Live data from Hacker News

Is true hacking dead? What we lost

c0de517e.blogspot.com

131–140 of 194 posts

Re: Is true hacking dead? What we lost

#131
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But excel, google sheets, IFTTT and other tools still exist. Some of them are just more successful than others. There is still a lot of people out there who can access computers and before couldn't, but have no interest in automating any of the work. Case in point: a lot of people don't even use keyboard shortcuts, why would they use a hypercard clone?

Discoverability. Knowing how to connect together multiple services isn't obvious. What kind of information can IFTTT take in and what does google sheets output? That's not obvious. I use Beorg (an org-mode interface) on my iPhone and I still look up recipes the developer puts online showing how to hook it up with the Shortcuts app and do clever things. Mostly because I don't have a good idea of what interfaces betwee…

It's always been difficult to discover this stuff. There has always been a very small subset of people who were driven to figure it out, in part at least, because it was hard.

To reiterate what ChuckMcM said at the top of this thread. The "hackers" who would figure that stuff out are still there still doing things no one expected could be done systems that no one thought would be used in those ways. We didn't actually lose anything. It's just a little obscured by the sea of consumers of computing who aren't hacking on those systems.

The filters that kept the consumer away from computing are mostly gone but that didn't make the consumer magically become interested in tinkering with those systems.

Re: Is true hacking dead? What we lost

#133

If you define hacking as gaining access to scarce compute resources, then yes, hacking is dead because compute scarcity is dead . If you define hacking as controlling your computer hardware at the lowest level, then hacking is dead because no-one wants to write device drivers . If you define hacking as *making the lights blink in interesting ways"[1] then hacking is incredibly, richly, and totally alive! You can make…

Your first 3 points reassembles too much to embedded programming + electronics. And no, there is not just a few or no-one of them: it's an entire industry. I do it all day long and I don't feel like I'm hacking if I know and understand what I am doing.

You don't need to necessarily code to hack. You can hack with just electronics.

Perhaps you are too inclined to java or upper layers of abstraction.

Re: Is true hacking dead? What we lost

#134
TL;DR: Hacking is more alive then ever.

I might be missing the point of his article, but describing the c64 basic coding movement as a single movement is misunderstanding it gravely. The fact that Basic was licensed by Microsoft didn't stop us, it was the the default interpreter we had to programming, which soon was replaced by masm/tasm or machine code.

More so then than today, hackers of all kinds (hackers, crackers, phreakers) were all following their own individual paths and was way less uniformed than todays movements. I believe the main reason most are focusing on OSS today was because of the dis-content we felt with the development of operating systems that slowly but surely locked us in as users.

Re: Is true hacking dead? What we lost

#135
post #5

I've never understood the appeal of hot-patching and full process image save and restore. Yes, this technology is neat for some use cases, but as a fundamental way of computing it's broken, because it throws reproducibility out of the window. Reproducibility is everything in complex systems, and being able to reset and start fresh is powerful. Evolution figured that out as well. It's why basically all species propaga…

You can have the best of both worlds. In some Smalltalks (like Pharo), the image is bootstrapped from the source code but you can still use image persistency.

Re: Is true hacking dead? What we lost

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also often the puzzles have very little to do with your coding skills and everything to do with knowing some mathematical trick. Don’t know if it’s still the case but when I was in uni everyone told you to do Project Euler to prepare for interviews/learn coding. God help the people who had that as one of their first encounters with programming, I would have been turned off it for life!

> Also often the puzzles have very little to do with your coding skills and everything to do with knowing some mathematical trick Yeah, my favorite "puzzle" that highlights the folly of such things is this; write a function which, given the number of participants (n), returns the number of games/matches necessary to be played in a single elimination tournament to determine a winner. I actually asked this question in…

I don't even know what a single elimination tournament is.

Re: Is true hacking dead? What we lost

#137

I don't think true hacking is dead, its just lost in a sea of non-hacking. The number of students who could write code in my high school of 2000 was perhaps 35. Those 35 were amazing because they had to work to get access to a computer, so we had already eliminated everyone who was just "oh that's too hard". Of the 35 perhaps a dozen kept at it beyond one class in BASIC. In my daughter's similarly sized highschool 40…

I think there's other types of compulsive people too. I'm not, in my view, a compulsive puzzle solver. Rather, I'm obsessive about understanding elegant solutions to complex problems. Usually I define elegance in different ways, but nevertheless that's the thing I most enjoy.

So puzzles by themselves don't often hook me too much. Especially if the puzzle itself has 1 way to solve it. But I'll spend days obsessing, losing sleep, forgetting to eat and etc all because I "feel" a problem has a more clean solution.

Though, I'm probably not a hacker in this sense.. hmm. /shrug

Re: Is true hacking dead? What we lost

#138

There was a time when I used to fret that the era of tinkering was coming to an end. Crypto was going to be illegal, they were going to put DRM on speakers, and our computers are designed to be completely locked down to the degree that you can't even add more RAM to a MacBook Pro. However, I think that the rise of Linux, Raspberry Pi and Arduino, OSS and Github and massive package repos for every language, Adafruit,…

> The author also calls out Unity as part of the problem

I am sorry, where does he do that?

Re: Is true hacking dead? What we lost

#139
post #36

I don't think true hacking is dead, its just lost in a sea of non-hacking. The number of students who could write code in my high school of 2000 was perhaps 35. Those 35 were amazing because they had to work to get access to a computer, so we had already eliminated everyone who was just "oh that's too hard". Of the 35 perhaps a dozen kept at it beyond one class in BASIC. In my daughter's similarly sized highschool 40…

An astonishing thing happened when we finally made it possible for everyone in the world to tell a computer what to do: We discovered nobody knows what they want the computer to do! We were surprised (if also for other reasons) because we confused the product with the means, or to paraphrase Feynman, hacking is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.

> An astonishing thing happened when we finally made it possible for everyone in the world to tell a computer what to do: We discovered nobody knows what they want the computer to do!

I feel this way. I've been at this a long time but all my non-work computing is either futzing about or incredibly low-value. Spreadsheets are pretty nice but I could do without them. Some kind of instant messaging or email is pretty useful. Calendar reminders are nice. But there are decent alternatives to all of them that aren't really that much worse, for personal use, while computers are expensive and take up a lot of time, especially to get good enough to use them without constantly being confused and mystified (see: any non-nerds using computers).

90%ish of what I get out of all this, personally, is media access, which could be almost perfectly replaced by living somewhat closer to a library and having a Netflix DVD subscription. I kinda think the everything-always-available aspect actually makes things worse, so a little extra friction or forcing choices might be an improvement. Ditto spending—I think any savings from online shopping is probably exceeded, for most people, by increased total spending.

It's looking increasingly likely I'll never start a significant side-project, let alone found a product of any significance whatsoever, because I just can't think of anything useful to do with these magical boxes that's not already being done. Since everyone says that business ideas are the easy part I guess I'm truly fucked because I can't even come up with one of those that survives a day of thought and research. I look at computers and the Internet and see a time-suck that is, most of the time, ill-applied, dangerous, and probably harming productivity in most areas.

[EDIT] to support the "expensive" thing, say it's about $2000 every four years per person to keep in smartphones and larger computing devices that don't take up too much space (laptop or tablet), that work well enough to actually be semi-useful rather than just a constant pain in your ass, and that will actually probably last and remain usable for four years, on average. Two adults in a household, that's about $1,000/yr in hardware, no tinkering, no gaming consoles, no bling'd out new phone every year, no peripherals, just to basically get the "job" done. Two streaming services of some kind, call it $20/mo, and that's a pretty low count. Good home Internet plus the Internet portion of your cell phone bill, for me, that's about $110/mo combined for the two of us (kids don't have their own stuff yet, and hell, may not at all until they can pay for it, because this stuff's expensive). That totals to about $2500/yr. You can buy a hell of a lot of physical media, (physical) games, postage stamps, puzzle books, whatever, for $2500/yr, and if you don't just throw it away you can keep using all that stuff the next year, and the one after, without paying again.

Re: Is true hacking dead? What we lost

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This point was made a lot in the article - Hackers didn't care about Open Source or the ideology. I tend to agree with that. First it's "don't use Unity", then it's "don't publish your Godot game for Windows", then it's "don't publish your Godot game in a form that requires proprietary graphics drivers", then it's "don't allow your game to run on Ubuntu", and so on. There's always another step to achieve ideological…

If it's easier to do it on Unity, the way to go is to improve Godot until it's even easier to use than Unity! :-) And the actual point of using something open like Godot is to raise kids who will internalize the fact that they could make not just their games , but their game engines as well - indeed, that nothing is 'magic' and anything can be thoroughly understood from first principles if one cares enough to do so.…

On a fundamental problem solving level, open source spoils the part of the fun. I only need the executable file, and part of the fun is figuring out how it works and how can I morph that file to make it do other things, or completely change the functioning of the software.

One example I give is rock climbing. Logically, everyone should just take a helicopter to reach the top, or let the community contribute and build the road. But where is fun in that? We are rock climbers and we will rock climb.

Post reply on HN