4 ms·

"A master of C must have the same views of what's important and the same writing style that I do" i.e., 'a hacker is someone who looks like me'.

philh 13y ago
That is not a charitable interpretation of what he wrote. Try, "A master of C must already know about structure packing deeply enough to teach it".
- gaius 13y ago
  Try reading some more ESR, that is a common theme in his writing, unfortunately.
  - philh 13y ago
    I agree that "people being uncharitable about ESR" is a common theme.
    - mwfunk 13y ago
      No, seriously. This is a common theme in just about everything ESR writes. For example, for some inexplicable reason, the Jargon File used to have an entry stating that hackers tend to be libertarian. This, of course, was written when ESR self-identified as a libertarian. Later on (post-9/11), he decided that he was a neocon instead. Strangely, the entry in the Jargon File was then updated to state that hackers tend to be neocons. That's just one particularly egregious example. There are a gazillion others. Pretty much everything the guy has ever written has similar implications, where he defines a hacker as being whatever he sees himself as at the time. He really really wants to believe that there is a very specific hacker subculture (in his words, "our tribe"), and that they have a shared culture, heritage, and beliefs about things, and that they have some sort of meritocracy where certain members of that subculture are universally agreed upon as being wise and correct about everything (in his words, "the elders of our tribe"), and of course, that he is one of those people at the top of the imaginary meritocracy in this imaginary subculture. Also, for bonus douchebaggery points, as if he needed them: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=208 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=208
      - philh 13y ago
        > For example, for some inexplicable reason, the Jargon File used to have an entry stating that hackers tend to be libertarian. This, of course, was written when ESR self-identified as a libertarian. Later on (post-9/11), he decided that he was a neocon instead. Strangely, the entry in the Jargon File was then updated to state that hackers tend to be neocons. The current entry: > Formerly vaguely liberal-moderate, more recently moderate-to-neoconservative (hackers too were affected by the collapse of socialism). There is a strong libertarian contingent which rejects conventional left-right politics entirely. The only safe generalization is that hackers tend to be rather anti-authoritarian; thus, both paleoconservatism and ‘hard’ leftism are rare. Hackers are far more likely than most non-hackers to either (a) be aggressively apolitical or (b) entertain peculiar or idiosyncratic political ideas and actually try to live by them day-to-day. archive.org says this was the same in 2003. (Possibly it changed and changed back, but I assume not.) From march 2000 (v4.2.2 at http://jargon-file.org/archive/ http://jargon-file.org/archive/ which I selected somewhat at random, I didn't try to find the earliest "politics" entry): > Vaguely liberal-moderate, except for the strong libertarian contingent which rejects conventional left-right politics entirely. The only safe generalization is that hackers tend to be rather anti-authoritarian; thus, both conventional conservatism and `hard' leftism are rare. Hackers are far more likely than most non-hackers to either (a) be aggressively apolitical or (b) entertain peculiar or idiosyncratic political ideas and actually try to live by them day-to-day. ESR in 2008 ( http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=301 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=301 ): > I am not and have never been a conservative. Much less a “neocon”, whatever that means. "Hackers tend to be libertarian" and "hackers tend to be neocons" are not sentiments expressed by either variant. "He decided that he was a neocon" just seems to be plain false. Whatever the merits of the changes he made, I claim that you are being uncharitable towards him. I'm not necessarily defending ESR himself, I just think that you're attacking someone who isn't ESR and calling them ESR. And I think this is a common theme when people talk about ESR.
        djur 13y ago
        Before 2001 it was "vaguely liberal-moderate... strong libertarian contingent... anti-authoritarian", when ESR identified as a libertarian. After 2001 it was "formerly liberal-moderate... moderate-to-neoconservative", when ESR had gone full-on warblogger. Around the same time he also added heavily politically biased definitions for terms like "fisking" and "idiotarian" to the Jargon File. He claimed not to be a neocon in 2008 when "neocon" had become a dirty word. I don't think that changes the fact that he was a fervent supporter of the "War on Terrorism", a neocon project. It sounds to me like you're agreeing with the parent -- he changed the description of a "hacker's" politics to fit whatever his particular political stance was at the time.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
    Not just 'hacker', but 'human being': http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5001 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5001
caf 13y ago
That is not a fair characterisation of the comment. For one thing, it says "could have", not "would have" - this strongly implies that it's a reference to the technical content, and not the existence or style of the report.

philh 13y ago

That is not a charitable interpretation of what he wrote. Try, "A master of C must already know about structure packing deeply enough to teach it".

gaius 13y ago
Try reading some more ESR, that is a common theme in his writing, unfortunately.
- philh 13y ago
  I agree that "people being uncharitable about ESR" is a common theme.
  - mwfunk 13y ago
    No, seriously. This is a common theme in just about everything ESR writes. For example, for some inexplicable reason, the Jargon File used to have an entry stating that hackers tend to be libertarian. This, of course, was written when ESR self-identified as a libertarian. Later on (post-9/11), he decided that he was a neocon instead. Strangely, the entry in the Jargon File was then updated to state that hackers tend to be neocons. That's just one particularly egregious example. There are a gazillion others. Pretty much everything the guy has ever written has similar implications, where he defines a hacker as being whatever he sees himself as at the time. He really really wants to believe that there is a very specific hacker subculture (in his words, "our tribe"), and that they have a shared culture, heritage, and beliefs about things, and that they have some sort of meritocracy where certain members of that subculture are universally agreed upon as being wise and correct about everything (in his words, "the elders of our tribe"), and of course, that he is one of those people at the top of the imaginary meritocracy in this imaginary subculture. Also, for bonus douchebaggery points, as if he needed them: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=208 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=208
    - philh 13y ago
      > For example, for some inexplicable reason, the Jargon File used to have an entry stating that hackers tend to be libertarian. This, of course, was written when ESR self-identified as a libertarian. Later on (post-9/11), he decided that he was a neocon instead. Strangely, the entry in the Jargon File was then updated to state that hackers tend to be neocons. The current entry: > Formerly vaguely liberal-moderate, more recently moderate-to-neoconservative (hackers too were affected by the collapse of socialism). There is a strong libertarian contingent which rejects conventional left-right politics entirely. The only safe generalization is that hackers tend to be rather anti-authoritarian; thus, both paleoconservatism and ‘hard’ leftism are rare. Hackers are far more likely than most non-hackers to either (a) be aggressively apolitical or (b) entertain peculiar or idiosyncratic political ideas and actually try to live by them day-to-day. archive.org says this was the same in 2003. (Possibly it changed and changed back, but I assume not.) From march 2000 (v4.2.2 at http://jargon-file.org/archive/ http://jargon-file.org/archive/ which I selected somewhat at random, I didn't try to find the earliest "politics" entry): > Vaguely liberal-moderate, except for the strong libertarian contingent which rejects conventional left-right politics entirely. The only safe generalization is that hackers tend to be rather anti-authoritarian; thus, both conventional conservatism and `hard' leftism are rare. Hackers are far more likely than most non-hackers to either (a) be aggressively apolitical or (b) entertain peculiar or idiosyncratic political ideas and actually try to live by them day-to-day. ESR in 2008 ( http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=301 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=301 ): > I am not and have never been a conservative. Much less a “neocon”, whatever that means. "Hackers tend to be libertarian" and "hackers tend to be neocons" are not sentiments expressed by either variant. "He decided that he was a neocon" just seems to be plain false. Whatever the merits of the changes he made, I claim that you are being uncharitable towards him. I'm not necessarily defending ESR himself, I just think that you're attacking someone who isn't ESR and calling them ESR. And I think this is a common theme when people talk about ESR.
      - djur 13y ago
        Before 2001 it was "vaguely liberal-moderate... strong libertarian contingent... anti-authoritarian", when ESR identified as a libertarian. After 2001 it was "formerly liberal-moderate... moderate-to-neoconservative", when ESR had gone full-on warblogger. Around the same time he also added heavily politically biased definitions for terms like "fisking" and "idiotarian" to the Jargon File. He claimed not to be a neocon in 2008 when "neocon" had become a dirty word. I don't think that changes the fact that he was a fervent supporter of the "War on Terrorism", a neocon project. It sounds to me like you're agreeing with the parent -- he changed the description of a "hacker's" politics to fit whatever his particular political stance was at the time.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
  Not just 'hacker', but 'human being': http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5001 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5001

caf 13y ago

That is not a fair characterisation of the comment. For one thing, it says "could have", not "would have" - this strongly implies that it's a reference to the technical content, and not the existence or style of the report.