I never even really hear the term "hacker" anymore. I'm not sure what's driven it out of the industry. I've been programming since I was nine and I was never called a "hacker", even to date. I was called a "nerd", a term which used to be a pejorative for young boys who spent a lot of time on a computer and had a-typical interests and attire. I was made fun of for reading programming books when I finished my other work, I was chastised by teachers for playing video games, etc... I was young and old enough to watch the crypto-anarchist videos and understand that hackers were something different from what I was. They had a mission and an objective to their sense of curiosity that often resulted in chaos. Then console gaming came about and everyone started using the term in some flowery sense.

That was how I viewed it, anyway, until I realized that around that time is when computing became professional. CS and CE became a degree at major colleges and "nerds" were making serious money. It became desirable to refer to yourself as a nerd out of style. Basically, nerds took the word back.

Well, I guess there is more to being a hacker than just having programming experience.

I understand that the post is more than its title, but I couldn’t resist and got triggered by it.

For me, it’s about being curious, not taking any technical solution for granted and having the inner need and energy to explore, to experiment, to be skeptical and feeling the drive to improve things …

I don't think boys were generally encouraged to get into programming. A friend of mine who was openly into computers was ridiculed by the whole school. To this day parents are suspicious of "screen time", I am constantly fighting my wife to let her allow my son use the computer. There were specific jokes about people in Engineering at university, as to them being all male and never getting laid.

Schools started to have "computer rooms" but teachers were not well qualified to use them or to teach students about their use.

My male friends who were into computers would have loved it if girls were interested in that. They just weren't, unless they needed help with their homework or something.

In my Maths degree women did get a lot of encouragement and people are always eager to help. For example a friend of mine received a stipend for her achievements after the first year of study. By her own admission she wasn't the most brilliant student, although at least I think she was very "straight" (always doing her homework, always studying in time for tests, and so on). Only with hindsight did I realise that she probably got the stipend because she was a woman (to generally encourage women in Maths perhaps).

Yea, if you're driven by social support, you'll need social support to be driven. That's not really traditional hackerism.

> "Hacker" doesn't equate to the best software engineer, the best founder

Subjective, of course. To some, "hacker" means someone with deep knowledge, almost on instinctive level, of computing things, a native for processes, data and signals. Not negative.

Reading this article, I think the reason that the author doesn't feel like a hacker is that it's a cultural label and a lifestyle (almost like "goth" or "punk").

The author recounts three or four occasions when they did some programming at school. They're quite right - that isn't being a "hacker". IMO that requires a level of monomania which means that a significant portion of their spare time is spent on computer projects.

I'd agree with them that "hacker" doesn't necessarily imply "good computer employee" though, and this will increasingly be the case as in the industry matures, but it does mean that the person concerned deeply loves the field, and that's someone you probably want to work with, if they're not also a sociopath.

I know a few people from school who weren't remotely interested in computers at the time, but ended up on CS programmes. Typically those are the people who became managers in the end. A lot of the "hackers" are still programming. I don't think this has anything to do with the Dilbert principle. It's more to do with their having developed decent people-skills in their youth, possibly due to their lack of monomania (or reverse causation). But it also speaks to their motivations.

The article suggests that we not focus on the "hacker stereotype", but it's a stereotype because it's a thing. Ignoring it seems silly as well. Deliberately trying to undermine or change it culturally seems like vandalism. The answer is probably to highlight the fact that a team with only "hackers" on it will probably not do quite as well as a more mixed team including a bunch of people from other backgrounds as well.

hacker = diy = punk = black flag?

The words mean so many things. It usually starts with being curious and learning how things work and then going one step further and using that technology in ways no one expected.

A programmer was never a hacker. Many hackers program but most programmers do not hack.

Just because you have been working in computers since 8 it doesn't make you a hacker. Taking something and using it in unexpected ways would need to be part of it. None of this matters without the right philosophy of curiousity and discovery.

The "hacker" stereotype is just gatekeeping nonsense. Not identifying with it is a positive.

Not all good players have the messy-haired musician energy, and not all great programmers have the stereotypical hacker personality

It's my understanding that "hacking" involves breaking into or altering an existing system or piece of software, as opposed to "development" or "engineering" which is the creative process of addending or creating new systems or software. This article discusses neither: it's just a rambling life story and social critique sprinkled with light misandry and self loathing.

do a hackathon

could be self-imposed like pick a project that you have no experience in and do it in a weekend (get something working even if it’s hacky)

you will feel like a hacker

The missing component is curiosity.

IRL, I have heard the term hacker only as a term for "badly written code that kinda works, but is a mess". It was never something positive.

(2014)

Hacking is very often associated with computer systems, both in the sense of code and circuits, networks that connect them.

But, actually hacking is a distinct thing apart from all that.

My earliest hack was on locked doors as a little kid. Standing alone in a hall, I grabbed the knob and began to explore playfully.

I remember the thought:

What does locked actually mean?

The knob still moves. A little.

Turns out that door knob could move. So I moved it a little. Back and forth. After a time, back permitted more movement than forth did.

Why?

Also turns out moving forth fast, then back, then forth again yields more movement overall, but only briefly. And only when continued.

...

And then it happened. More and more varied movements, patterns, and the door just opened.

No key.

I remember that so vividly, because it changed how I think, or maybe just expanded scope. Was a big deal. I never expected to actually open the door.

There are expected inputs, actions, moves, information. And there is also the unexpected.

There is what a thing was designed for, and that intent may actually overlap with other use cases, sort of like off label drug use does.

More importantly, there is how we may believe a thing works, what we tell people about how it works and whether there are lies, omissions, and the like.

And there is what it actually does, given unexpected inputs, or even the approved ones.

That all gets at what hacking really is. People seek understanding of tech around them. And they do that directly, themselves. Playfully, often enough.

Their reasons vary good and bad, of course.

Farmers are traditionally great hackers, and their reasons are some of the best! People need food and the world is complex, high cost, high risks, and when that goes bad people do not eat. A good farmer will do what it takes to bring a crop in. And should. I grew up near one. That is very likely where some of my own inclinations came from.

Others can cite examples. Good and bad.

Really, what I wanted to get at was the mindset.

Being curious about systems, tech, basically the machinery we live in, around, or use, own.

Knowing the difference between generally accepted human limits, our own limits, and what the machinery of nature will permit. Turns out the more we hack on that, the more we understand and the more our world permits us to do. Same goes for ourselves.

Neat, isn't it?

Some call this sort of thing science.

Others may call it play. Your cat surely does, as did you and I and maybe we still do when we approach tech with that playful gleam in our eye... just what can I make this do, or can I do with this, if...

As for the doors?

Well, I got good and in the course of a week could enter many locked rooms in less than a minute by hand manipulation of the door knob.

Check this 70's foreshadowing on the world today out!

So I actually disclosed responsibly. Grade schooler. Talked with an uncle who walked me through scenarios. It made sense to do.

When I did know what happened?

They, of course made it all about me. Nobody else was a problem.

I remember saying that sort of thing is true, until it isn't, and yeah. Did not go well.

Eventually, it came down to me saying they just need to fix the locks. A janitor agreed and had found out most were installed wrong. In the wrong position they were subject to hand manipulation due to the mechanism being impacted by gravity. Even worse! That janitor maintained things well always making sure to lube the locks when any were sticky. Why not? Who does not like it when stuff works well, consistently?

The fix was to flip them over.

Any of that seem like familiar ground?

There are some negative connotations around the words, hack and hacker. Me? I tend to ignore them and will identify an activity as a hack and having done it, me, others as hackers.

Turns out that uncle was a bit of a hacker too. For a time, he would bring me locks and I would pick them, or get his help and it was great fun! I remember one days conversation too:

The locks are there to keep most people honest. It is a cost or barrier to remind us, that sort of thing.

Well, all of that remains true whether one can pick locks or not, but with one big difference: saving a life, or escaping real trouble of some kind may actually happen when it might otherwise not.

The point here being curious about how tech works is not a crime. It actually has high value! Snuffing that out of people to make another buck, or cover up for other failings, corruption, exploitation, even ignorance and error makes no sense!

Sure, we may blunt the peak levels of bad in the world, but we rub out the peak good even more, and it is the good which gets us through hard times, advances tech, and all manner of works that increase the potential for the world to be better, brighter, safer, and above all, a whole lot more fun!

> The author recounts three or four occasions when they did some programming at school. They're quite right - that isn't being a "hacker".

It's a difficult assessment, because OP seems like they had some spontaneous appreciation for 'hack value', in that they chose to go well beyond the requirements of their LOGO assignment. Ultimately, though, OP was unable to join a supportive community of hackers, and this stunted their intellectual growth and left them with a dislike for the very idea of becoming a hacker. I don't think this has much to do with OP being female; it's quite clear that OP was badly taught, at a time when coding was far less regarded than today.