4 ms·

'hacked' is very quickly becoming one of my least favourite words. Just call it what it is: it's not hacking, it's genetic modification.

talaketu 8y ago
It's the headline, and it's fine. Check the etymology of `hack` and you'll see it's a suitable word for gene editing.
- AllegedAlec 8y ago
  > It's the headline, and it's fine. I know it's the headline, that's why I complained about it. Nature should know better. > Check the etymology of `hack` and you'll see it's a suitable word for gene editing. I'm not making any statement based on the etymology of the word, though I don't see what in the etymology of the word 'hack' would make it an accurate description.
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    "Hacking" in my mind means making something do something it wasn't intended to do. I think that fits here. I stil approve of the new title, though. Please remove as much clickbaity bullshit from titles as possible.
majortennis 8y ago
biohacking
dang 8y ago
Ok we've modified the title.
- klmr 8y ago
  Why? The original title was totally fine.
  - dang 8y ago
    If a user complains about a title being baity and they have a point, we tend to change the title on the grounds that many other readers probably feel the same way. This was a borderline case but I think they had a small point that 'hacked' was a bit baity. Also, the GP comment was heavily upvoted, indicating that a lot of users agreed.
    - klmr 8y ago
      > and they have a point But they don’t: the usage of “hack” in the title was squarely within the original definition of “to hack” (for instance, it’s covered by definition 6 in the Jargon File if we accept [as is generally done in hacker culture] that such hacks aren’t restricted to computer usage). In non-technical usage the term “hack” tends to mean something else but given that HN literally has “hacker” in its title, shouldn’t we accept correct usage of the word on this site, even if it doesn’t fall outside its non-technical mainstream definition? Speaking as a biologist, the usage of “hack” in the title is completely idiomatic within the field (compare: “genome hacking”). The claim that this usage is bait is simply factually incorrect. > Also, the GP comment was heavily upvoted On the contrary, it was downvoted (greyed out) at the time the title was changed. It’s now back to black.
      - dang 8y ago
        The baitiness comes from the over-use of the word in headlines. I don't disagree with you but unfortunately accuracy is not the only concern. Re the GP comment, I was referring to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19299892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19299892, which was always upvoted and quickly reached a high positive score. When users are expressing an allergic reaction like that, we've learned that it's best to just yield. A modified title can be just as accurate and usually reduces inflammation. That said, I think your argument is at least as persuasive. We did the standard moderation thing in this case because, as I said, it's proved to be globally optimal. But it doesn't seem to have been locally optimal here.
- AllegedAlec 8y ago
  It wasn't meant as commentary on you using it as the title. It's more that it's a stupid pop-sci term that has no place in the communication of a giant such as Nature.
  - klmr 8y ago
    It’s not pop-sci at all. It’s a term typically used within the field for what is described here.
    - AllegedAlec 8y ago
      Unless it changed in the three years since I left the field: no it's not. We tended to write stuff like 'genetically modified'. If one of my students would've written 'hacked' in a paper, I would've told them to change it.

talaketu 8y ago

It's the headline, and it's fine. Check the etymology of `hack` and you'll see it's a suitable word for gene editing.

AllegedAlec 8y ago
> It's the headline, and it's fine. I know it's the headline, that's why I complained about it. Nature should know better. > Check the etymology of `hack` and you'll see it's a suitable word for gene editing. I'm not making any statement based on the etymology of the word, though I don't see what in the etymology of the word 'hack' would make it an accurate description.
- solarkraft 8y ago
  "Hacking" in my mind means making something do something it wasn't intended to do. I think that fits here. I stil approve of the new title, though. Please remove as much clickbaity bullshit from titles as possible.

majortennis 8y ago

biohacking

dang 8y ago

Ok we've modified the title.

klmr 8y ago
Why? The original title was totally fine.
- dang 8y ago
  If a user complains about a title being baity and they have a point, we tend to change the title on the grounds that many other readers probably feel the same way. This was a borderline case but I think they had a small point that 'hacked' was a bit baity. Also, the GP comment was heavily upvoted, indicating that a lot of users agreed.
  - klmr 8y ago
    > and they have a point But they don’t: the usage of “hack” in the title was squarely within the original definition of “to hack” (for instance, it’s covered by definition 6 in the Jargon File if we accept [as is generally done in hacker culture] that such hacks aren’t restricted to computer usage). In non-technical usage the term “hack” tends to mean something else but given that HN literally has “hacker” in its title, shouldn’t we accept correct usage of the word on this site, even if it doesn’t fall outside its non-technical mainstream definition? Speaking as a biologist, the usage of “hack” in the title is completely idiomatic within the field (compare: “genome hacking”). The claim that this usage is bait is simply factually incorrect. > Also, the GP comment was heavily upvoted On the contrary, it was downvoted (greyed out) at the time the title was changed. It’s now back to black.
    - dang 8y ago
      The baitiness comes from the over-use of the word in headlines. I don't disagree with you but unfortunately accuracy is not the only concern. Re the GP comment, I was referring to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19299892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19299892, which was always upvoted and quickly reached a high positive score. When users are expressing an allergic reaction like that, we've learned that it's best to just yield. A modified title can be just as accurate and usually reduces inflammation. That said, I think your argument is at least as persuasive. We did the standard moderation thing in this case because, as I said, it's proved to be globally optimal. But it doesn't seem to have been locally optimal here.
AllegedAlec 8y ago
It wasn't meant as commentary on you using it as the title. It's more that it's a stupid pop-sci term that has no place in the communication of a giant such as Nature.
- klmr 8y ago
  It’s not pop-sci at all. It’s a term typically used within the field for what is described here.
  - AllegedAlec 8y ago
    Unless it changed in the three years since I left the field: no it's not. We tended to write stuff like 'genetically modified'. If one of my students would've written 'hacked' in a paper, I would've told them to change it.