You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Currently thinking about this, and how tricky it is. There is no single good alternative for some of the left column entries; it depends on the usage. This is not a bad thing! But it means you need a much bigger list than this.https://twitter.com/ashieshtalwar/status/1267850144403173376 …
For example, allow/denylist sound like standard access control rules, while blacklist has more of a "this is bad" nuance. E.g. I'm pretty sure I've used that term for things like "registers that are dangerous to modify" in a register prober. Maybe "banlist" would be better there?
Primary/replica or /standby are excellent terms for replicated/redundant systems, but don't work for other contexts. Leader/follower kind of does for some but it feels... off?
For protocols one common one is "initiator/responder", which is more accurate than master/slave anyway (since protocol direction does not imply control relationship). E.g. I²C would be better served by that terminology. Host/device also (e.g. USB), down/upstream, etc.
What about "clock master/slave"? Objectively it sounds like "leader/follower" would apply, but something feels off about it. Maybe there's a better alternative?
All this is particularly important when you're designing a new system. It's not easy to start talking about I²C initiator/responder because everyone is used to master/slave (and it's baked into countless software interfaces, not just human stuff).
Objectively, master/slave is a hideously overloaded term with a million different meanings, and ends up boiling down to a vague "there is some kind of hierarchy here". So this isn't just to avoid offense, alternative terms can be more informative and accurate.
In the I²C example... what does the master do? It doesn't drive the bus alone (the slave does too), it doesn't imply control (upper layers might), it can't enforce the protocol (slaves can jam the bus), and a device can switch roles. What it does is *initiate* a transaction.
For clocks, some options are "source/consumer" or "source/receiver" or "transmitter/receiver". For network clocks (e.g. over IP), I think just "sender/receiver" works well too. Feels kind of case-by-case what would fit best.
How about taking things in context, not out of context (old fashioned concept I know). There is no insult/offence intended by any of these phrases. Never was. Please people, stop looking for things to be offended by! Life's too short!
Just because there's no insult *intended* by the phrases doesn't mean it's pointless to look for alternatives. Especially when those phrases aren't necessarily particularly *good*, from a descriptiveness standpoint.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
