Reading04
In my opinion, Graham defines a hacker as a rule breaker who creates and designs beautiful software. He related painters and architects to hackers by saying they were all makers. Oddly enough, I initially believed computer science to be a very creative field, which deterred me because I felt that I was not creative enough. However, my perception changed into something very technical and “sciencey” which is wrong too, but like everything, there is a mix. Graham's comparison to painters was a reminder that there can be aspects of both. There are technical aspects that you need to understand, but they are used to creatively design solutions. Graham portrayed hackers as the people I aspire to be. Those who lead with curiosity, think outside of the box unapologetically act on it, empathize, and make many mistakes.
Many would call me a quiet person. I tend to pay attention to the small things because sometimes I find that the small things can have a huge impact on the bigger things. It is easy for me to listen and ask questions, and it allows me to read the room without rearranging it. I observe and listen to determine what degree if any I should share my opinions and “rearrange the room” with them. At a very young age, I realized that you never truly know what someone is thinking, solely by their words. I know that what I tell people is not always the full story, so why assume that everyone will tell me their full story? My unthinkable thoughts as well as my regular thoughts are thoughts that remain to myself, this is no fun and does not help anyone out. Graham did mention that you have to pick and choose your battles, but essentially without sharing new ideas no new conversations can be started, thus no new potential for creative solutions, a Hacker’s Hell.
As a programmer, there are so many different opportunities to learn, with no particular correct way to do so. I guess this is the art aspect of it all. After reading this, I do feel like my perception of what a hacker is has changed for the better. When Graham defined it, I did not associate words like addicted, greedy, or obsessive, yet I think that Graham’s definition of a hacker is compatible with Levy’s. They both agree that hacking should be accessible to everyone, while people may decide not to, it is still an option. Next, it is ok to break the rules and go against authority. Graham said "Ugly and imaginative solutions have something in common: they both break the rules.", it is true and interesting to think about. Graham said, "Disobedience is a byproduct of a good programmer, when you suppress one, you suppress the other. " and continued by relating these ideals to the American way of thinking. I think that it is safe to say that Americans are not known for sticking to the status quo, whether that pertains to going against the grain and setting yourself apart or simply ignoring or not caring what happens around you, but this can sometimes be a little isolating. Some characteristics will set you apart from other hackers, but there are no formal criteria for being a hacker. Levy and Graham also acknowledge the power that comes from hacking and a computer in general. While the uses and implementation of hacking are different, to me, I think they are like two sides of the same coin.
Comments
Post a Comment