Reading 03: Nerds as Hackers
To me, it seems like Paul Graham’s description of a hacker works pretty well with Stephen Levy’s description of a hacker. Both imply that their version of a hacker is one who loves to do things because they can and that what they do is what they love above most else. They both see a certain beauty about hacking. As Levy says, “You can create beauty and art on a computer” (31) and Graham compares hackers to painters. “What hackers and painters have in common is that they’re both makers. Along with composers, architects, and writers, what hackers and painters are trying to do is make good things” (Graham).
I think this comparison that Graham makes of an artist to a hacker has a lot of merit. “The other way makers learn is from examples. For a painter, a museum is a reference library of techniques… Hackers, likewise, can learn to program by looking at good programs — not just at what they do, but the source code too” (Graham). I’ve never thought of it this way before, but a hacker really does build foundation by exploring and seeing what has been done before in practice (not just in books). Something interesting that he said was “Empathy is probably the single most important difference between a good hacker and a great one” (Graham). I’d never thought of it like this before, but it makes sense that those who are really good at hacking are the ones who would understand who is receiving the work they are creating (just like how an artist would want to instill certain emotions when someone sees their work).
Additionally, I think Graham’s sentiment that hacker culture is beneficial and that the world should recognize that is very interesting. He says, “But even factoring in their annoying eccentricities, the disobedient attitude of hackers is a net win” (Graham). Yes, it’s important, and much of what we have today (like Unix) wouldn’t be around without these people poking around exploring software. However, he obviously says the following sarcastically: “Those in a position to impose rules naturally want them to be obeyed. But be careful what you ask for. You might get it.” (Graham). I think this line is kind of irresponsible to be honest. Where would our world be without structure? If we let everyone do whatever the hell they wanted for the sake of exploring and not try to lay down and enforce ground rules, our society, while able to feed their hungry curiosity, would be more dangerous. I would fear a world where everyone feels fine with breaking the rules and encouraged it. Sure, we can get a lot of good out of it, but we could also get a lot of evil out of it. I’m kind of content with letting the world run a little slower if it means it’s a little safer. Maybe I’m just a goody two shoes though.
I think being a hacker would be interesting, but as I’ve said in previous blogs, I don’t love exploring a computer’s or piece of software’s secrets as much as I feel like I should to be a hacker. I think I’m too much of a wuss to be rebellious too, which is what Graham implies a hacker needs to be. “Those in authority tend to be annoyed by hackers’ general attitude of disobedience” (Graham). However, I do think the idea is cool, and after reading the painters essay, I definitely have more of a respect for the art of hacking. Do I want to be one though? I guess I really admire them, but I don’t really aspire to be like them.
