3 ms·

"Hacker" may very well be (helpfully) keeping the size of HN down. The last time I sent someone a link to an HN discussion they took one look at the url and pho

"Hacker" may very well be (helpfully) keeping the size of HN down. The last time I sent someone a link to an HN discussion they took one look at the url and phoned to tell me that my email had a virus.

sounddust 18y ago
Well, the English language is defined by its usage, and if 99% of English speakers think that a hacker is someone who illegally tampers with computer systems, then that's what it means. I don't know why hackers are always fighting an impossible uphill battle to change public perception of the word rather than just coming up with a new word or phrase that defines the positive aspects of being a hacker. In fact, if done properly, the new phrase could even contain the word "hacker".
- Xichekolas 18y ago
  > I don't know why hackers are always fighting an impossible uphill battle to change public perception of the word Probably because it allows easy group identification. Those that use the positive meaning are in the group and those that use the negative meaning are outsiders. We use many words this way. At the risk of sounding very suburban, witness the difference between Gangsta/Gangster when used by people inside/outside hip-hop culture.
  - sounddust 18y ago
    True, but we don't constantly hear "gangstas" complaining about how everyone misuses their group identifier.
    - Radix 18y ago
      Wouldn't their identifier become less valuable to them if it was used positively everywhere? Changing it wouldn't do them any good.
- access_denied 18y ago
  Alternative version for your last sentence: "In fact, if done properly, the new phrase could even" be a hack in itself.
- pg 18y ago
  the English language is defined by its usage Any language is, but not by simple majorities. In practice there is something like a pagerank for people for language usage, just as there is for most topics. For example, it could be that 99% of people who use the phrase "begs the question" misuse it. But the 1% who don't are not merely a random 1% of the population. So in disputes about how to use the phrase, those who get it wrong tend to defer to those who get it right. You couldn't say the meaning of the phrase had changed till that stopped happening, because it implies by induction that everyone who misuses the phrase would change their usage if called on it.
  - sayrer 18y ago
    It's even trickier than that. People who get it right will often think less of the person using the term incorrectly, but won't bother to correct them. I'm sure similar things happen when you encounter clueless MBA types in the valley. There are more extreme cases of this kind of silent dismissal: thick brooklyn accents, ebonics, southern accents, spanglish, etc. will not get you very far in many places I've worked. I'm not saying that's morally right, but it certainly happens.
  - sounddust 18y ago
    That's not how it works, at least as explained by linguists. Those 1% do not exist to be the "pagerank 10" sources; they exist to analyze how language is being used, and adjust the official meanings of words to reflect that usage. That's how words and meanings get added to (English) dictionaries and grammar books. Old meanings are not considered wrong of course, but are often pushed back to the higher-numbered definitions and eventually considered an old or archaic usage. It doesn't work the same in all languages; for example, French has the l'Académie française which strongly attempts to regulate the meanings of French words, and is quite successful. To prove my point: there are two official meanings of "begging the question," including the one you assume to be incorrect in your post: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/begs http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/begs Furthermore, I'm confident that with some research, we could find several words and phrases in your post which were considered "incorrect" several hundred years ago (despite being commonly used then) but are considered "correct" today.
- Radix 18y ago
  Do you remember the 90's? I recall that, for a time, at least twice a week the news would have a story going on about hackers, the danger to the audience, and their children. I don't hear hackers used for fear mongering as much anymore, so I suspect that hackers will eventually reach the top of the hill. Of course, I expect it will always have slight negative connotation.
shawnyar217 18y ago
"Not all hackers are criminals." --me

sounddust 18y ago

Well, the English language is defined by its usage, and if 99% of English speakers think that a hacker is someone who illegally tampers with computer systems, then that's what it means. I don't know why hackers are always fighting an impossible uphill battle to change public perception of the word rather than just coming up with a new word or phrase that defines the positive aspects of being a hacker. In fact, if done properly, the new phrase could even contain the word "hacker".

Xichekolas 18y ago
> I don't know why hackers are always fighting an impossible uphill battle to change public perception of the word Probably because it allows easy group identification. Those that use the positive meaning are in the group and those that use the negative meaning are outsiders. We use many words this way. At the risk of sounding very suburban, witness the difference between Gangsta/Gangster when used by people inside/outside hip-hop culture.
- sounddust 18y ago
  True, but we don't constantly hear "gangstas" complaining about how everyone misuses their group identifier.
  - Radix 18y ago
    Wouldn't their identifier become less valuable to them if it was used positively everywhere? Changing it wouldn't do them any good.
access_denied 18y ago
Alternative version for your last sentence: "In fact, if done properly, the new phrase could even" be a hack in itself.
pg 18y ago
the English language is defined by its usage Any language is, but not by simple majorities. In practice there is something like a pagerank for people for language usage, just as there is for most topics. For example, it could be that 99% of people who use the phrase "begs the question" misuse it. But the 1% who don't are not merely a random 1% of the population. So in disputes about how to use the phrase, those who get it wrong tend to defer to those who get it right. You couldn't say the meaning of the phrase had changed till that stopped happening, because it implies by induction that everyone who misuses the phrase would change their usage if called on it.
- sayrer 18y ago
  It's even trickier than that. People who get it right will often think less of the person using the term incorrectly, but won't bother to correct them. I'm sure similar things happen when you encounter clueless MBA types in the valley. There are more extreme cases of this kind of silent dismissal: thick brooklyn accents, ebonics, southern accents, spanglish, etc. will not get you very far in many places I've worked. I'm not saying that's morally right, but it certainly happens.
- sounddust 18y ago
  That's not how it works, at least as explained by linguists. Those 1% do not exist to be the "pagerank 10" sources; they exist to analyze how language is being used, and adjust the official meanings of words to reflect that usage. That's how words and meanings get added to (English) dictionaries and grammar books. Old meanings are not considered wrong of course, but are often pushed back to the higher-numbered definitions and eventually considered an old or archaic usage. It doesn't work the same in all languages; for example, French has the l'Académie française which strongly attempts to regulate the meanings of French words, and is quite successful. To prove my point: there are two official meanings of "begging the question," including the one you assume to be incorrect in your post: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/begs http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/begs Furthermore, I'm confident that with some research, we could find several words and phrases in your post which were considered "incorrect" several hundred years ago (despite being commonly used then) but are considered "correct" today.
Radix 18y ago
Do you remember the 90's? I recall that, for a time, at least twice a week the news would have a story going on about hackers, the danger to the audience, and their children. I don't hear hackers used for fear mongering as much anymore, so I suspect that hackers will eventually reach the top of the hill. Of course, I expect it will always have slight negative connotation.

shawnyar217 18y ago

"Not all hackers are criminals." --me