The risk hbeckpdx fears is:

1. Someone hasn't read the book and only glanced at the title.

2. That someone assumes the book says "test things on your mom, because there's nobody less tech-savvy than an older woman, yo momma so dumb she thinks a hamburger menu is something you get at McDonalds"

3. That someone, hoping to be an ally in the fight against gender and age discrimination in tech, takes offence at what they imagine the book says.

4. A mob of people who also haven't read the book destroy your career.

Of course, we've got like 4 levels of hypothetical here - you're reading me, putting words into hbeckpdx's mouth, who is imagining an easily offended third party, who is imagining the contents of the book, which they imagine is offensive to a hypothetical mom. Whether you agree with hbeckpdx that this is a reasonable thing to fear is another question....

> yo momma so dumb she thinks a hamburger menu is something you get at McDonalds

I think this says more about the intelligence of the person who decided that Ξ is obviously a picture of a hamburger.

I'm pretty sure that was the point, yes.

Call it the 'dad test' then. Or even the 'sibling test' - because they're probably not technology experts.

It literally means 'regular person test'...

> It literally means 'regular person test'...

The whole point is that it doesn't mean "regular person test'...

It means "person who isn't the target customer and who probably cares about you too much to give unbiased feedback" test.

Who are you calling a regular person? As if other people aren’t regular? How dare you. /s

If somebody wants to be offended by combinations of words, no combination of words will deter them.

Honestly, neither "mom test", "dad test", or "regular person test" gives me any idea whatsoever what this might be about.

> she thinks a hamburger menu is something you get at McDonalds

That's not incorrect though.