4 ms·
One definition of "hack", close to the earliest sense of the word, is "to use something in a way it was not intended when it was made". This was definitely not
by rossdavidh 5y ago
One definition of "hack", close to the earliest sense of the word, is "to use something in a way it was not intended when it was made". This was definitely not the way the creators of the platform intended it to be used.
Whether it qualifies underall all common senses of "hack" is debatable, but it at least qualifies under a common sense of the word.
- newacc9 5y agopg has a whole article about the word. "Ugly and imaginative solutions have something in common: they both break the rules. And there is a gradual continuum between rule breaking that's merely ugly (using duct tape to attach something to your bike) and rule breaking that is brilliantly imaginative (discarding Euclidean space)."
- registeredcorn 5y ago> This was definitely not the way the creators of the platform intended it to be used. This question might be getting way too philosophical or abstract, but would the following statement be fair: "If something is designed, its design is intentional." That isn't to say, a thing that is designed can't have flaws, but, if it was created to process things in a predetermined series of events, isn't that how it's supposed to work? If someone is able to exploit the layout of that design - a flaw of logic, not of security - it seems weird to think that the act of someone using it would be considered unintended, you know? I feel like a lack of planning or thought by the designer doesn't necessarily put any responsibility on the user. Again, might be more of a debate around the concept of design...it's just a weird thing to consider something like, "Yes, the platform was built to do that, but you weren't expected to use the platform to do that!" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯