4 ms·
Reverse engineering is not bad, and it is dismaying that someone posting on a site called "Hacker News" would think so. Personal attacks aside, I'm just sayi
by justinator 5y ago
Reverse engineering is not bad, and it is dismaying that someone posting on a site called "Hacker News" would think so.
Personal attacks aside,
I'm just saying that if I get a blood test and it says I've got AIDS and I actually don't -
and that's all because some sociopath grifter with less of an education than what's been proven with my own Bachelors of Fine Arts realized that to swindle millions of more dollars from her geriatric backers she's been manipulating (and ruining the lives of their own family members),
she needs to fake the test results from an impossible dream machine that does NOT exist and couldn't ever - because it defies the laws of physics,
and does this by running modified machines of her competitors that are now basically broken,
in secret rooms she doesn't tell journalists or inspectors about,
well: that's truly fucked.
- WillPostForFood 5y agoYes! And reverse engineering is not bad. Everything else you mention is bad.
- CRConrad 5y agoWhen "reverse engineering" is used to mean all that other shit, then that "reverse engineering" is bad.
- justinator 5y agoI do think there's nuance when the product is a medical testing device, and the company doing the reverse engineering is a competitor of the company who made said device and that engineering was faulty and could have cost people's lives. But I don't know if the context of any of this is what some really want to discuss. It's just the slogans. You know: "hack the planet" and all. I also don't think I'd be really OK with working for a company that told me to do this reverse engineering, but if your morality says differently, then: hey.
- kragen 5y agoI don't think you should be criticizing reverse engineering here any more than you should be criticizing programming, science, skill, studying, engineering, logic, thought, changing your mind when you're wrong, or any of the other basic aspects of hacking. You're as out of place here as someone complaining about how nerds study all the time, get better grades than you do, and know how to fix their computers while you're stuck paying someone else to do it. You come off as a troll posting deliberate flamebait in hopes of getting a rise out of us. Of course badly done reverse engineering can be bad. But that's not because it's reverse engineering; it's because it reaches incorrect conclusions that hurt people, just like not doing any reverse engineering at all. The problem that put people at risk in this case wasn't that Theranos did reverse engineering; it's that they didn't do enough reverse engineering.
- CRConrad 5y ago> I don't think you should be criticizing reverse engineering here any more than you should be criticizing ... No, sure, real reverse engineering is fine. But when "reverse engineering" is used in the sense Theranos (and/or Holmes' defense team) apparently did -- i.e. tampering with a competitor's machines so they sometimes don't work properly, and passing off the sometimes-invalid results as super-duper hot stuff created by your new and superior WonderTech™ -- then yes, it darn well should be criticized to Hell and back.
- Simon_O_Rourke 5y agoWell said, a shameless grifter needlessly put people at immense risk because ego is a thing, and showed craven desire for money and celebrity.
- kragen 5y agoAgreed. My criticism is that these problems should not be blamed on reverse engineering any more than they should be blamed on histology.