6 ms·

Link bait? Are you serious? I don't own SEED magazine, and I have nothing to gain from your clicking on it. I think it is an appropriate use of the word hack.

Link bait? Are you serious? I don't own SEED magazine, and I have nothing to gain from your clicking on it. I think it is an appropriate use of the word hack. Since the producers allow contestants unlimited time to work out answers (as long as they’re not just stalling), I knew that I could employ the most basic of priming tactics: talking about the question, posing scenarios, throwing out wild speculations, even just babbling—trying to cajole my prefrontal neurons onto any cue that could trigger the buried neocortical circuits holding the key to the answer. ... I tried priming the missing words of the acronym, reiterating “National Collegiate Uh Uh, National Collegiate Uh Uh,” over and over until my synapses finally fired off the complete pattern: “National Collegiate Athletic Association.” He interpreted the rules cleverly to gain an advantage, in a way that I suspect no one did before, at least not to the extent that he did. If you don't like the title, suggest a better one, and perhaps the mods will change it.

JacobAldridge 17y ago
I didn't intend to imply you had anything to gain from attracting clicks, so I want to withdraw any such accusation as may be inferred. I was referring to the HN guidelines, specifically that "You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it." and the general policy of using the source's title wherever possible. I felt adding Hacks was gratuitous spin. "Who wants to be a cognitive neuroscientist millionaire" tells me more about the story than "Brain researcher hacks ...", but it appears that we have different applications of the word hack, and I respect your explanation.
- randomwalker 17y ago
  No worries. I did consider using the original title, but felt it was a bit cryptic. Maybe it was just me.
  - petercooper 17y ago
    FWIW, the original title of the article is absolute rubbish - it's a "clever" title that gives nothing away. I wouldn't have clicked on it. Your title got me in there and I wasn't disappointed.
enneff 17y ago
A 'hack' is basically accomplishing something with a clever trick. He didn't hack the show, he hacked his brain. Although I still think the word 'hack' is inappropriate here anyway.
- donaq 17y ago
  In what way is it inappropriate?

JacobAldridge 17y ago

I didn't intend to imply you had anything to gain from attracting clicks, so I want to withdraw any such accusation as may be inferred. I was referring to the HN guidelines, specifically that "You can make up a new title if you want, but if you put gratuitous editorial spin on it, the editors may rewrite it." and the general policy of using the source's title wherever possible. I felt adding Hacks was gratuitous spin. "Who wants to be a cognitive neuroscientist millionaire" tells me more about the story than "Brain researcher hacks ...", but it appears that we have different applications of the word hack, and I respect your explanation.

randomwalker 17y ago
No worries. I did consider using the original title, but felt it was a bit cryptic. Maybe it was just me.
- petercooper 17y ago
  FWIW, the original title of the article is absolute rubbish - it's a "clever" title that gives nothing away. I wouldn't have clicked on it. Your title got me in there and I wasn't disappointed.

enneff 17y ago

A 'hack' is basically accomplishing something with a clever trick. He didn't hack the show, he hacked his brain. Although I still think the word 'hack' is inappropriate here anyway.

donaq 17y ago
In what way is it inappropriate?