"And it’s a privilege…if somebody calls you a hacker that’s kind of like a compliment. It’s a privilege to be able to be called a hacker, and it’s reserved for the highest few. And to be honest, I personally could take or leave the term."
This feels so passive aggressive and subtly mocking.
This entire article is ridiculous pedantry to me. By default everything a HUMAN DOES is a simplification/abstraction of an unknowable mysterious reality. A better catchphrase is: "EXISTENCE IS FORGETTING"....Human language doesn't communicate our complete feelings, ou4 system of time doesn't capture the fullness of the 4th dimension, our structures are a result of our crude ability to shape the infiniteness of matter...and on and on...
Then the author claims: "Programs aren’t models of the world constructed from scratch but takes on the world, carefully carved out of reality"
Insane! Programs are tools. Is a hammer a 'carefully carved out version of reality?
Our societies perceptions give it whatever 'take on reality' it embodies and that is constantly shifting! Our views on Myspace changed pretty fast...the program actually failed because it didn't adapt to societies version of reality.
And the authors alternative to the hacker ethic is pretty unusable. It's a pedantic restatement of the golden rule....
> Is a hammer a 'carefully carved out version of reality?
Yes. The construction of a hammer takes a particular view about what is to be done with it. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
> This entire article is ridiculous pedantry to me
Then you missed the point. Kids grow up reading "real hacker culture" and these ethics are one of the first things I assimilated when incubating. They are not ethics at all, but justifications and she broke it down pat.
> Programs are tools. Is a hammer a 'carefully carved out version of reality?
There's a similar thread on /. about third party libraries. Programs are universally built on APIs (software or hardware). Yes, they are carved out of their originating context and they break down (as per the PDP-1 story) over time.
Just like there is an appeal to oversimplifying and over-abstracting, there is a similar appeal to over-complicating and "over-nuancing". By trying to account for everything, you accomplish nothing, understand nothing, and gain no insights.
The hacker ethos, like any simplified abstraction, does not capture the entire story, but it also doesn't oversimplfy. It provides a useful model to work with and to think about, and trying to make it a lot more nuanced dilutes the points it is making and ruins its usefulness.
This feels so passive aggressive and subtly mocking.
This entire article is ridiculous pedantry to me. By default everything a HUMAN DOES is a simplification/abstraction of an unknowable mysterious reality. A better catchphrase is: "EXISTENCE IS FORGETTING"....Human language doesn't communicate our complete feelings, ou4 system of time doesn't capture the fullness of the 4th dimension, our structures are a result of our crude ability to shape the infiniteness of matter...and on and on...
Then the author claims: "Programs aren’t models of the world constructed from scratch but takes on the world, carefully carved out of reality"
Insane! Programs are tools. Is a hammer a 'carefully carved out version of reality?
Our societies perceptions give it whatever 'take on reality' it embodies and that is constantly shifting! Our views on Myspace changed pretty fast...the program actually failed because it didn't adapt to societies version of reality.
And the authors alternative to the hacker ethic is pretty unusable. It's a pedantic restatement of the golden rule....