I'm using the word as it's been touted by notorious old school 'hackers' like esr or rms. The infamous guide for asking questions [0] by esr is the archetypal embodiment of this spirit: it's not that the advice in it isn't useful (it certainly is), it's just that esr comes off as a condescending dick when you read it. (This initial impression can be easily confirmed when you dig futher into the man's other writing and beliefs.)
As for HN and the way it uses the word 'hacker', I will remain noncommital. I certainly acknowledge that the definition as it's currently employed on the guidelines has shifted since the 1970s, but whether it has actually achieved the kindess expected of it is left as an exercise for the reader.
Be gentle. Problem-related stress can make people seem rude or stupid even when they're not.
Reply to a first offender off-line. There is no need of public humiliation for someone who may have made an honest mistake. A real newbie may not know how to search archives or where the FAQ is stored or posted.
...
And in a sense, "Ask Questions The Smart Way" is also an exercise in precise (and non-offensive, respectful to other people`s time and kind communication).
I don't care what it does recommend, the general impression from reading this Proust-long wall of text is that esr is kind of an ass. The intent of a message is only vaguely related to its content which is only vaguely related to the effect it has on its recipient. I can only speculate what esr's intent were, I get the abstract message 'be gentle', but the general impression is that everything screams 'if you toe out of line people are right to be rude to you even if I said they shouldn't'. You can fool people with words but the general vibe of a text can't help but transpire.
> it's just that esr comes off as a condescending dick when you read it.
That guide doesn't feel all that condescending, from reading it. Of course any guide to "asking smart questions" is going to be somewhat contentious, simply because it's very title implies that it's possible to ask stupid questions, and that people should strive to change their behavior around this. But it seems rather shallow to take issue with such claims.
Nonsense. The hacker ethos is to tinker and learn and there is a very high degree of regard for technical competence. Conversely, incompetence, laziness, especially blatantly so, especially publically is the biggest dick move there is. Wasting other people's metal energy is not nice.
In hacker ethos, you are appreciated for doing your homework and being right; that is very nice. You are a dick when you are lazy, wrong, or wasting people's time and energy.
Personally, I started making a lot more friends (and an SO!) on the internet when I finally started moving past the "I can be a dick if I'm right, being right matters, being nice is a distraction" mentality. And I think this makes me better, not worse, at communicating the things I think I'm right about.
Vote up is the thanks gesture in SO. High-traffic forums moderate "thanks" messages because it increases information density, making the content easier to digest. Imagine an SO comment section with 300 thanks messages and you're looking for that one comment with relevant information.
No one's feelings are hurt, it just comes off as sounding like a dick. Just like the expression 'hurt your feelings'. (Nothing personal though, I'm sure you're swell in real life.)
I am not a native English speaker, first of all. My point is that SO is not a representative example of general internet culture, given its rules and gamified aspect(s).
I agree. I think you misread what I wrote. If we are talking specifically about SO, just realize that it is a gamified forum where comments like ”thanks” is specifically discouraged. On most places it’s not.
I don't think "gamified forum" makes things all that different. It's fine to say "I think saying thanks is redundant", it's quite another to go around and removing "thanks" from questions because it's "redundant chatter". That's just ... weird.
