigeria-se...

What is your source for that information?

The article contains a large paragraph on how the phrase might be harmful.

This is why they called Victoria a small state:

https://i2.wp.com/australian-population.com/wp-content/uploa...

You mean a discussion about the cost-effectiveness of ebikes isn't the time to brag about your fancy ride?

If you don't like using the term, then by all means say 'evil magic'.

> No one talked about the KKK or Nazis.

You're very much mistaken. You weren't talking about the KKK or Nazis:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-i...

If someone proposing using a better term than 'blacklist' makes you take an all-or-nothing reaction, it might be a case where if you have a hammer, everything you see is a nail.

The ability to report dangerous things to the proper authorities is one of the ways you know you live in a functional society.

That said, this whole topic brings up the question of "At what cost?" We won't see the macroeffects these have on our communities for quite a while. Our base insticts when it comes to how we should react when we see something off, are slowly changing.

Thinking about a few terms that we use and then deciding "this term has no effect" or "this term reinforces prejudices" is not a great Sisyphean task. Not all terms that have to do with color are inherently prejudiced or exclusionary. Common sense can still reign while being honest about the etymology of our words.

This is assuming you are asking in good faith, and not to trivialize and silence people who disagree with you.

I get keeping 'parent/child', but why is it so ridiculous to change 'blacklist'? It seems reasonable to not want to associate 'black' with 'bad/evil'.

Thinking about how we use the term 'blacklist' doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice on our part.

If you disagree, I would love to hear your logic.

Do you have a lot of life experience speaking with black Americans about this subject?

Consider that black people in America do not have the luxury of forgetting about race.

You're thinking too charitably. HN has its share of actual white supremacists.

The problem with keeping your head down and getting things done without "raising a fuss" is that people will see that and assume racism isn't a serious problem. You'll even see people here wondering what all the fuss is about, or wondering how being black in America is any different than being Vietnamese.

The reason why you can easily pursue those things now is because you optimized for money earlier.

It still is about salary. Except now you can self-actualize since you got the more base pleasures out of your system earlier.

One day you will appreciate your paycheck. That day is not today.

I imagine anyone who tries to brand it as "I can't be identified" might be sued too. Who knows how successful they will be.

I doubt it would be worth the effort for browsers that don't have a huge market share. For example, a suit against Opera would be ineffective in the grand scheme...as most aren't aware of its existence.

The term "incognito" doesn't always mean "I can't be identified", but it looks like those are the grounds.

I wouldn't be surprised if they get an inconsequential slap on the wrist.

Here I am still stuck with v2 on Linux Mint.

Are these ideal Nigerians you're referring to from poor families? Or are their parents upper-middle class?

You don't even need to switch fields. There are plenty of biomedical companies (and what isn't a tech company these days?) and projects that could use some passionate technical people.

And most women never had any privilege either, and often had much less in comparison. Besides, the same high caste people have always held the cards. It's just now that group just isn't exclusive to men in such high numbers.

The sexual revolution did nothing other than allow women the privileges that men already had.

If the result of such equality is that people are forming relationships less often than before, then the problem lies in the behaviors of both men AND women, not in the decision to allow women bodily and sexual autonomy in the first place.

The sexual revolution was about freedom and bodily autonomy: your existence is about more than being a sexual plaything. You can be a doctor, a professor, a factory worker, or a housewife. But the most important part is having the power to make that decision for yourself.

> If I said the above out in the open I would lose my job

Erm no, not quite. Maybe this part:

> the sexual revolution was never about free love or sexual freedom, it was about womens rights to sleep with the few men they are all attracted to

Women should not have their rights limited because some men feel that they are obligated to have sex with them.