3 ms·
I'll agree. Many labels are worthless used in reference to one's self. "Brilliant" and "Hacker" among the big ones. They don't really mean anything until someon
by ax0n 17y ago
I'll agree. Many labels are worthless used in reference to one's self. "Brilliant" and "Hacker" among the big ones. They don't really mean anything until someone else recognizes it in you. IMHO, it takes a genuine hacker (acknowledged as such by peers) calling someone else a hacker to make it count. I would say the same applies to "brilliant."
While it might do wonders for one's self-esteem, being called "brilliant" by high school teachers doesn't impress me much. In contrast: If Brian Eno says someone is brilliant, I am quite likely to take his word for it.
- Randai 17y agoSo wait, how does that work with the first "hacker" then. Does it mean it tails out. I mean the first "hacker" had to term himself a hacker, but by that logic only a "hacker" can be deemed a "hacker" by another true "hacker". Thusly every current "hacker" isn't a hacker then. <head-implode>AAHHHH</head-implode>
- ax0n 17y agoI simply said that the title carries more weight if it's used by someone that's already considered to be in the crowd. There's obviously a kind-of non-pejorative definition of the word "hacker" as well, which can be used to generally define hackers as those who constantly seek to understand intimate details of a given system. That's easy to see from outside the sphere. To truly judge how well one understands a system, though, the judge must understand it at least as well as the person being judged. This is why it means more to be called "brilliant" or "hacker" by someone who is themself brilliant, or someone who is a hacker.