
Microsoft fixes 'big boobs' coding gaffe - anons2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18922629
======
gjulianm
So someone set 0xB16B00B5 as the guest ID in the hyper-v code in the Linux
kernel, and some other people got offended and asked Microsoft to change it.

I don't see the problem, I don't know how someone could be offended because of
this. And as Paule Bolle says [1], it can be changed without breaking
anything.

The only serious thing that comes to mind about this is the MS Trustworthy
Computing initiative, but I don't think it has anything to say here.

[1] <https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/13/362>

~~~
jabiko
2976579765 is just the decimal representation for 0xB16B00B5. I wouldn't call
this a change.

~~~
pwny
In this case, 2976579765 should be considered sexist too!

------
briandear
Dear god. Microsoft ought just chill. Anyone offended by a Hex string needs
iCouch.me. It would be different if it were some Nazi slogan or some Al
Sharpton quote. Either way, it's in Hex. Consider it a funny Easter egg. Let
the nerds have some fun! After all, for some MS engineers, that's a close to
big boobies as they'll ever get.

~~~
alexobenauer
It's a bit bigger of an issue than that. There's nothing wrong with easter
eggs, but the big issue here is that it is a sexist remark at a time when
women are having a difficult time making it in many STEM fields, specifically
software development, directly because of the actions like this that affect
them in the workplace.

~~~
StavrosK
Goddamnit, I don't know what's sexist and what isn't any more. What if the
message was 0xB1GD1CK (okay, there's no K in hex). Should men be offended?

~~~
georgefox
Although I obviously understand how you formed your analogy, I just don't see
how it's actually analogous. Software development is a male-dominated field,
and the objectification of body parts is much more prevalent with women's
breasts than with male genitalia. If we lived in a world where males felt
uncomfortable working in software development environments due to repeated
sexual harassment by their predominantly female co-workers and where
billboards and music videos were filled with gratuitous imagery of male
genitals, then this might be analogous. But that kind of hypothetical is way
beyond my imagination.

~~~
StavrosK
That's fair. However, I don't understand what "objectification of body parts
is". Men are attracted to big breasts, small waists and large hips, women are
attracted to broad shoulders and big arms (or so I am led to believe).

Body parts _are_ objects. I don't expect my broad shoulders to be able to hold
a reasoned debate for long. What do you mean by objectification? If the fact
that someone is attracted to "big boobs" and putting it in some source code is
anathema, does the same thing happen with "intelligence is hot"? If not, why
is one acceptable and the other not?

Granted, I haven't thought about these issues long, so my mind can easily be
changed if someone demonstrates errors, but it seems to me that we went from
"some men need to stop being creeps and hit on women _at least_ during work
hours" to "any mention of any attraction ever is forbidden".

~~~
georgefox
"Objectification of body parts" was poor phrasing on my part. The issue is the
sexual objectification of women, in this case reducing them to their component
body parts (e.g., "big boobs"). A woman is more than a set of breasts—she's a
human—yet you often see well endowed women used in advertising as nothing more
than highly sexualized decoration with a disproportionate focus on their
breasts (or other parts). This is the sort of objectification I'm talking
about (and it happens in more forms than this and in more than just
advertising).

I don't think this isn't even a matter of stating attraction to "big boobs."
This is merely saying "big boobs" for laughs. It's the kind of stuff young
children do (see also: the penis game), so I'm not sure why anyone's rushing
to defend this sort of behavior.

Let me ask you this, though. Suppose you work as a developer (as you likely
do), and you're tasked with welcoming a new female developer to the team and
bringing her up to speed on the system she'll be working on. While opening up
the source code and explaining one particularly peculiar section, you come
across this constant:

    
    
        BIGBOOBS = 0xB16B00B5;
    

How comfortable are you showing off this bit of code to the new developer? How
comfortable do you think the new female developer would be in this situation?

~~~
StavrosK
> yet you often see well endowed women used in advertising as nothing more
> than highly sexualized decoration with a disproportionate focus on their
> breasts (or other parts)

That is because the advertisers want to show something that will immediately
capture the attention of their target audience. You don't see women with big
breasts on ads for female hygiene products, or, indeed, anything that doesn't
target mostly (or even specifically) men.

A long, reasoned debate showing how intelligent and wise a woman is won't do
much for a 20-second ad. I don't find this any more objectionable than ads
using tan, muscular men to appeal to women, which I don't find objectionable
at all. It's human nature to be attracted to the opposite sex, and the most
available factor is external appearance.

> This is merely saying "big boobs" for laughs. It's the kind of stuff young
> children do (see also: the penis game), so I'm not sure why anyone's rushing
> to defend this sort of behavior.

I completely agree. However, I don't see anyone defending it, people are
mostly just saying "this is just childish, not sexist, and isn't that big an
issue".

I am equally (un)comfortable showing this to a female developer as I am to a
male developer. I find it childish and might be a bit embarrassed, not because
of the gender of the new hire, but because it's a childish and unprofessional
thing to have in code.

I am not sure how comfortable the female developer would be, I assume she'd
laugh it off, but that's projecting my own feelings onto hers. If I am wrong
about this, it will be precisely because I do not know how a woman would feel
in this situation, so that's a bit of a moot question to ask me specifically.

~~~
georgefox
> You don't see women with big breasts on ads for female hygiene products, or,
> indeed, anything that doesn't target mostly (or even specifically) men.

That's simply not true. See
<http://www.genderads.com/page5/sexobject/sexobject.html> for plenty of
counter-examples.

> A long, reasoned debate showing how intelligent and wise a woman is won't do
> much for a 20-second ad.

Right, of course not. As I mentioned earlier, advertising is not the only
medium in which this sort of objectification is prevalent.

> I don't find this any more objectionable than ads using tan, muscular men to
> appeal to women, which I don't find objectionable at all.

Again, I don't think you can simply swap genders and call it a fair analogy.
Additionally, at least in my experience, the number of advertisements, music
videos, etc. that use the sex appeal of female body parts for commercial
purposes far outweighs the number of equivalent things using tan, muscular,
and similarly exposed men for commercial purposes.

> I completely agree. However, I don't see anyone defending it, people are
> mostly just saying "this is just childish, not sexist, and isn't that big an
> issue".

When confronted with criticism, arguing that the subject at hand is not a big
deal is defense, is it not? I'm not saying anyone's promoting more use of
0xB16B00B5 in code, but there seem to be several commenters in here saying
it's fine.

> If I am wrong about this, it will be precisely because I do not know how a
> woman would feel in this situation, so that's a bit of a moot question to
> ask me specifically.

It's actually not moot. I was interested in how you thought a woman might
react—a question only you can answer. The actual reactions of women would vary
quite widely from one to the next, of course. I'm sure some would laugh it
off; I'm sure some would be offended. Personally, I'd be afraid that more
women than men would be uncomfortable in this situation, and I don't like the
idea of a development culture that makes women feel less comfortable or
welcome than men. That's why I personally find it offensive. If you think
women would be just as comfortable with this as men, then I would understand
why you would not find it offensive.

~~~
StavrosK
> That's simply not true. See [...] for plenty of counter-examples.

Hmm, the page of counterexamples you listed seems to be about making women
feel "sexy" (it's on the ad for many of them), so it makes sense they would
show "sexy" women, just like selling clothes and other items that would make
men feel masculine would show buff men.

> As I mentioned earlier, advertising is not the only medium in which this
> sort of objectification is prevalent.

Hmm, which other media is it prevalent in that could display other qualities
of a woman for the same purpose instead?

> Again, I don't think you can simply swap genders and call it a fair analogy.

I will concede that.

> When confronted with criticism, arguing that the subject at hand is not a
> big deal is defense, is it not?

I am not sure about this. "It's right and you shouldn't be offended" isn't the
same as "it's wrong for different reasons and isn't a big deal anyway".

> It's actually not moot. I was interested in how you thought a woman might
> react—a question only you can answer.

Ah, okay. I answered that above, then.

> That's why I personally find it offensive. If you think women would be just
> as comfortable with this as men, then I would understand why you would not
> find it offensive.

I think this is the crux of the issue. I think women wouldn't have a problem
with it, so that's why I don't have a problem with it. Maybe it's societal,
though, as we can't assume the US technology sector culture is universal and
the same as in other countries (I live in Greece).

~~~
georgefox
> Hmm, the page of counterexamples you listed seems to be about making women
> feel "sexy" (it's on the ad for many of them), so it makes sense they would
> show "sexy" women, just like selling clothes and other items that would make
> men feel masculine would show buff men.

That's true. Many of those examples are for products designed to make women
more sexy, but I'd argue that advertisements like this are much more common
than advertisements with buff men that are supposed to make men feel more
sexy. I think many people would agree that, at least in American culture,
there's more pressure on women to be sexy than there is on men. This is part
of the problem, if you ask me.

> Hmm, which other media is it prevalent in that could display other qualities
> of a woman for the same purpose instead?

You see this in pretty much any sort of pop culture. Music videos (whether the
performers are male or female) are generally littered with imagery of young
women as sex objects. Even 24-hour news stations have been criticized for
using news anchors in risque clothing—something that doesn't happen with male
anchors. Several tabloids employ the concept of the "Page 3 girl." I'm not
aware of such a thing with men (certainly not with the same prevalence).

Outside of media, you see the same issues reflected in culture. I'm having
difficulty finding statistics on these, but stripping and prostitution are at
least perceived (and portrayed in media) as predominantly female industries
with male clientele. The concept of the woman as a sex object is practically
everywhere.

> I am not sure about this. "It's right and you shouldn't be offended" isn't
> the same as "it's wrong for different reasons and isn't a big deal anyway".

True. That said, there do seem to be some comments here that imply no offense
should be taken as well as many that merely downplay the issue as not a big
deal.

> I think this is the crux of the issue. I think women wouldn't have a problem
> with it, so that's why I don't have a problem with it. Maybe it's societal,
> though, as we can't assume the US technology sector culture is universal and
> the same as in other countries (I live in Greece).

I agree: this is the crux of the issue. I plead total ignorance on Greek
culture and can only make guesses as to the hypothetical reactions of American
women. Nevertheless, I think it's best to err on the side of sensitivity,
especially in a field so criticized for its gender gap.

~~~
StavrosK
> advertisements like this are much more common than advertisements with buff
> men that are supposed to make men feel more sexy.

Maybe women are just a larger market. I can't comment.

> I think many people would agree that, at least in American culture, there's
> more pressure on women to be sexy than there is on men.

Again, maybe the causation is the other way. I can't comment.

> I'm not aware of such a thing with men (certainly not with the same
> prevalence).

I'll give you that. This is, again, probably addressing the fact that the
target market are men.

> stripping and prostitution are at least perceived (and portrayed in media)
> as predominantly female industries with male clientele. The concept of the
> woman as a sex object is practically everywhere.

I'm not sure this follows. They're perceived as predominantly female because
men are more overt about (or more open to) paying for sex. Women aren't as
interested in that, for whatever reason. Male strippers/prostitutes _do_
exist, after all.

This isssue is too complicated to discuss on HN, sadly. I did greatly enjoy
the discussion, however!

------
dkhenry
I find it funny that this is offensive to some people. I cringe that some of
the silly names we have given internal code bits or projects might one day
offend someone somewhere and need to have a formal apology. It's a good thing
people can't get under the paint of their walls as it's common for
construction workers to write notes and draw on unfinished sheetrock.

~~~
nicholassmith
It's not about leaving a humorous note or reference (I know I've left plenty),
but that it's a sexist one reflects poorly on developer culture.

~~~
pwny
Now there's a limit to draw too. I don't approve of some of the blatant sexism
going on in our field, but this is a little too much don't you think?

If I tell someone I like boobs, should I issue a formal apology too? Should
Microsoft issue a public apology to their cafeteria workers for using
0xBAADF00D? OpenSolaris for 0xDEFEC8ED?*

They're hex strings ffs. Can we stop pretending we're so prude and perfect,
call out the real offensive stuff and not fret over this kind of irrelevance?

*(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexspeak>)

~~~
nicholassmith
For what it's worth I think it's been spun up to a bigger story than it needs
to be. It should have been patched quietly and done and moved on.

And there is a line to be drawn, females aren't sacred cows need smothering
away, but it's a bit off handed to make sure your hex code spells something
like big boobies, just reflects poorly on the industry.

~~~
gizmo686
I don't know the technical details, but it sounds like the purpose of the
magic number is interacting windows programs with linux. Regardless of how
accurate that is, unless the magic number is used only within 1 program (or
maybe only withing Microsoft programs), changing it is going to cause
problems.

------
alexobenauer
The mere fact that so many software developers don't see the big issue here is
exactly the big issue.

~~~
tzs
The big issue I see is a bunch of men, most of whom have probably never
actually worked with a woman in a STEM field, think they are experts on what
such women would find offensive.

~~~
michaelcampbell
I find this hypothesis truly bizarre. Since almost the late 80's I have been
in one of these (clever acronym du-jour) STEM fields, and have yet to _NOT_
have worked with women in my group, as peers. (My background is primarily
writing banking software, if that matters.) I've never NOT worked with a
female geek programmer either at my level or above.

My anecdote is not data, but neither are vast and wild generalizations like
you are making.

------
saalweachter
> His comments, and those on the Linux mailing list, have started a huge
> debate about whether use of the string was sexist and how male developers
> should conduct themselves.

------
exDM69
Now lets go bash oracle/sun for using 0xcafebabe for the magic number in java
class files.

No, please, get serious. Trying to find a hint of sexism in everything is
almost as bad an offence as making sexist jokes where it's inappropriate.

------
jjacobson
Related: I just noticed the original answer to the "How to be a brogrammer"
Quora question got pulled down. Brogrammer backlash has been swift.
[http://www.quora.com/Brogramming/How-does-a-programmer-
becom...](http://www.quora.com/Brogramming/How-does-a-programmer-become-a-
Brogrammer)

------
verroq
Is 0xcafebabe on the chopping block as well?

~~~
Auguste
How about 0xDEADBEEF and vegetarians?

~~~
hobin
You can take my life, but you'll _never_ take my 0xDEADBEEF.

------
jack-r-abbit
Worth repeating: Until it is proven that the coder who put that in was, in
fact, a male it is highly sexist to just assume that it was a man and that
ladies are not capable of being childish or being into big boobs as well. ;)

