> Does that mean Amazon was invited to the conversation? Should you as a visitor to the home expect that every logo you see in the house means that you agree to have that company present in your conversations during the visit

In short. Yes. Some states only require the _owner_ of the device to consent to being recorded. PDF download below

[1] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

Some states only require the _owner_ of the device to consent to being recorded.

I hope that's the law everywhere (especially private property) or else security cameras could not exist be legal.

It's not. In e.g. Germany, security cameras may not film public areas, or anything outside of your own property (and also not private streets leading up to your mailbox).

Additionally, they must always be clearly labeled, clearly visible, and before getting into the range of them you'll have to have a visible sticker warning about them, and having a clear GDPR privacy policy as well as contact data for whom to contact to retrieve or delete the footage in case it might contain you.

I am fairly sure that some places do not, but consent is implicitly obtained through signage.

And heavily regulated signage at that, in terms of design, content, and visibility—not just anything that says something somewhere.

> What's powerful about this name change is that it pushes us to alter a habit, in my case one embedded deeply in my fingers, something that I do every day without realizing that I'm doing it

This is the entire point, this sentence right here.

The sentence right there is what a lot of people find inane and absurd, though, too. It’s often less a case of people not “getting” what the nominal intention is; it’s that people do get the nominal intention and think it’s an idiotic waste of time that’s being done to satisfy a pretty ignorant and narrow-minded view of language and history. It also has no limiting principle to what gets targeted except the energy of ninnies. It’s worth considering now where your line of tolerance is going to be - the point where you think, “okay, this has become too ridiculous, even for me”. Is it when I suggest removing “chain” from blockchain because it evokes slavery? Point being that many people see this issue with GitHub as having crossed the line of absurdity already.

Folks, we have the unsung hero of the thread right here. Remove the chain from blockchain!

But why is it important to change that habit, if it has no beneficial impact?

To the avid anti-racist, the racism being there is a dogmatic fact.

You cannot argue using reason that there is no racism to fight, because he has decided that there is, there must be.

So to the anti-racist whatever action they do is perceived meaningful, even when completely absurd.

It’s clearly a new kind of piety, a new kind if religion.

But you could do that by changing any word. Renaming 'rebase' would be equally effective.

So if that's the point, then it shows that we shouldn't be doing this.

Because every time I have to stop to write main instead of master, I become less racist?

Can someone explain technically how CAID works? Or point me to some articles/documentation?