• 1 Post
  • 20 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle



  • Definitely agree, I’m not personally offended when, e.g. Americans use words that I wouldn’t use because they carry different meanings here. The only thing is that not everyone is a word nerd who follows the shifting meanings of words in different areas. While some people will find certain words offensive no matter what, I think the bulk of the offense is from people who don’t know either where you’re from or that the meaning and intent are different there, so I think it’s worthwhile for both sides to learn those differences.


  • @MilkToastGhost As long as we’re YSKing, just want to let you know that the word “spaz”/“spastic” has a complicated history. While its meaning has drifted heavily in the US, in the UK especially it remains closely associated with the disability cerebral palsy, and is considered highly offensive to many. The relative innocuousness of the US version has led to it being used in pop culture (e.g. songs by Beyonce and Lizzo, and also Mario Party 8 for Wii), which in turn has resulted in recalls and edits when they were released in the UK to some offense.

    I’m not the word police, you can say whatever you want, but it’s handy to know when you’re speaking to a global audience how your words might be interpreted.




  • I know there was some occasional friction between the fans on the old site, but I’ll also throw in a recommendation for The Orville as modern Trek that’s worth seeing. It does a great job capturing the spirit of the second-gen era presented for the current gen, with its cautious optimism pricked once a week by reminders of challenges yet to be resolved.

    The first season is slightly rough (more proof it’s a real Trek show?), as they figured out the ratio of comedy to drama, but by season three it’s about as jokey as TNG. Fox did a bad job promoting it, it’s definitely not Family Guy in space, which I think was probably what the network wanted it to be.

    There’s tons of Trek people both behind and in front of the camera, so while there’s obviously no ties to the Trek canon, it’s the closest anything has ever come, stylistically.





  • This isn’t a hill I’m willing to die on at all, but it does mildly annoy me that The Open Source Definition is used by proponents to mean the same thing as “open-source”. For anyone not familiar, The Open Source Definition is a document used to determine whether code should be certified by the Open Source Initiate as “OSI Certified”. Proponents argue that anything which does not meet the OSI’s definition is not open-source, while I think there’s room in the language and the mind for disagreement on whether “open-source” and “eligible for OSI certification” are synonyms.

    The OSI was originally founded with the goal of registering a trademark for “Open Source”, but this was unsuccessful as the term is too broad and descriptive. Failing that, the OSI decided to instead register the trademark “OSI Certified”, which can be applied to works which meet their Open Source Definition. Ultimately, what this means is that nobody owns the phrase “open-source” and it’s an organic part of language which is not strictly defined by the specific terms of any certifying documents.

    Over the years, there have been plenty of non-commercially licensed software with source available for use: a popular example is video, computer and arcade game emulators. The MAME emulator was for years released under its own non-commercial copyleft license before eventually being relicensed under BSD (which meets OSI’s Open Source Definition), and popular SNES and Mega Drive/Genesis emulators Snes9x and Genesis Plus GX both continue to be released under similarly “open but non-commercial” licenses.

    I’ll happily agree that none of those are eligible to bear the “OSI Certified” trademark and that they don’t meet OSI’s Open Source Definition. But when people start saying they’re “not open-source” it rubs me the wrong way, because we’re just talking, not trying to achieve trademark certification. Not to mention that the whole nature of software licensing is to note what restrictions there are on the use of the code, e.g. most open-source, copyleft licenses deny you the right to use their code without attribution. However, we basically all agree that that’s fine and you can still call a license open-source if it includes that restriction. It’s a shades of gray situation that people are treating as black and white just because a definition exists which they can refer back to, with the assumption that all people must subscribe to those specific terms.

    There’s entirely valid counter-arguments, of course. It’s useful to have strict definitions of nebulous concepts like open-source because it could cause confusion, and you have to draw the line somewhere or else the term becomes completely meaningless. e.g. You risk people referring to things like source code leaks as “open-source”. There are frequently cases of people ignoring non-commercial license terms and selling those softwares (Snes9x and Genesis Plus GX are often bundled with commercial retro emulation hardware), which you could argue stems from confusion about whether or not commercial use is allowed. But the same devices often violate the licenses of OSD-compliant software as well, so it seems more likely they just don’t care about open-source software licensing terms.

    So anyway, Genesis Plus GX is open-source but I’m not willing to fight you about it.


  • All left-right political terminology is inherently subjective, so you can argue neoliberalism is promoted by center-left parties as long as you’re defining the center as being to the right of that. Since this post seems to be about the United States, that center is already pretty far to the right as measured from, say, Denmark (picked a name out of a hat). I think the bigger argument here is about US-defaultism rather than whether or not it’s OK for Americans to describe things in terms that relate to their political climate.

    EDIT: I think the comment I’m replying to is confusing people. Replying solely to the words “center-left” makes it seem like the OP described neoliberalism as center-left, which people are objecting to. However, the OP only used the phrase center-left once, to say that American center-right and center-left parties have enacted neoliberal policy. As a statement of fact, the Democrats have enacted neoliberal policy. By American standards, the Democrats are regarded as center-left. This does not mean the OP was saying “neoliberalism is a center-left ideology.” There is an argument to be made here that the Democrats are not a center-left party, but I think the issue is getting confused here because people are reacting as if the thing being described as “center-left” is neoliberalism, when it’s actually the Democratic Party.