4 ms·

I think you have the words 'hacker' and 'cybercriminal' confused.

by DKnoll 8y ago

thecatspaw 8y ago
There are probably also good hacker resources. Supposedly theres some docs about secret nsa tech, though I never tried to verify any such claims
gammateam 8y ago
I think you have the word education and propoganda confused but its interesting to see it works on even the crowd here!
- kbenson 8y ago
  You're the one who mentioned education. It's sort of odd to call people out for misinterpreting your own statement in a certain way when they didn't note anything about that that aspect of your statement. I think you're trying too hard to justify your original comment. At a minimum, you should address the point in question, not just throw a random non-sequitur back.
  - gammateam 8y ago
    > not just throw a random non-sequitur back. (I would respond to other posts, but Hackernews mutes users for 2 hours after getting downvotes. They believe this is a helpful system, even though responses often shed light on perspectives and the poster's actual intent, flipping the direction of how people perceive a thread) Sure lets dissect that I responded to a non-sequitur, I originally said the Dark Web is an educational place, and it is likely where the person learned how to make the high quality counterfeits. A coherent response to the article. Better hacking techniques are discussed on at least one website that is only accessible on that form of the internet. I said it was educational, because you can read about the latest techniques. Only criminal actions make a criminal, which the dark web does not do. So to reply as if it does is a non sequitur. I am also aware of an antiquated use of the word hacker that some people on this site want to defend and disassociate with unauthorized entry into system, even when that antiquated use isn't mutually exclusive from the colloquial direction that word went 30 years ago. There is a time and place for semantics, and there is no improvement to the conversation for that place to be here and now.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      Nobody made any claim it wasn't educational, just that they took issue with the terminology for who it targets. That wasn't a non-sequitur. You ignoring that aspect entirely and focusing on it being about its educational aspects. That's the non-sequitur. As to the terminology in question, there is a time an place for semantics, and to a greater or lesser degree, it's always. Sometimes you can get away with being very loose, sometimes you should be more specific. In dealing with a community which identifies with a specific aspect of a term, ignoring that identification or contradicting it is at best tone deaf, and at worst needlessly confrontational. Semantics improve communication by signalling a common agreement on the meaning or terms in a conversation. In that respect, they improve conversation. Just because you place little value on something (even if in a specific situation) does not mean it actually has little value, or that others do not benefit from its presence. To be clear, I didn't care about your first comment one way or another. I didn't think it added much, but it wasn't worth me downvoting. Your followup which was at best confusing but possibly entirely unrelated to the point it was responding to (thus the non-sequitur designation) that then went on to denigrate the entire community of this site to suggest in an off-hand way that we are all falling for propaganda was definitely not advancing the conversation usefully. If you had presented it in a more coherent and supported manner, as you attempted in your reply to me, I would have considered it a useful and welcome addition to the conversation, even if the subject matter was to call me out as subject to the whims of propaganda presented here (a topic related somewhat to ones I touch on often here, such as contextual interpretation and state of mind). I find this conversation interesting and worth participating in and contributes something, even if not on the original topic entirely, I just didn't think your original rebuttal remotely met that bar.
- sctb 8y ago
  Could you please increase the amount of information in your comments? We're here for thoughtful, substantive discussion. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I think you have the words 'hacker' and 'cybercriminal' confused.

by DKnoll 8y ago

I think you have the words 'hacker' and 'cybercriminal' confused.

There are probably also good hacker resources. Supposedly theres some docs about secret nsa tech, though I never tried to verify any such claims

gammateam 8y ago

I think you have the word education and propoganda confused but its interesting to see it works on even the crowd here!

kbenson 8y ago
You're the one who mentioned education. It's sort of odd to call people out for misinterpreting your own statement in a certain way when they didn't note anything about that that aspect of your statement. I think you're trying too hard to justify your original comment. At a minimum, you should address the point in question, not just throw a random non-sequitur back.
- gammateam 8y ago
  > not just throw a random non-sequitur back. (I would respond to other posts, but Hackernews mutes users for 2 hours after getting downvotes. They believe this is a helpful system, even though responses often shed light on perspectives and the poster's actual intent, flipping the direction of how people perceive a thread) Sure lets dissect that I responded to a non-sequitur, I originally said the Dark Web is an educational place, and it is likely where the person learned how to make the high quality counterfeits. A coherent response to the article. Better hacking techniques are discussed on at least one website that is only accessible on that form of the internet. I said it was educational, because you can read about the latest techniques. Only criminal actions make a criminal, which the dark web does not do. So to reply as if it does is a non sequitur. I am also aware of an antiquated use of the word hacker that some people on this site want to defend and disassociate with unauthorized entry into system, even when that antiquated use isn't mutually exclusive from the colloquial direction that word went 30 years ago. There is a time and place for semantics, and there is no improvement to the conversation for that place to be here and now.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    Nobody made any claim it wasn't educational, just that they took issue with the terminology for who it targets. That wasn't a non-sequitur. You ignoring that aspect entirely and focusing on it being about its educational aspects. That's the non-sequitur. As to the terminology in question, there is a time an place for semantics, and to a greater or lesser degree, it's always. Sometimes you can get away with being very loose, sometimes you should be more specific. In dealing with a community which identifies with a specific aspect of a term, ignoring that identification or contradicting it is at best tone deaf, and at worst needlessly confrontational. Semantics improve communication by signalling a common agreement on the meaning or terms in a conversation. In that respect, they improve conversation. Just because you place little value on something (even if in a specific situation) does not mean it actually has little value, or that others do not benefit from its presence. To be clear, I didn't care about your first comment one way or another. I didn't think it added much, but it wasn't worth me downvoting. Your followup which was at best confusing but possibly entirely unrelated to the point it was responding to (thus the non-sequitur designation) that then went on to denigrate the entire community of this site to suggest in an off-hand way that we are all falling for propaganda was definitely not advancing the conversation usefully. If you had presented it in a more coherent and supported manner, as you attempted in your reply to me, I would have considered it a useful and welcome addition to the conversation, even if the subject matter was to call me out as subject to the whims of propaganda presented here (a topic related somewhat to ones I touch on often here, such as contextual interpretation and state of mind). I find this conversation interesting and worth participating in and contributes something, even if not on the original topic entirely, I just didn't think your original rebuttal remotely met that bar.
sctb 8y ago
Could you please increase the amount of information in your comments? We're here for thoughtful, substantive discussion. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html