Yeah, people are getting worked up about a good faith trade off in software features made by a company trying to create products useable by, preferably, every single person on the planet. And since gender is something were are - right now, whether you like it or not - revising our understanding of, it makes sense to wait until you have a better solution to the problem.
I mean, autocorrect can only take you so far anyway, your gonna have to change it a bit anyway and I assume most people with two brain cells knows the gender and preferred pronouns of the people mentioned in the convo and knows how to use them properly even if they don't have a clue about the pronoun debate. This is an edge case, but still something they saw value in avoiding a mistake in.
Disclaimer: I'm not well versed in this topic's finer points, but I have some idea of the current and historical trends within it.
I'm mostly talking about exploitation theory, and two main contenders are UE and CECP; by aiming to eliminate a certain kind of exploitation in society, that will form the basis for a future society. Both of these have their origins in classical Marxian exploitation theory and mathematical Marxism. For instance, John Roemer suggests a market economy but one which is heavily redistributionist in terms of the material assets people can have. Along more traditional Marxist lines, Veneziani and Yoshihara are proponents of UE exploitation theory.
There's a good, recent overview of exploitation theory here[0] and some information about this area of research (including but not limited to exploitation theory) published by Veneziani in a book review on the state of Analytical Marxism.[1]
To understand the context of exploitation, labour and value and how these suggest a critique of capitalism (and thus the formation post-capitalist society) I'd look at my comment here[2] and the likes of Peter Hudis and Thomas T. Sekine. Most of the authors are socialists (in the Marxist tradition) but there are a few in anarchism, market anarchism and Communalism, though I'm not aware of their research.
I always read German attitudes to the Eurozone with some disbelief. They always seem to insist the burden of changing policy to make the Euro work fall on other countries and not there own.
I think that's in large part because Germany had the Agenda 2010 which heavily cut welfare and hit many people super hard. The common narrative is that it's because of those sacrifices the German economy is in a better position than most other European countries. On top of that in the very least the perception is that the lower classes didn't benefit from that at all. So I understand that there is a lot of "I did my part and sucked it up while others didn't and now I am supposed to suffer again to help people who failed to do the right thing in the first place."
Not saying that that's the correct attitude, just offering a explanation.
Yeah, I didn't like the barb aimed at Vestager either, mostly because as I'm Irish and appreciative of her making our Government collect taxes properly.
I still remember the horror when I learned the Sharepoint 2010 site i was pulled off React/Typescript for only supported IE8. And then learning the client was actually (slowly going down) our biggest source of revenue, and has so much stuff on SP2010 migrating away or upgrading SharePoint is out of the question.
I would'nt like to keep IE8 alive, sooner enterprises can't throw any more money at the problem, sooner we all get big paydays from the migration projects.
Right, look, This guy is doing everything that is being asked of him for the price agreed. None of the more wonky ethics of the situation change that, and I don't subscribe to the belief that he owes the company anything more then his fair-priced labor.
The only thing he is doing wrong is under-utilizing his own talents and potential productivity, for which the optimal solution is for him to find a better job. As he seems to indicate that the current options are to stay working 1-2 hours of work or be highly to be unemployed, I believe he seek to preserve his employment in future actions he may take regarding disclosure, and wait for a better opportunity to present itself.
If it's ultimately a choice between providing for him and his son and not, its pretty much no choice at all, ethics be damned. I know which outcome I would prefer.
reply