Calling All Hackers(phrack.org)
phrack.org
Calling All Hackers
https://phrack.org/issues/71/17.html#article
271 comments
Feel basically the opposite, in fact I would go to say this takeawway is the wrong one - the article is titled "Calling All Hackers" but can't go three headings without talking about shitcoins and venture capital. There's the HN definition of hacker and the infosec one, and phrack is for the latter. "High tech, low life" hackers don't have obsessions with venture capital.
Well isn't that the thesis of the article? It's meant to be an explanation of the modern startup economy (HN) for the capital-H Hacker.
> My point is, it is not just about computers. It's about understanding how the world works. The world is made up of people. As much as machines keep society running, those machines are programmed by people--people with managers, spouses, and children; with wants, needs, and dreams. And it is about using that knowledge to bring about the change you want to see.
> That is what being a hacker is all about.
> My point is, it is not just about computers. It's about understanding how the world works. The world is made up of people. As much as machines keep society running, those machines are programmed by people--people with managers, spouses, and children; with wants, needs, and dreams. And it is about using that knowledge to bring about the change you want to see.
> That is what being a hacker is all about.
Agreed. Remember when hacking was about meddling with systems of global finance rather than engaging with them earnestly? This guy doesn’t.
At one point you grow up and realize the fastest way to your goals is using money, and best bet to get lots of money fast is the VC game.
Your argument has a logic leap in it: The fastest way to your goals is using money, but that doesn't mean you need lots of money to achieve your goals.
All things in balance. It's often easier to get stuff done with more hands, and it's a lot easier when you're able to pay for people's time.
There are plenty of counter-examples to this (writing OSS software, farming your own land with a commune, etc), but in general it's easier to get stuff done when you can throw cash at it, at least in late stage capitalism. It'd be hard to build a company like SpaceX without a boatload of cash!
There are plenty of counter-examples to this (writing OSS software, farming your own land with a commune, etc), but in general it's easier to get stuff done when you can throw cash at it, at least in late stage capitalism. It'd be hard to build a company like SpaceX without a boatload of cash!
Again, though, not everyone's goal is to build SpaceX. Some people just want to have a small shop that makes their local community happy and serves it, and that doesn't take a boatload of cash.
That's the vibe I would have if I didn't read past the first third of the post.
[deleted]
> "High tech, low life" hackers don't have obsessions with venture capital.
This sounds like you're conflating aesthetics with what the article is actually discussing.
This sounds like you're conflating aesthetics with what the article is actually discussing.
> ZIRP was toxic. It made us bad and lazy.
Yes. It makes me really nervous to see people celebrating the fed talking about lowering rates. Maybe rates should be lowered a bit, sure, I don't know. But please, please don't ever let us go back to zero-interest. As a person who works with technology, that era was so incredibly depressing. So much waste. I'm on the verge of leaving the tech industry because of what happened over the past 10 years. City bus drivers don't have to share an industry with SBF and Juicero and Elon Musk, you know?
Yes. It makes me really nervous to see people celebrating the fed talking about lowering rates. Maybe rates should be lowered a bit, sure, I don't know. But please, please don't ever let us go back to zero-interest. As a person who works with technology, that era was so incredibly depressing. So much waste. I'm on the verge of leaving the tech industry because of what happened over the past 10 years. City bus drivers don't have to share an industry with SBF and Juicero and Elon Musk, you know?
Lowering rates is fine. Lowering them to zero is bad.
Economists generally believe the baseline, target rate should be around 2-3%.
Zero interest rate is like steroids. You can take them for a while to pick you up and help fight a bug (like the 2008 crash), but if you don't stop taking them, you'll need a long, painful, 5.5% interest rate rehab.
Economists generally believe the baseline, target rate should be around 2-3%.
Zero interest rate is like steroids. You can take them for a while to pick you up and help fight a bug (like the 2008 crash), but if you don't stop taking them, you'll need a long, painful, 5.5% interest rate rehab.
> and help fight a bug (like the 2008 crash)
That was not a "bug." That was a parasite. If you take steroids with a parasite you might just make the parasite stronger.
That was not a "bug." That was a parasite. If you take steroids with a parasite you might just make the parasite stronger.
The presenter is not a doctor :)
It's an analogy.
2008 was caused by inflated housing prices. ZIRP reinflated the housing bubble. This caused people to not be underwater on their mortgages, but now we have an even bigger housing bubble than we did to begin with.
2008 was caused by inflated housing prices. ZIRP reinflated the housing bubble. This caused people to not be underwater on their mortgages, but now we have an even bigger housing bubble than we did to begin with.
> Economists generally believe the baseline, target rate should be around 2-3%.
The problem with that is (as we found out) that does not leave you much room to cut without going to near zero rates.
The problem with that is (as we found out) that does not leave you much room to cut without going to near zero rates.
That's a feature, not a bug.
The government reaction to the 2021 economic circumstances was to counter the hot job market, not inflation. It is explicitly and legally the mandate of the federal reserve to target maximum employment first, and 3% inflation if possible.
Inflation has been normal for a while now by most metrics, but rates are still sky-high to crush worker power. This may not be the stated goal, but it is the actual outcome we can see.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
Super-low inflation targets hurt worker negotiating power.
The government reaction to the 2021 economic circumstances was to counter the hot job market, not inflation. It is explicitly and legally the mandate of the federal reserve to target maximum employment first, and 3% inflation if possible.
Inflation has been normal for a while now by most metrics, but rates are still sky-high to crush worker power. This may not be the stated goal, but it is the actual outcome we can see.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
Super-low inflation targets hurt worker negotiating power.
The relevant section of the U.S. Code is 12 U.S.C. § 225a, which states:
"The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates."
Why do people insist on this?
A rate of inflation + 0.5% is double of a rate of inflation + 0.25, that is double of a rate of inflation + 0.125%, that is double of...
You can have as many steps as you want.
A rate of inflation + 0.5% is double of a rate of inflation + 0.25, that is double of a rate of inflation + 0.125%, that is double of...
You can have as many steps as you want.
> Zero interest rate is like steroids.
The problem with your analogy is that paying interest is an active measure. It takes effort. The higher the rate*(outstanding debt), the more effort. This isn't a choice between injecting nothing vs injecting steroids, it's a choice between injecting sedatives vs injecting nothing. Raising the interest rate is like injecting a sedative. How much sedative should we inject? How much sedative can we inject?
The problem with your analogy is that paying interest is an active measure. It takes effort. The higher the rate*(outstanding debt), the more effort. This isn't a choice between injecting nothing vs injecting steroids, it's a choice between injecting sedatives vs injecting nothing. Raising the interest rate is like injecting a sedative. How much sedative should we inject? How much sedative can we inject?
I disagree, as this implies that an interest of zero is the normal default. Why would it be? Why would someone lend someone else money, when they get nothing for it?
> Zero interest rate is like steroids
More like adding fat and never burn it. Zero interest means everything stays around, no pressure to produce since there is no expectation of ROI, and then when you suddenly add that pressure a lot of stuff collapses under their own weight since they don't have anything to keep it up.
More like adding fat and never burn it. Zero interest means everything stays around, no pressure to produce since there is no expectation of ROI, and then when you suddenly add that pressure a lot of stuff collapses under their own weight since they don't have anything to keep it up.
I'll be the devil's advocate. Zero interest rates means it's easier for startups to raise money. High interest rates locks in the status quo - because of their massive war chests big companies don't struggle because of high interests, but small companies do.
For individuals in the middle class and lower, high interest rates (and the associated inflation) directly lower the quality of life by eroding their purchasing power.
For individuals in the middle class and lower, high interest rates (and the associated inflation) directly lower the quality of life by eroding their purchasing power.
> high interest rates (and the associated inflation) directly lower the quality of life by eroding their purchasing power.
This confuses me. Rates were raised to reduce inflation. How should inflation have been reduced, if not (at least in part) by raising rates?
This confuses me. Rates were raised to reduce inflation. How should inflation have been reduced, if not (at least in part) by raising rates?
Raising rates, can only lower inflation if there isn't large excess cash. The rate raising was also quite a bit of a smoke screen because the money kept flowing via reverse repos. All that changed was who had access to it. The normal borrower can't get unlimited 1 second loads with a 24 hour settlement period.
Raising rates didn't lower housing prices, it just empowered cash buyers to become landlords.
Raising rates didn't lower housing prices, it just empowered cash buyers to become landlords.
> Raising rates didn't lower housing prices,
I have not observed this statement to be true, both in my personal experience and that of those around me.
I have not observed this statement to be true, both in my personal experience and that of those around me.
> Economists generally believe the baseline, target rate should be around 2-3%.
If it's lower than inflation, the government is just giving free money to the corporations with access to interbank settlement loans.
If it's lower than inflation, the government is just giving free money to the corporations with access to interbank settlement loans.
And, if you were to balance the Federal budget, you would inflate away 75% of the national debt in 50 years at 3% inflation. But, only a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution could accomplish that.
How are you calculating that? The national debt itself currently has an average interest rate higher than 3%.
"Balanced budget" presumably includes paying the interest on existing debt in the current year rather than recapitalizing it.
>> It makes me really nervous to see people celebrating the fed talking about lowering rates.
One thing I've often thought true but not confirmed is that lowering interest rates has it's own effect on top of the lower rate itself. Lowering rates leads to refinancing for example which is not a thing in a steady state. I'm inclined to think most of the benefit of a rate lowering is in fact transient, while the effects of having low rates are permanent and there are similarly transient costs with raising rates. It's a trap.
One thing I've often thought true but not confirmed is that lowering interest rates has it's own effect on top of the lower rate itself. Lowering rates leads to refinancing for example which is not a thing in a steady state. I'm inclined to think most of the benefit of a rate lowering is in fact transient, while the effects of having low rates are permanent and there are similarly transient costs with raising rates. It's a trap.
You talk about low rates like they are a choice. That's mostly not true. A better way to think about it is that low rates are a consequence of "lots of savings chasing few investment opportunities."
Sure, the fed can buy and sell treasuries and use its magical balance sheet to push/pull on treasury yields, and these in turn are the lowest risk and most liquid mechanism for duration transformation so they tend to serve as a baseline / comparison point for every other kind of investment, transmitting monetary policy into the real economy. However, the fed's magical balance sheet has limits: if they push or pull on treasury yields too hard for too long, people will stop using them as a default point of comparison and put their money somewhere else. See: Bank of Japan and the JPY Carry Trade that everyone became an expert in about 3 weeks ago. Point is: the fed can push and pull, but it can't fight the market-determined macro and win. Not for long, anyway.
Low rates are inevitable between growth sigmoids. Unless you think we can exponentially grow forever, we need to figure out how to cope. What would that look like? How could we possibly cool off the economy without paying people to not invest? Well, I mean, we could raise taxes and spend that on the people who got left behind on the last growth sigmoid, but I can hear the "boos" and "hisses" already. Hey! Tomatoes are for eating, not throwing! Guys, come on! You know it's true.
Sure, the fed can buy and sell treasuries and use its magical balance sheet to push/pull on treasury yields, and these in turn are the lowest risk and most liquid mechanism for duration transformation so they tend to serve as a baseline / comparison point for every other kind of investment, transmitting monetary policy into the real economy. However, the fed's magical balance sheet has limits: if they push or pull on treasury yields too hard for too long, people will stop using them as a default point of comparison and put their money somewhere else. See: Bank of Japan and the JPY Carry Trade that everyone became an expert in about 3 weeks ago. Point is: the fed can push and pull, but it can't fight the market-determined macro and win. Not for long, anyway.
Low rates are inevitable between growth sigmoids. Unless you think we can exponentially grow forever, we need to figure out how to cope. What would that look like? How could we possibly cool off the economy without paying people to not invest? Well, I mean, we could raise taxes and spend that on the people who got left behind on the last growth sigmoid, but I can hear the "boos" and "hisses" already. Hey! Tomatoes are for eating, not throwing! Guys, come on! You know it's true.
> Well, I mean, we could raise taxes and spend that on the people who got left behind on the last growth sigmoid, but I can hear the "boos" and "hisses" already.
I mostly agree. The issue comes from how the money gets spent. It costs money to collect money, it costs money to spend money. Most of the spent money is used to "buy solutions" from private industry, so the rich still get richer, and nothing really changes.
Baltimore, MD, USA, spends more per student [1] than almost any other city in the country, and nothing changes. Oh well actually, there is a lot of corruption in the city council and I think over half of the past few mayors have been arrested on criminal charges.
[1] https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/in-baltimore...
I mostly agree. The issue comes from how the money gets spent. It costs money to collect money, it costs money to spend money. Most of the spent money is used to "buy solutions" from private industry, so the rich still get richer, and nothing really changes.
Baltimore, MD, USA, spends more per student [1] than almost any other city in the country, and nothing changes. Oh well actually, there is a lot of corruption in the city council and I think over half of the past few mayors have been arrested on criminal charges.
[1] https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/in-baltimore...
> Baltimore, MD, USA, spends more per student [1] than almost any other city in the country, and nothing changes. Oh well actually, there is a lot of corruption in the city council and I think over half of the past few mayors have been arrested on criminal charges.
I'm not connected to Maryland, but is there a reason, other than history that the school board is appointed by the mayor and not elected? Everywhere I've lived, school districts have been independent from the cities they operate in, and supervised by a state education organization and perhaps mildly supervised by the county board of supervisors in the counties they operate in (or city councils when operating in cities that are counties). Then you could have corrupt city governance without necessarily having corrupt school governance; although you could still have both if that's what your local electorate chooses.
I'm not connected to Maryland, but is there a reason, other than history that the school board is appointed by the mayor and not elected? Everywhere I've lived, school districts have been independent from the cities they operate in, and supervised by a state education organization and perhaps mildly supervised by the county board of supervisors in the counties they operate in (or city councils when operating in cities that are counties). Then you could have corrupt city governance without necessarily having corrupt school governance; although you could still have both if that's what your local electorate chooses.
The gov. of maryland at the time of the freddy gray riots had the national guard on standby for HOURS before the mayor finally permitted the state to assist.
It is a horribly fucked up city, corrupt from top to bottom, rampant crime, murder, fraud, etc.
But no worries, residents of the city pay an ADDITIONAL tax beoyo9nd federal and state taxes to ensure things stay exactly the way they are. Baltimore city could triple their tax rates and nothing would change.
This is a microchasm of the entire US. One of if not the wealthiest country in the world cannot figure out that throwing money at problems DOESN'T FIX THEM. It is a rich-person way of thinking: "something broke, I'll pay someone to fix it" but thr "someone" lines their pockets, pays lip service, does the least costly "fix" possible, and laughs all the way to the corvette store.
It is a horribly fucked up city, corrupt from top to bottom, rampant crime, murder, fraud, etc.
But no worries, residents of the city pay an ADDITIONAL tax beoyo9nd federal and state taxes to ensure things stay exactly the way they are. Baltimore city could triple their tax rates and nothing would change.
This is a microchasm of the entire US. One of if not the wealthiest country in the world cannot figure out that throwing money at problems DOESN'T FIX THEM. It is a rich-person way of thinking: "something broke, I'll pay someone to fix it" but thr "someone" lines their pockets, pays lip service, does the least costly "fix" possible, and laughs all the way to the corvette store.
1950-1975 property taxes in Baltimore increased 19 times. It's double the rate in neighboring Baltimore county. In the 2010's Baltimore was losing 500 residents per month. The city is in a death spiral.
1950-1975 San Francisco was in a similar situation, losing population. In 1978 prop. 13 passed and placed a cap of 1% on the property tax. Reducing it by 2/3's. A huge boom started. The overall revenue increased by 80% after a few years as the property values increased.
Two Baltimore residents talk about it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrNjUCmTURg
1950-1975 San Francisco was in a similar situation, losing population. In 1978 prop. 13 passed and placed a cap of 1% on the property tax. Reducing it by 2/3's. A huge boom started. The overall revenue increased by 80% after a few years as the property values increased.
Two Baltimore residents talk about it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrNjUCmTURg
Respectfully, SF is known for a handful of things, wealth, tech, and people shitting on the sidewalk prominent among them.
So tell me, who won? I have a guess.
So tell me, who won? I have a guess.
> if they push or pull on treasury yields too hard for too long, people will stop using them as a default point of comparison and put their money somewhere else.
Isn't the US kind of protected against this since the US is the global reserve currency?
Isn't the US kind of protected against this since the US is the global reserve currency?
The long term trend for the Fed is that it raises rates somewhat, and then lowers them even more. There is no reason to think this won't happen again this time, landing squarely in negative rates. It only stops when US dollars are worthless because any Tom, Dick and Harry can get a billion of them for free and even get paid for doing so.
So far, the Fed does a good job of gatekeeping normal people out of the negative rate market even when rates are negative - only rich people are allowed to benefit.
So far, the Fed does a good job of gatekeeping normal people out of the negative rate market even when rates are negative - only rich people are allowed to benefit.
I'm only starting to learn about these things.
From the data I've seen and read it seems like low interest rates are (politically) alluring, because of short term metrics, but will bite back via inflation and bubbles bursting very consistently.
Is there any wisdom and data that challenges or expands on this that a layman can understand?
From the data I've seen and read it seems like low interest rates are (politically) alluring, because of short term metrics, but will bite back via inflation and bubbles bursting very consistently.
Is there any wisdom and data that challenges or expands on this that a layman can understand?
So, bubbles are hard, especially when the underlying fundamental thing does not respond well to price increases (NIMBYism, zoning, weaponized environmental legislation, etc.)
https://www.fullstackeconomics.com/p/the-2000s-housing-bubbl...
Tech bubbles are doubly so, because now that "total addressable market" has exploded thanks to the internet everything is a bubble. (Starting with the good old dot-com one, and crypto, and AR/VR/Metaverse, and now AI. Folks are comparing Nvidia stock graphs to Cisco around 2000.)
....
Likely the HN crowd overestimates the effect of ZIRP on tech, because how crazy the last 10-15 years have been. (But we see that the economy in general performed extremely well, real wages increased, etc.)
Yes, of course there were (and are) a lot of scummy ventures, but there will be more.
...
Regarding rates, the picture is a bit more complex. So coming out of the 2008 crash the Obama/ARRA fiscal stimulus was too small. (And of course it got hyper-over-politicized on "both sides".) And the monetary response was also lackluster.
But we also know now (benefit of hindsight!) that the rates before 2008 were too low.
https://www.caixabankresearch.com/en/economics-markets/monet...
One important take-away is that of course everyone wants growth, more growth would help lower taxes, inflate away deficits, yey! Prosperity is good!
But ... we can't simply buy growth with endless loans from our future selves. Real economic growth requires increasing productivity, which requires applying new (better, more suited to the situation, more profitable) technologies, which requires changes (duh), but an aging population is very change-averse. The US with the political gridlock tends to go on wild goose chases, spending enormous amounts of money on bullshitting instead of picking better technology.
(And here technology includes social technology too. From the things like "lack of funding reform for fire departments leads to them going with too large firetrucks everywhere to be able to bill a lot, which leads them to not sign-off on thinner roads, which leads to too wide roads where motorists drive too fast, which leads to too many injuries and fatalities" to all the usual like lack of gun control and bribery rules for the courts.)
https://www.fullstackeconomics.com/p/the-2000s-housing-bubbl...
Tech bubbles are doubly so, because now that "total addressable market" has exploded thanks to the internet everything is a bubble. (Starting with the good old dot-com one, and crypto, and AR/VR/Metaverse, and now AI. Folks are comparing Nvidia stock graphs to Cisco around 2000.)
....
Likely the HN crowd overestimates the effect of ZIRP on tech, because how crazy the last 10-15 years have been. (But we see that the economy in general performed extremely well, real wages increased, etc.)
Yes, of course there were (and are) a lot of scummy ventures, but there will be more.
...
Regarding rates, the picture is a bit more complex. So coming out of the 2008 crash the Obama/ARRA fiscal stimulus was too small. (And of course it got hyper-over-politicized on "both sides".) And the monetary response was also lackluster.
But we also know now (benefit of hindsight!) that the rates before 2008 were too low.
https://www.caixabankresearch.com/en/economics-markets/monet...
One important take-away is that of course everyone wants growth, more growth would help lower taxes, inflate away deficits, yey! Prosperity is good!
But ... we can't simply buy growth with endless loans from our future selves. Real economic growth requires increasing productivity, which requires applying new (better, more suited to the situation, more profitable) technologies, which requires changes (duh), but an aging population is very change-averse. The US with the political gridlock tends to go on wild goose chases, spending enormous amounts of money on bullshitting instead of picking better technology.
(And here technology includes social technology too. From the things like "lack of funding reform for fire departments leads to them going with too large firetrucks everywhere to be able to bill a lot, which leads them to not sign-off on thinner roads, which leads to too wide roads where motorists drive too fast, which leads to too many injuries and fatalities" to all the usual like lack of gun control and bribery rules for the courts.)
I have a slightly different view on this. ZIRP allowed companies to do crazy things when it came to tech investment. For instance, would Kafka (and by extension, Confluent, and much of the distributed-systems landscape) exist if LinkedIn hadn't decided: "you know, let's not think too hard about whether building a custom queue system is fully economically rational, let's just let our engineers do it, and we'll be able to spin it to investors/shareholders as a good use of capital." It's no coincidence that this happened in 2010, the first year that the interest rate dropped below 1% (and substantially so).
https://www.rtinsights.com/the-technical-evolution-of-apache...
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS
Were the people who worked on that project value-optimal for LinkedIn? Maybe, maybe not. Were they "lazy" and a "waste" in the value they brought to society overall, especially including the spin-offs and startups that members of these teams would go on to build? I don't think that's an accurate characterization.
Zero-interest was an effective way to incentivize public companies, VC-backed companies, and their LPs to spend large amounts of money on speculative engineering work - speculative enough that one might even call it research, but the fact that we could call it something other than research is the entire point.
It's far from the only such incentive, and it came with many, many downsides, including the creation of many over-funded startups that over-promised and caused harm in their under-delivery.
To be sure, startups aren't going anywhere. There are surprisingly fun challenges when profitability and sustainable growth are core requirements for every project, both macro and micro, and it's just an evolution of our hacker mentality to have to deal with these new constraints.
But I fear that we've lost the incentive to have companies invest speculatively in crazy projects without having a sufficient replacement for ZIRP, and it may take a generation before we understand how that will have affected the rate of innovative output for the entire world.
https://www.rtinsights.com/the-technical-evolution-of-apache...
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS
Were the people who worked on that project value-optimal for LinkedIn? Maybe, maybe not. Were they "lazy" and a "waste" in the value they brought to society overall, especially including the spin-offs and startups that members of these teams would go on to build? I don't think that's an accurate characterization.
Zero-interest was an effective way to incentivize public companies, VC-backed companies, and their LPs to spend large amounts of money on speculative engineering work - speculative enough that one might even call it research, but the fact that we could call it something other than research is the entire point.
It's far from the only such incentive, and it came with many, many downsides, including the creation of many over-funded startups that over-promised and caused harm in their under-delivery.
To be sure, startups aren't going anywhere. There are surprisingly fun challenges when profitability and sustainable growth are core requirements for every project, both macro and micro, and it's just an evolution of our hacker mentality to have to deal with these new constraints.
But I fear that we've lost the incentive to have companies invest speculatively in crazy projects without having a sufficient replacement for ZIRP, and it may take a generation before we understand how that will have affected the rate of innovative output for the entire world.
It's a fair perspective, but I'd counter by bringing up the opportunity cost we spent on the incredible amount of trash startups that ZIRP produced. Those Juicero & crypto & NFT people could've been doing something productive with their lives instead of whatever that mess was. Was Kafka worth that cost? I dunno. But seeing the obvious waste and the clowns who profited from it made me, personally, really depressed at the state of our industry. A system that so blatantly does not distribute rewards for real, valuable work really discourages one from bothering to even try putting in the work.
It kinda feels like raising the Temperature of a LLM too high, if you'll forgive the analogy. Yes, there might be occasional-seemingly brilliant-bursts of creativity but most of the output is just going to be nonsense.
I suspect that Kafka paid off for linkedin long before the authors left to start a Kafka company.
RabbitMQ et al were so hard to scale/operate at volume.
RabbitMQ et al were so hard to scale/operate at volume.
Not a fan of the terminology that corporations are people, but stacks of free money will mess up a company much like it will a person.
Elon Musk is very wasteful selling waste due to low interest rates? Please explain or make your point? I don't get how he relates to the rest of your post?
Intrinsic value, like all value, is subjective. Always look for an audience that will value whatever it is you're making. When you use what you intrinsically value as a proxy for what a loosely-defined demographic values, it can lead you down a long road of building things that no one but you thinks is useful.
agreed, wholeheartedly.
This is my article. Thank you for your kind words, I'm glad you all enjoyed it! I was very surprised to wake up this morning to see it on HN, haha.
Thank you for the article! I found the "I understand computers and therefore the world" in the beginning a bit pretentious, but after reading the rest anyway, it doesn't anymore. I'd summarize the piece as:
"The hacker mindset comes with powerful tools: The urge to figure stuff out, the creativity to use it in unusual ways and the passion to share knowledge. Let's use it to make the world a better place. Start a company and gather allies. If enough of us do this, we'll have an impact on the world."
"The hacker mindset comes with powerful tools: The urge to figure stuff out, the creativity to use it in unusual ways and the passion to share knowledge. Let's use it to make the world a better place. Start a company and gather allies. If enough of us do this, we'll have an impact on the world."
> Keep it private and closely held
Yep. I know this is probably a bit revisionist (old-timey inventors wanted to get rich quick too) but it feels like companies used to more often be geared toward longevity, not ascendance, and I don't see how they could achieve longevity while constantly trying to make shareholders rich. Longevity really should be up there on the list of goals, with security and prosperity for all those involved.
I suppose a meat grinder growfast company could invent world-improving products that justify employee churn and abuse, but those would be unicorns with diamond encrusted horns.
What is the point of any of our actions if they don't benefit people?
Yep. I know this is probably a bit revisionist (old-timey inventors wanted to get rich quick too) but it feels like companies used to more often be geared toward longevity, not ascendance, and I don't see how they could achieve longevity while constantly trying to make shareholders rich. Longevity really should be up there on the list of goals, with security and prosperity for all those involved.
I suppose a meat grinder growfast company could invent world-improving products that justify employee churn and abuse, but those would be unicorns with diamond encrusted horns.
What is the point of any of our actions if they don't benefit people?
The story of GE under Jack Welch and his underlings that spread out from there is horrifying. Boeing got caught up in it with the MD reverse acquisition. There was an audiobook I listened to recently that covered a bunch of this but I can't for the life of me find the title right now.
What is A20? I guess I'm not a hacker...
Great job Luna!
can you give a tldr? whats the point? how are we going to get rich? what is your answer?
The answer is solely seeking to get rich isn’t the hacker spirit.
seeking to be a pauper isnt the hacker spirit either.
maybe I overlooked something that is why I asked this question.
article seemed reductive and of unclear value. enlighten me if you found it.
maybe I overlooked something that is why I asked this question.
article seemed reductive and of unclear value. enlighten me if you found it.
The idea is to focus on creating value that fits your morals and values, not just to focus on “creating value for VCs” which is what usually begets the “scale at all costs” conversation that has been so popular during the ZIRP we’ve lived through.
This whole thing comes off as very “edgy”. We just like to tinker with things. It’s really not that deep for most of us.
Phrack's tendency toward the edgy sentiment aside, I sort of understand it. Sort of.
I grew up in the era of BBSs, microcomputers giving way to full desktops in the US and payphones we're still slightly interesting. though phreaking was sadly in its final days. I also had (and have) severe social anxiety, but had no idea what that was at the time. I just knew I did not understand the world or people much at all, seeing them as sloppy systems that seemed to operate without any predictable set of rules aside from maybe self-preservation and immediate gratification.
So when I started taking apart computers, futzing with software and seeing what made the beige boxes tick, I found I could understand those with far more clarity. I also found other people like me in the message boards and a local library. Naturally, this became my world, because I knew how to navigate it better than people who had little interest in using a computer for anything beyond homework or accounting.
It really felt like there was this whole reality that sat on top of the "common" reality and I had ascended to it with some silly notion of secret knowledge. You can image how addicting that would feel to someone who does not do well social and felt very, very outcast as a kid.
I guess the difference between myself and a lot of Phrack authors, whom I still very much respect for laying the paving stones that I got to walk on, is that as I got older, I dealt with my anxiety and found that my genuine curiosity was more of an asset to enriching myself than a key to the door of some secret counter-culture. Hacking, colloquially speaking, went mainstream and sort of left me in the dust, having become impossible for any one person to keep up with the flood of new methods, exploits, etc as the Internet exploded and suddenly everyone had computers in some form or another.
I moved on, more or less. Yes, I still tinker, as a hobby and a form of therapy, but mostly with old computers and industrial machines, since that's part of my adult career, but I miss that feeling of being part of some counter-culture-like group, whether it was real or not.
I can totally see where it would be hard to let go of that. Heck, I'd post that some of the Phrack authors have no business letting go of it since they helped define that whole world and need to keep it alive. I say let them be edgy. I have trouble with that, myself, but I respect it.
Sorry, this turned into a "Hacker Perspective" 2600 article, I guess.
I grew up in the era of BBSs, microcomputers giving way to full desktops in the US and payphones we're still slightly interesting. though phreaking was sadly in its final days. I also had (and have) severe social anxiety, but had no idea what that was at the time. I just knew I did not understand the world or people much at all, seeing them as sloppy systems that seemed to operate without any predictable set of rules aside from maybe self-preservation and immediate gratification.
So when I started taking apart computers, futzing with software and seeing what made the beige boxes tick, I found I could understand those with far more clarity. I also found other people like me in the message boards and a local library. Naturally, this became my world, because I knew how to navigate it better than people who had little interest in using a computer for anything beyond homework or accounting.
It really felt like there was this whole reality that sat on top of the "common" reality and I had ascended to it with some silly notion of secret knowledge. You can image how addicting that would feel to someone who does not do well social and felt very, very outcast as a kid.
I guess the difference between myself and a lot of Phrack authors, whom I still very much respect for laying the paving stones that I got to walk on, is that as I got older, I dealt with my anxiety and found that my genuine curiosity was more of an asset to enriching myself than a key to the door of some secret counter-culture. Hacking, colloquially speaking, went mainstream and sort of left me in the dust, having become impossible for any one person to keep up with the flood of new methods, exploits, etc as the Internet exploded and suddenly everyone had computers in some form or another.
I moved on, more or less. Yes, I still tinker, as a hobby and a form of therapy, but mostly with old computers and industrial machines, since that's part of my adult career, but I miss that feeling of being part of some counter-culture-like group, whether it was real or not.
I can totally see where it would be hard to let go of that. Heck, I'd post that some of the Phrack authors have no business letting go of it since they helped define that whole world and need to keep it alive. I say let them be edgy. I have trouble with that, myself, but I respect it.
Sorry, this turned into a "Hacker Perspective" 2600 article, I guess.
I really liked reading your comment.
Somewhat related. I used to think, if I get really good at some thing, people will respect or admire me more. So I do my utmost best to be excellent at what I do.
I found out that getting respect or admiration works differently. When you are very good in one area, you come across as geeky/nerdy. That fills nicely a respected stereotype in film, where the geek finds the missing piece for saving the world. But in the real world, most people don't care.
Also I more recently found out that if you show you are trying really hard, that comes across as feeling very unsure about yourself.
So about the article, understanding how the world works. The author clearly has understanding about financial markets. He knows a lot about security weaknesses and how to exploit them. It is all knowledge available on the web after all, if you spend a lot of nights studying it, it starts to click.
The world is so much more than that though. For me, it is mostly how you interact with it, and the best interactions are with people. At work, at home, on HN.
Why do I work? I make something, I fix a problem, I discuss what is important, it makes somebody happy because it aligns with their goal. Be it a colleague who wants their design reviewed, a customer who has a problem with your product, or a manager who wants a new feature.
Somewhat related. I used to think, if I get really good at some thing, people will respect or admire me more. So I do my utmost best to be excellent at what I do.
I found out that getting respect or admiration works differently. When you are very good in one area, you come across as geeky/nerdy. That fills nicely a respected stereotype in film, where the geek finds the missing piece for saving the world. But in the real world, most people don't care.
Also I more recently found out that if you show you are trying really hard, that comes across as feeling very unsure about yourself.
So about the article, understanding how the world works. The author clearly has understanding about financial markets. He knows a lot about security weaknesses and how to exploit them. It is all knowledge available on the web after all, if you spend a lot of nights studying it, it starts to click.
The world is so much more than that though. For me, it is mostly how you interact with it, and the best interactions are with people. At work, at home, on HN.
Why do I work? I make something, I fix a problem, I discuss what is important, it makes somebody happy because it aligns with their goal. Be it a colleague who wants their design reviewed, a customer who has a problem with your product, or a manager who wants a new feature.
> I just knew I did not understand the world or people much at all, seeing them as sloppy systems that seemed to operate without any predictable set of rules aside from maybe self-preservation and immediate gratification.
That's a fascinating view.
In fact, I'd say most FOSS GUIs from the 90s and early 00s make a lot more sense if you see them as having the hidden/bonus goal of repelling this "world of people." I just remember using something like Dynebolic for the first time, (or, much later, Popcorn Time) and having the feeling I'd just found a sparkling piece of amethyst among so many clods of dirt. Hackers always seemed to me way too curious and lazy to shovel dirt in their spare time; basic resentment/elitism toward society so cleanly explain so many parts of FOSS, everything from the amount of time it's taken to get a decent multi-screen configuration GUI to that old error message, "You don't exist. Go away!"
Digression-- I remember reading an interview of someone who wrote one of the APIs to get multi-screen video working in Linux. They'd written about how they realized that what they'd wrote would be generally useful and therefore needed a GUI. But they didn't have expertise in GUI design nor any interest in maintaining one. So they set down and explicitly wrote a terrible GUI with the goal of making it so bad it'd be less helpful than just using the command line, thus forcing someone else to take on the task of replacing the awful GUI.
Does anyone remember what that was? The visual metaphor was something to do with playing cards. Anyhow, I'd love to see that GUI!
That's a fascinating view.
In fact, I'd say most FOSS GUIs from the 90s and early 00s make a lot more sense if you see them as having the hidden/bonus goal of repelling this "world of people." I just remember using something like Dynebolic for the first time, (or, much later, Popcorn Time) and having the feeling I'd just found a sparkling piece of amethyst among so many clods of dirt. Hackers always seemed to me way too curious and lazy to shovel dirt in their spare time; basic resentment/elitism toward society so cleanly explain so many parts of FOSS, everything from the amount of time it's taken to get a decent multi-screen configuration GUI to that old error message, "You don't exist. Go away!"
Digression-- I remember reading an interview of someone who wrote one of the APIs to get multi-screen video working in Linux. They'd written about how they realized that what they'd wrote would be generally useful and therefore needed a GUI. But they didn't have expertise in GUI design nor any interest in maintaining one. So they set down and explicitly wrote a terrible GUI with the goal of making it so bad it'd be less helpful than just using the command line, thus forcing someone else to take on the task of replacing the awful GUI.
Does anyone remember what that was? The visual metaphor was something to do with playing cards. Anyhow, I'd love to see that GUI!
xorg.conf or xrandr might be along the right lines.
Could very well be Xinerama: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinerama
Thoughtful and insightful reflection, thanks for sharing. I think that interplay between personal sense-making, personal strengths and the addictive/rewarding aspects of belonging to a specialized/esoteric community are a very common combination driving the creation of new narratives, new factions/interest and, ultimately, all kinds of change in general… for better or for worse, usually only time and intervening chance can tell. It’s cool how meaningful it is to the participants, and also cool when you can zoom out and connect it to the experiences of others across space and time.
This is also what drives people into cults: not fitting into normal social environments, finding some esoteric community where suddenly there is a fit.
> Hacking, colloquially speaking, went mainstream
I disagree. What went mainstream is a pale imitation of what hacking originally was.
I disagree. What went mainstream is a pale imitation of what hacking originally was.
I petition a 1337 Laureate nomination if such nomination exist.
Are you Phrack by chance?
Different kinds of hackers then, I suppose.
phrack has always had this kind of article. i'm sure if you grep for "A hacker is" or "the hacker ethos" you'll get a hit for every phrack issue going back to the 80s.
The people in those past articles weren't crypto startup CEOs, or startup CEOs at all most of the time.
Only thing I fail to understand is why a hacker needs to know where to buy estrogen… I can more easily take the idea of hacker knowing how to cook Molotov cocktails.
This is only an example of the type of thing a hacker would do- a hacker is willing to solve problems on their own on their own even if it requires methods that are illegal, dangerous, or complex.
A lot of people throw their hands up and give up when they need an expensive medication they can't get prescribed but in general you can often buy them overseas, grey market, make them yourself, etc.
A lot of people throw their hands up and give up when they need an expensive medication they can't get prescribed but in general you can often buy them overseas, grey market, make them yourself, etc.
Replying to awooooo who was flagged dead:
> They want it, but it's not a necessity.
What a person "needs" is complex and individual. Unless you are their doctor or are paying for it, your opinion of what medications a person needs is irrelevant- it is absolutely none of your business.
This nit-picking is in no way central to my point as it was a general statement about hacker culture ethos not any particular person or medication, so why did you post it? With only two comments so far - It appears you joined HN just to share anti-trans bigotry? That isn't okay. This is not a "hate forum" - accepting people that are different is a fundamental aspect of hacker and HN culture.
> They want it, but it's not a necessity.
What a person "needs" is complex and individual. Unless you are their doctor or are paying for it, your opinion of what medications a person needs is irrelevant- it is absolutely none of your business.
This nit-picking is in no way central to my point as it was a general statement about hacker culture ethos not any particular person or medication, so why did you post it? With only two comments so far - It appears you joined HN just to share anti-trans bigotry? That isn't okay. This is not a "hate forum" - accepting people that are different is a fundamental aspect of hacker and HN culture.
@awooooo - nonsense, you have people minding their own business and being themselves, and you don't approve so you are insulting them, and trying to say they need to hide who they are or be different. That is just plain old bigotry. Being trans doesn't hurt of affect other women in any way.
I'm willing to bet you are different in some way that isn't acceptable to others, so you feel the need to hide it out of fear, or hoping for acceptance. It's true of most people, and the fact that people need to hide themselves is awful.. and what you are contributing to here.
I'm not trans but I am neurodivergent in a way that I can't hide, and was bullied and attacked for being different a lot of my life. Bigots that only know of one way people can be different would call me "queer" when they cornered me in the school hallway in groups to try to hurt me. Luckily for me, I'm a strong guy, and even being in groups they usually had a worse time of it than I did. I understand what that is like, and don't wish it on anyone. I want a world where people can mind their own business as themselves without hiding and without awful people trying to shame or attack them.
I'm willing to bet you are different in some way that isn't acceptable to others, so you feel the need to hide it out of fear, or hoping for acceptance. It's true of most people, and the fact that people need to hide themselves is awful.. and what you are contributing to here.
I'm not trans but I am neurodivergent in a way that I can't hide, and was bullied and attacked for being different a lot of my life. Bigots that only know of one way people can be different would call me "queer" when they cornered me in the school hallway in groups to try to hurt me. Luckily for me, I'm a strong guy, and even being in groups they usually had a worse time of it than I did. I understand what that is like, and don't wish it on anyone. I want a world where people can mind their own business as themselves without hiding and without awful people trying to shame or attack them.
Estradiol valerate (which is what the article actually names) seems to be used for a wide variety of female reproductive health issues, especially when (as the article suggests) it's compounded with other drugs. It's also used by transgender people as a hormone therapy. A hacker might live in a place where gender-affirming healthcare is illegal or unavailable, or where female reproductive healthcare in general is difficult or expensive to obtain.
Reproductive healthcare is much more broadly useful than Molotov cocktails.
Reproductive healthcare is much more broadly useful than Molotov cocktails.
It's hard to say what the motivation for the estrogen is but it's a case study in pharma-bro-ing type hobbies which is fine. Life extension nootropics and such. It could be a menopausal woman juicing up. It could also be a biological male who identifies as a female, which was big tech's engineering solution as far as how to get more women in tech (turns out, innovative solution, it's easier to retrofit male programmers as females than it is to convince your average woman to sit alone in a cubicle all day fighting against a pedantic and buggy compudah) - don't announce that at google, however, or you'll be punted out next day and end up needing to settle it for a few million.
The article didn’t articulate why or how these were used and you somehow turned it into a big tech transgender conspiracy.
Get some help before it’s too late, cooker.
Get some help before it’s too late, cooker.
There have been hypotheses that a significant number of trans women (i.e. biological men who identify as women) are actually on the autism spectrum. Considering natural tendency of autistic people to prefer isolated activities and puzzles, there may be a correlation between hackers and trans women.
> There have been hypotheses
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27872002/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26753812/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38803560/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38831234/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27872002/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26753812/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38803560/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38831234/
As with any novel phenomena, especially in sociology, it is very hard to provide tangible evidence for anything. If you demand nobody speaks of anything of sort without hard evidence, rarely anything would ever be said.
> If you demand nobody speaks of anything of sort without hard evidence, rarely anything would ever be said.
Eh, that is some bullshit, but there is evidence though. I edited my comment to provide it, instead of asking you to do so.
Eh, that is some bullshit, but there is evidence though. I edited my comment to provide it, instead of asking you to do so.
> I edited my comment to provide it, instead of asking you to do so.
Nice of you to do that. Thank you.
Nice of you to do that. Thank you.
it is very hard not to observe said tendency, though really I was hoping that it was just that programmers always been rich enough to undergo transition. is this still true, though, perhaps now you can be jobless and still somehow apply for transition? depending on GPS coordinates, of course, but possible here and there.
this mentioning of potential trans-paraphernalia in an article calling to all hackers is a little misleading (imho), biased perhaps, or even influential. it is a statement i guess.
back in our teen hacker days we heard stories of ppl building molotovs, credit card scammers, eavesdropping equipment, lock-pick etc. but biohacking and female hormonal medicine in particular has definitely not been on the list (that much) if memory serves right... and my bet is that Phrack back-archive can confirm it.
perhaps it is a logical to see a change in popular understanding what hackers can find, or do, or are defined by. curiosity and daring courage to intrude is one thing, we can all agree.
perhaps also we may agree that hacking one's body is still hacking, as social engineering IS considered hacking.
this mentioning of potential trans-paraphernalia in an article calling to all hackers is a little misleading (imho), biased perhaps, or even influential. it is a statement i guess.
back in our teen hacker days we heard stories of ppl building molotovs, credit card scammers, eavesdropping equipment, lock-pick etc. but biohacking and female hormonal medicine in particular has definitely not been on the list (that much) if memory serves right... and my bet is that Phrack back-archive can confirm it.
perhaps it is a logical to see a change in popular understanding what hackers can find, or do, or are defined by. curiosity and daring courage to intrude is one thing, we can all agree.
perhaps also we may agree that hacking one's body is still hacking, as social engineering IS considered hacking.
Might also depend on how you define "hacker". Most people don't know the true meaning of the word, and should be using "cracker" instead.
Even if this is true, it need not be either-or. Saying that they are 'actually' autistic seems to imply that you do not believe that they are 'actually' trans.
It doesn’t seem that way with a charitable reading.
For what it's worth, I didn't mean "actually" in an either-or sense, but more in an unexpected-correlation sense. I tend to avoid ontological discussions on this topic.
English is not my native language, I sometimes miss the subtleties.
English is not my native language, I sometimes miss the subtleties.
My bad, I'm sorry
What’s with this ‘biological men’ stuff? How would you define that and what about chromosomal abnormalities like XXY or XYY people? If I have Jacob’s syndrome and a penis am I biologically male or something else entirely? Explain.
If you just want to have silly ideas about trans people, that’s fine because I’m done arguing with people over that. It’s a huge waste of time to get that interested in another person’s genitals but you do you. However if you’re going to use something as silly as ‘biological male’ you have to support that.
If you just want to have silly ideas about trans people, that’s fine because I’m done arguing with people over that. It’s a huge waste of time to get that interested in another person’s genitals but you do you. However if you’re going to use something as silly as ‘biological male’ you have to support that.
> If I have Jacob’s syndrome and a penis am I biologically male
Yes, of course. It's a condition that only affects males.
Yes, of course. It's a condition that only affects males.
A few years ago I freaked out the Reddit moderators on a sub called /r/bodymods , which was, ostensibly, about modifying your body, when I asked about the feasibility of doing ones own liposuction.
I'm not saying that's a good or bad idea from a medical perspective, but I certainly was off-put by their hypocrisy at shutting me down and their myopic definition of "body mods" which apparently to them was just poking holes in their face.
I'm not saying that's a good or bad idea from a medical perspective, but I certainly was off-put by their hypocrisy at shutting me down and their myopic definition of "body mods" which apparently to them was just poking holes in their face.
Unless you think/say/repeat the same things as everyone else on a subreddit you get downvoted and shadowbanned. It has the most aggressive and militant groupthink culture I've seen anywhere, which makes it pretty useless for trying to learn new things or share new ideas.
If you have any type of niche hobby for example, and someone finds a new and better way of doing something, they will pretty much universally be attacked and censored.
If you have any type of niche hobby for example, and someone finds a new and better way of doing something, they will pretty much universally be attacked and censored.
And somehow, it’s still less toxic than stackoverflow.
That part is definitely not aimed at every reader, but it is appropriately used to highlight how some might circumvent the lengthy legal processes involved in getting estrogen. Moreover, it points to the possible need for them to compound it themselves which in turn makes them a hacker.
They may be hacking their own body to a binary that's different from their source code
I see you have only met a narrow subset of hackers.
why not both?
jellyfishes(1)
bitwize(4)
As a ex-hacker who left the scene to wear a suit and become a "grown-up", this is refreshing and much more palatable vision of the community that I wish I had seen more of when I was younger:
`` Hackers should not think of themselves as "oh I am this little guy fighting Big Corporation" or whatever. This is low agency behavior. Instead become the corporation and RUN IT THE WAY YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE RUN." ''
One question though, to the suggestion that hackers should focus on raising capital in a way that gives them breathing room... how the hell am I supposed to do that?
`` Hackers should not think of themselves as "oh I am this little guy fighting Big Corporation" or whatever. This is low agency behavior. Instead become the corporation and RUN IT THE WAY YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE RUN." ''
One question though, to the suggestion that hackers should focus on raising capital in a way that gives them breathing room... how the hell am I supposed to do that?
Ha my friend. I asked this exact question to myself. I tried going down the VC route but realized it's all a big scam and the numbers don't add up if you are genuinely trying to build something better.
What I ended up doing is stacking cash at large tech companies and then using that to quit and I finally ended up with a large cash cow business with $4 million profits (pre tax).
With hacking, you can get double digit and even triple digit millionaire in about 10 years. Trick is to be really earnest, build at the frontier of tech, market efficiently and treat it like a math problem. You are trying to optimize for enterprise value.
What I ended up doing is stacking cash at large tech companies and then using that to quit and I finally ended up with a large cash cow business with $4 million profits (pre tax).
With hacking, you can get double digit and even triple digit millionaire in about 10 years. Trick is to be really earnest, build at the frontier of tech, market efficiently and treat it like a math problem. You are trying to optimize for enterprise value.
That is an impressive achievement. Kudos, my friend! There is still hope for me then? :)
I really think so. But man I went through the dark night of the soul to get here. It's not easy and when you see some of the most well known VCs such as a16z selling their souls for a seat at the table, it really gets to you and you have to insulate yourself to break through and break free.
"It's about knowing what happens when you type "google.com" and press Enter" is possibly the best short explanation of hacker culture ever.
Yep, I still remember the feeling when I first developed at least some mental model for all the steps along the way from "enter" to seeing the results, and realized that it was even more shockingly complex than I imagined it to be when it was just magic, and that despite that complexity, it all actually works many billions of times every moment of every day.
Then what happened is that pretty much every year (maybe closer to every day) since then I have learned about some piece of the puzzle where my mental model was actually nowhere near the truth, and that each individual puzzle piece is even more complex than I thought! Truly wild stuff.
Then what happened is that pretty much every year (maybe closer to every day) since then I have learned about some piece of the puzzle where my mental model was actually nowhere near the truth, and that each individual puzzle piece is even more complex than I thought! Truly wild stuff.
It literally goes on to say "But being a hacker is so much more than these things." after that, so it's not just about things like those :)
We used to know what would happen. Now with AI, it might recommend putting glue on pizza or making bioweapons for a potluck.
This did not seem as bad as it’s played in the comments - it’s somewhat akin to pg’s breakout essay (pg is much much easier to read) but it’s the same thing - set up a company, make the world better.
I like the attitude (even if the text formatting could be improved but house style is house style)
Yeah I think everyone got hung up on the kind of cringy first section. Past the "what is a hacker" junk, it's quite a good article.
>"what is a hacker" junk
I didn't find the part about having a curiosity about computers cringe frankly.
I didn't find the part about having a curiosity about computers cringe frankly.
> You can understand computers and science and math as much as you want, but
you will not be able to fix the bigger issues by yourself. The systems
that run the world are much bigger than what we can break on our laptops
and lab benches.
This.
This.
I’ll cut the author some slack because the alternative is worse: knowing things is better than an active posture of ignorance.
But let’s take it easy on the gatekeeping that any of that is even a little complicated.
Quantum chromodynamics is complicated: price-time precedence in financial markets is flash cards.
But let’s take it easy on the gatekeeping that any of that is even a little complicated.
Quantum chromodynamics is complicated: price-time precedence in financial markets is flash cards.
I don't think the author is gatekeeping here. The way I read your comment, you seem to be gatekeeping what is complicated enough
'Tis not a contest. Curiosity is its own reward.
'Tis not a contest. Curiosity is its own reward.
The existence of more complicated things does not mean that other things are not also complicated.
Financial markets that are open to the participation of billions of people, amalgamating all the behavior of all those participants, are complicated. Perhaps not nearly as complicated as quantum chromodynamics, I dunno, but complicated nonetheless.
Financial markets that are open to the participation of billions of people, amalgamating all the behavior of all those participants, are complicated. Perhaps not nearly as complicated as quantum chromodynamics, I dunno, but complicated nonetheless.
Flash cards are not understanding, and it doesn't help that few if anyone explains finance without a lot of handwaving and magical thinking.
> "... how the world works"
This is the most generic trap of all. Get good at something and then extrapolate to claim that you know how everything works. I suggest that, given the insane proliferation of valueless derivatives and ejection of human values from these systems, a more suitable conclusion might be that this is how the world dies.
This is the most generic trap of all. Get good at something and then extrapolate to claim that you know how everything works. I suggest that, given the insane proliferation of valueless derivatives and ejection of human values from these systems, a more suitable conclusion might be that this is how the world dies.
Agree with the sentiment of your comment in isolation but when I went to the article to see the quoted line in context, the author isn't saying anything of the sort.
They're not taking a narrow definition of knowledge & extrapolating that once one has that specific knowledge it explains everything. Instead they're broadening the definition of "hacker" (& also invoking the idea of continuous interrogation) to describe an approach to always seeking & finding "how the world works" in any given context.
They're not taking a narrow definition of knowledge & extrapolating that once one has that specific knowledge it explains everything. Instead they're broadening the definition of "hacker" (& also invoking the idea of continuous interrogation) to describe an approach to always seeking & finding "how the world works" in any given context.
It's there three times, which is partly what triggered the comment, as it came across as something of a theme.
Certainly this article is less dogmatic that many, but I still got the sense that author was using effects like causes.
The less lazy version is to do with treating the metric as the measure. Sure, the quant revolution is in full swing, but it's a terrible way to gauge the success (or failure) of society, and is perhaps a better metric for describing detrimental human activity.
That said, I fully appreciate the author's efforts to break with convention, but I felt that the points made actually give creedence to the system that, in my view, is actively corrupting the values that might get us out of this mess
Certainly this article is less dogmatic that many, but I still got the sense that author was using effects like causes.
The less lazy version is to do with treating the metric as the measure. Sure, the quant revolution is in full swing, but it's a terrible way to gauge the success (or failure) of society, and is perhaps a better metric for describing detrimental human activity.
That said, I fully appreciate the author's efforts to break with convention, but I felt that the points made actually give creedence to the system that, in my view, is actively corrupting the values that might get us out of this mess
[deleted]
This is exactly how most on this website sound to be honest--people who got good enough in their field to convince themselves that they can speak authoritatively on some unrelated complex topic.
Which is strange, because one might expect that as someone gains expert knowledge in a particular field, they would recognize that most fields are similarly complex, require just as much nuanced knowledge as their own, and would not try to speak authoritatively on it.
And yet, this turns out to be not really how the human psyche works! It is useful to keep this in mind, and to be reminded of it.
An effective hacker has to be competent at social engineering as well as having a very deep understanding of software/hardware.
By the time you have accrued detailed experience of how both these technical systems and social systems work, you may be well on your way to understanding how the world works (in abstract, at any rate)?
By the time you have accrued detailed experience of how both these technical systems and social systems work, you may be well on your way to understanding how the world works (in abstract, at any rate)?
I think the term 'social engineering' gets right to the point. We aren't machines but we have found very effective way of hacking our rewards systems so that we can manufacture demand, modify behaviour etc.
The author describes the phenomenon, but doesn't seem to see the broader picture. This is where a meta-systematic, or paradigmatic (if you're allergic to the word 'meta') perspective is needed, which transcends both social and technical systems, but appreciated how they fit into a larger scheme.
Through this lens the world is decidedly pluralistic and cannot be condensed to 'it's like X, we gotta do Y'. That can work for a personal strategy, and the author is kind enough to make some suggestions, but it's intellectual overreach to try and label the world
The author describes the phenomenon, but doesn't seem to see the broader picture. This is where a meta-systematic, or paradigmatic (if you're allergic to the word 'meta') perspective is needed, which transcends both social and technical systems, but appreciated how they fit into a larger scheme.
Through this lens the world is decidedly pluralistic and cannot be condensed to 'it's like X, we gotta do Y'. That can work for a personal strategy, and the author is kind enough to make some suggestions, but it's intellectual overreach to try and label the world
> I think the term 'social engineering' gets right to the point.
"Social engineering" is just dystopian newspeak for "deception, manipulation, lying, and bullshitting to get what you want". If honest language were used, maybe it wouldn't look so sexy.
Anything else that avoids immoral means is just a matter of rhetorical skill and ability to negotiate.
"Social engineering" is just dystopian newspeak for "deception, manipulation, lying, and bullshitting to get what you want". If honest language were used, maybe it wouldn't look so sexy.
Anything else that avoids immoral means is just a matter of rhetorical skill and ability to negotiate.
a smart weirdo can rationalize the world and life, yes. They will probably be very, very wrong in interesting smart ways, tho.
I don't think the author is guilty of that.
I don't think there's especially compelling evidence out there that the world is dying.
People have been saying that forever. Especially during downswings like we've had lately (which is somewhat minor all told).
And then the world doesn't die but they spent a bunch of time dooming instead of staying ready for the inevitable opportunities that come from things turning around.
People have been saying that forever. Especially during downswings like we've had lately (which is somewhat minor all told).
And then the world doesn't die but they spent a bunch of time dooming instead of staying ready for the inevitable opportunities that come from things turning around.
How the world dies vs how the world works doesn’t sound all that different, and there’s still plenty of great wisdom in the article.
This is super depressing, but probably on point. I agree that the article has good points.
I think the spirit that the author is trying to capture is that there is a better way. I just think that they don't go far enough. There is a tendency to arrive at a idea and believe it to be a good global model - my intention with these comments is to try and provoke a more holistic assessment of the issue, despite the fact that I think their criticism of startup culture is valid
I think the spirit that the author is trying to capture is that there is a better way. I just think that they don't go far enough. There is a tendency to arrive at a idea and believe it to be a good global model - my intention with these comments is to try and provoke a more holistic assessment of the issue, despite the fact that I think their criticism of startup culture is valid
It sounds like you should take it from where they left off and publish your own post about your perspective, and fulfill the prophecy!
[deleted]
> I suggest that, given the insane proliferation of valueless derivatives and ejection of human values from these systems
What do you mean by "these systems" ? Blockchain based money?
What do you mean by "these systems" ? Blockchain based money?
I suppose memecoins represent a form of this, but I was really referring to financial instruments, in particular those that exist based on a derived sense of value, rather than an actual quantification of it, such as:
Stock and, to a lesser degree, commodities futures, stock index futures, currency futures, interest rate futures, index options, currency options, interest rate options, credit default swaps, total return swaps, currency forwards, interest rate forwards.
The more exotic of these, which are usually more lucractive and less well regulated, include:
derivative-based exchange-traded funds, leveraged ETFs, inverse ETFs, equity-linked notes, credit-linked notes, principal-protected notes, collateralized debt obligations, weather derivatives (yes, you read that right), catastrophe bonds (eesh) barrier options and lookback options, to name a few.
They are all mechanisms to leverage expectation and uncertainty and most rely on the quantification of risk at some level. Risk, however, is defined in terms of expected return and subject to an assessment of externalities that is, at its core, resource-blind.
Stock and, to a lesser degree, commodities futures, stock index futures, currency futures, interest rate futures, index options, currency options, interest rate options, credit default swaps, total return swaps, currency forwards, interest rate forwards.
The more exotic of these, which are usually more lucractive and less well regulated, include:
derivative-based exchange-traded funds, leveraged ETFs, inverse ETFs, equity-linked notes, credit-linked notes, principal-protected notes, collateralized debt obligations, weather derivatives (yes, you read that right), catastrophe bonds (eesh) barrier options and lookback options, to name a few.
They are all mechanisms to leverage expectation and uncertainty and most rely on the quantification of risk at some level. Risk, however, is defined in terms of expected return and subject to an assessment of externalities that is, at its core, resource-blind.
> given the insane proliferation of valueless derivatives and ejection of human values from these systems
might want to clarify a bit there
might want to clarify a bit there
My point is, it is not just about computers. It's about understanding how
the world works. The world is made up of people. As much as machines keep
society running, those machines are programmed by people--people with
managers, spouses, and children; with wants, needs, and dreams. And it is
about using that knowledge to bring about the change you want to see.
> Hackers should not think of themselves as
"oh I am this little guy fighting Big Corporation" or whatever. [...] Instead become the corporation
Hacker culture is inherently antiauthoritarian. Wanting to become the big corporation is something you would expect only from "hacker" "news".
Hacker culture is inherently antiauthoritarian. Wanting to become the big corporation is something you would expect only from "hacker" "news".
> The market is incentivized to deliver a product that meets the minimum bar
to meet that checkbox, while being useless. I invite you to think of your
favorite middleware or EDR vendors here. For passionate security founders
considering raising venture, remember that this is what your "success" is
being benchmarked against.
> Do not swallow blackpills. It's easy to get really cynical and think things are doomed
> Creating leverage for yourself. Hackers should not think of themselves as "oh I am this little guy fighting Big Corporation" or whatever. This is low agency behavior. Instead become the corporation and RUN IT THE WAY YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE RUN.
Should I do it? Does this mean me? Obviously not, because I don't know shit about EDR. But obviously neither does Crowdstrike. I mean really, I couldn't possibly do any worse... right? Right? On the internet, it's easy to feel outclassed. But IRL, a large majority of people suck at their job. So in theory this should work.
In practice, I guess I'm just blackpilled. For much less effort I can get paid 6 figures for 2 hours of work per week. [Also, I realize that winning at business is more difficult than I'm implying. But if my former bosses, who didn't do much other than yell at people and also drugs, could build a 25M/year business then you probably can too.]
> Do not swallow blackpills. It's easy to get really cynical and think things are doomed
> Creating leverage for yourself. Hackers should not think of themselves as "oh I am this little guy fighting Big Corporation" or whatever. This is low agency behavior. Instead become the corporation and RUN IT THE WAY YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE RUN.
Should I do it? Does this mean me? Obviously not, because I don't know shit about EDR. But obviously neither does Crowdstrike. I mean really, I couldn't possibly do any worse... right? Right? On the internet, it's easy to feel outclassed. But IRL, a large majority of people suck at their job. So in theory this should work.
In practice, I guess I'm just blackpilled. For much less effort I can get paid 6 figures for 2 hours of work per week. [Also, I realize that winning at business is more difficult than I'm implying. But if my former bosses, who didn't do much other than yell at people and also drugs, could build a 25M/year business then you probably can too.]
It depends on what you value.
The catch22 is that if you are good at technology, you tend to align your personal morals and character to actual true value, not fake value, which makes you a pretty good anti-bullshit filter. However people who align themselves to the concept of making money are more aligned to working with the bullshit, not seeing it as negative but as a part of life. Thats why your ex bosses could build 25M business, and why you are blackpilled.
In the past, when there was room for innovation because things haven't been invented yet, you could do both. Now, you basically have to pick one or the other.
The catch22 is that if you are good at technology, you tend to align your personal morals and character to actual true value, not fake value, which makes you a pretty good anti-bullshit filter. However people who align themselves to the concept of making money are more aligned to working with the bullshit, not seeing it as negative but as a part of life. Thats why your ex bosses could build 25M business, and why you are blackpilled.
In the past, when there was room for innovation because things haven't been invented yet, you could do both. Now, you basically have to pick one or the other.
If your debt grows faster than your income you are blackpilled. If you run a derivatives market in your head and nothing you imagine can be boostrapped, you are blackpilled.
Crypto gets a lot of shit but social contracts made analyzable as smart contracts is promising for ethical financial markets. e.g. you could detect a debt spiral as a flow/loop/void structure with renormalization groups and persistent homology. When you can spot entities trying to create wage slaves from 100 miles away you can focus your energy on being creative.
Crypto gets a lot of shit but social contracts made analyzable as smart contracts is promising for ethical financial markets. e.g. you could detect a debt spiral as a flow/loop/void structure with renormalization groups and persistent homology. When you can spot entities trying to create wage slaves from 100 miles away you can focus your energy on being creative.
Do you mind expanding on the meaning of blackpilled. I am struggling to make sense of your comment without that context. Google brings up stuff to do with misogyny.
The way its used in the article at least, to me means having a view of the world that feels true and important but is bleak and disempowering.
Like the sibling comment said, 'red pill' is seeing the truth of the world (or, what the community that uses the term red pill thinks is the truth at least. often this refers to the truth as decided by internet mysoginiats). Black pill is this truth + its unchangeable and hopeless and pointless and why do anything and oh god I wish I could go back to not knowing.
If its used by somebody reasonable, blackpill is a pejorative with the implication that the ideology is more cynical and hopeless than it really should be and has the connotation that their ideology is a little too internety.
Like the sibling comment said, 'red pill' is seeing the truth of the world (or, what the community that uses the term red pill thinks is the truth at least. often this refers to the truth as decided by internet mysoginiats). Black pill is this truth + its unchangeable and hopeless and pointless and why do anything and oh god I wish I could go back to not knowing.
If its used by somebody reasonable, blackpill is a pejorative with the implication that the ideology is more cynical and hopeless than it really should be and has the connotation that their ideology is a little too internety.
In the Matrix movie Neo took the blue pill or the red pill. Taking the red pill meant Neo woke up and saw the Matrix for what it was. IRL being "redpilled" then started to mean you constructed a new world model which was critical of power structures, which then turned into both misogyny and misandry and pretty soon people realized this world model they created had made them mentally ill. Then the realization that they had constructed a new Matrix, worse than the old, became the 'black pill'. IMO it's different from nihilism because of the self-awareness and inability to stop it from happening.
I usually think of "red pill" as "You learn some piece of information, the implications of which lead to your perception of the world expanding in a large and meaningful way that belies your earlier perception of the world and forces a reassessment of prior experiences".
I think of "black pill" as a GMO'd red pill designed to nudge the "learner" into a position of learned-helplessness.
Take a common aphorism around here: "99% of startups fail, so you shouldn't bother trying". The red pill is "failure is the most common modality for new ventures", but the attached advice makes it a black pill.
In a meta way, the linking of the term "red pill" to misogyny/misandry turned the red pill concept itself into a black pill (why bother seeking "red pills" if the "community" most identified with them is so disturbing?).
I think of "black pill" as a GMO'd red pill designed to nudge the "learner" into a position of learned-helplessness.
Take a common aphorism around here: "99% of startups fail, so you shouldn't bother trying". The red pill is "failure is the most common modality for new ventures", but the attached advice makes it a black pill.
In a meta way, the linking of the term "red pill" to misogyny/misandry turned the red pill concept itself into a black pill (why bother seeking "red pills" if the "community" most identified with them is so disturbing?).
EDR vendors don't seem to know shit about EDR, either. You could be one even if you don't know about EDR. It's all about how you make your customers see you. That's what the article is saying.
> But if my former bosses, who didn't do much other than yell at people and also drugs, could build a 25M/year business then you probably can too.
They're in a privileged position. Someone who's not already in a privileged position can't necessarily get there just by trying super hard.
They're in a privileged position. Someone who's not already in a privileged position can't necessarily get there just by trying super hard.
i like this take a lot, what I get is hacker = infinitely curious individual
Just "infinitely curious individual" is a bookworm. Hacker would also like to tinker with the rules underlying the systems to see how things might break. So bookworm + tinkering + wants to understand complex systems (hackers call it "to grok"). Systems - not only computer systems, also biological, physical and any kind of complex assemblages of rules.
I personally prefer "infinitely creative individual", with the non-artsy definition of creative: to create something
Still not specific enough and doesn't evoke hackers. I consider myself a hacker but I don't consider myself "infinitely" creative, just creative in technical areas. So maybe technically creative individual? But those are more like Makers.
No matter how you define "hacker", "argues about the definition of 'hacker'" certainly should be included :)
That's always been my interpretation of it! I would use the term "insatiably curious" to describe it to people.
thats a good take . i would add “ a person that wants to understand how thinks work to manipulate them”
'hacking' is commonly defined as "using tools for something else than their initial purpose".
Calling All Hackers | 2 points 15 hours ago |
Phrack 71 | 194 points 1 day ago | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41296949
Calling All Hackers | 7 points 1 day ago |
Phrack Issue #71 | 12 points 1 day ago |It's worse formatted than dang's stuff, but ya tried
Given the opportunity to offer up a better template ya copped out with a snide comment and didn't even try.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I was on mobile and didn't want to type out all that.
An example (dang usually posts comments like this on popular submissions):
Related:
Post title - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=XXXXXXXXX (date) | XX comments
Different title - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=XXXXXXXXX (date) | XX comments
in order by date.
Such a comment provides useful information on previous discussions (date posted, amount of comments). Your comment seemed like it was simply calling out the fact that this link was reposted a few times, which is unhelpful.
Apologies for being snide in my original comment.
Related:
Post title - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=XXXXXXXXX (date) | XX comments
Different title - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=XXXXXXXXX (date) | XX comments
in order by date.
Such a comment provides useful information on previous discussions (date posted, amount of comments). Your comment seemed like it was simply calling out the fact that this link was reposted a few times, which is unhelpful.
Apologies for being snide in my original comment.
That article is worth reading. If you don't have the time, at least take a look at the "liquidity cycle" ASCII art: it is wonderful!
I come from the later phone phreak era of the 90's and late 2000's. The phraase "hack the planet" from the movie hackers I love. You can control anything once you understand its behavior. 5 minutes is all you need to cause a little chaos.
life is all about systems. once you understand how to break down systems, you can hack all of them. it does not matter what your knowledge or skill level is on a particular system as long as you can break it all down to its fundamental parts and understand its behavior. most things you only need to observe before understanding.
I agree with others though, the article comes across as a little cocky. its also fine to be a hacker who only focuses on one particular area. it does not make you less of a hacker. you only need to understand systems.
life is all about systems. once you understand how to break down systems, you can hack all of them. it does not matter what your knowledge or skill level is on a particular system as long as you can break it all down to its fundamental parts and understand its behavior. most things you only need to observe before understanding.
I agree with others though, the article comes across as a little cocky. its also fine to be a hacker who only focuses on one particular area. it does not make you less of a hacker. you only need to understand systems.
The author is telling us that "Hackers" are people who know enough ins and outs about the things they interact with on a daily basis.
> "My point is, it is not just about computers. It's about understanding how the world works. The world is made up of people. As much as machines keep society running, those machines are programmed by people--people with managers, spouses, and children; with wants, needs, and dreams. And it is about using that knowledge to bring about the change you want to see.
That is what being a hacker is all about."
I usually read/listen to people's experiences and whether or not their stories truly make sense depends on how they present them to the world.
> "My point is, it is not just about computers. It's about understanding how the world works. The world is made up of people. As much as machines keep society running, those machines are programmed by people--people with managers, spouses, and children; with wants, needs, and dreams. And it is about using that knowledge to bring about the change you want to see.
That is what being a hacker is all about."
I usually read/listen to people's experiences and whether or not their stories truly make sense depends on how they present them to the world.
As I said above "for stories to make sense, you must be a good storyteller", and this author is definitely one of them.
A must read for everyone.
A must read for everyone.
Entertaining read. To me it feels like a modern version of The Mentor's original manifesto, but having resigned itself to middle age. My inner 12 year old wants to frame this one too.
lol no, that's a sterile self-help blogpost written by some VC.
This is The Mentor's original manifesto: https://phrack.org/issues/7/3.html
This is The Mentor's original manifesto: https://phrack.org/issues/7/3.html
Aha. Yes, well, The one I found I vaguely read and thought it might possibly help at work.
The one you referenced I pushed I front of my teenager daughters nose and said “read this it’s important it’s about you”
Thank you
The one you referenced I pushed I front of my teenager daughters nose and said “read this it’s important it’s about you”
Thank you
This isn't just a call to all hackers...this is a call to all entrepreneurs. It really highlights the artificial success of many companies today.
The author may know how the world works but they don't know how to make an easily-readable webpage.
> Knowing that you're not
worth burning a 0day on
This has been a pretty tried and true way for me to figure out who is schizophrenic and who is important.
This has been a pretty tried and true way for me to figure out who is schizophrenic and who is important.
Good news....you know that worry about zero interest?
TARP was closed in fall of 2023 as all assets were sold off, see https://home.treasury.gov/data/troubled-asset-relief-program
That means assuming we do not screw up again, no more zero or negative interest situations.
TARP was closed in fall of 2023 as all assets were sold off, see https://home.treasury.gov/data/troubled-asset-relief-program
That means assuming we do not screw up again, no more zero or negative interest situations.
I'm saying this on the wrong forum...
all this shit I hear about working in early stage startups and I'm honestly surprised why anyone would bother (unless they're a founder)
all this shit I hear about working in early stage startups and I'm honestly surprised why anyone would bother (unless they're a founder)
Good to see phrack finally supporting HTTPS.
Seriously, who cares, it is an essay in a text file.
because your ISP doesn't need to know what your read?
I have bad news to share about how DNS works
It seems a bit presumptive to assume I’m unfamiliar with how DNS works. While it’s true that DNS traffic to your ISP is generally readable, using HTTPS still offers significant privacy benefits. A single domain, like twitter.com, can transmit a vast amount of data. Additionally, with the ease of obtaining a free SSL certificate these days, neglecting to implement one could be considered careless.
I’m going to reply to both you and your sibling comment because they’re basically the same from the perspective of what I wanted to say: just because you know some stuff about DNS isn’t actually enough, because there’s a wider context that you’re missing. Most importantly, without a VPN the traffic you send will often go to an IP that is controlled by a single entity, so your ISP is going to route packets from you to [Phrack IP]. Of course the content of those packets is going to be encrypted, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that everyone is reading Phrack 71 that just came out. So that’s basically enough to figure out everything already. But to bring it back to DNS even then it’s riddled with issues as you’re aware of: it’s complete unencrypted by default, so that just gives you the domain directly. Often you’re going to be sending that traffic to your ISP directly but even if you’ve set things up to use a different server you still haven’t solved the problem of people being able to know what you’re doing.
Of course, the IP is visible. It's quite obvious. Most of the third party upstream DNS supports DoH, so the only thing your ISP will get is the queries of your requests to the DNS provider
I have good news to share about how DNS over HTTPS, archive.is and/or Tor works.
Loved this. Thank you for putting it together, I could relate to it on a level you couldn’t possibly imagine.
So a young hacker turned tech bro learned about the financial markets and told himself he was still a hacker working in tech and financial markets. But I see nothing of hacking here. I see pontificating about an "ethos" and how great hackers are, and making it seem like financial markets, bitcoin and startups is some mysterious unknown to "hack". Really it's just a job. Hey, you wanna nerd out on this stuff, that's great. But just doing a job in financial markets or silicon valley doesn't make you a hacker, or what you do hacking.
They are saying the exact opposite! The whole essay is about how financial markets are not some "mysterious unknown" and are instead predictable systems that are masked in a layer of bullshit that you can lean into and take advantage of. As a non-finance person, understanding "why" obviously terrible ideas get investment helps me understand how the world works. If we replaced the humans in the financial system with APIs, there would be inputs (pitch deck, founder persona, whatever) that can cleverly lead to an intended solution (raising capital, starting a company) in the same way that I could find a vulnerability on RuneScape or Eve Online, which I'm sure satisfies the traditional "hacker" definition. It's obviously not that cut-and-dry, but approaching the world in the "hacker mindset" is about observing and manipulating these systems.
> The whole essay is about how financial markets are not some "mysterious unknown" and are instead predictable systems that are masked in a layer of bullshit that you can lean into and take advantage of.
If someone goes out of their way to tell you about a thing in detail, emphasizing how it's not a mysterious unknown, the conceit is that they think that you thought it was a mysterious unknown, and they are removing the blinders from your poor ignorant eyes.
> As a non-finance person, understanding "why" obviously terrible ideas get investment helps me understand how the world works.
> If we replaced the humans in the financial system with APIs, there would be inputs (pitch deck, founder persona, whatever) that can cleverly lead to an intended solution (raising capital, starting a company) in the same way that I could find a vulnerability on RuneScape or Eve Online
I'm sorry, but you really don't understand how the world works.
> approaching the world in the "hacker mindset" is about observing and manipulating these systems
The hacker mindset is curiosity and discovery, not observing and manipulating. It's one thing to study a thing; it's another to become it.
If someone goes out of their way to tell you about a thing in detail, emphasizing how it's not a mysterious unknown, the conceit is that they think that you thought it was a mysterious unknown, and they are removing the blinders from your poor ignorant eyes.
> As a non-finance person, understanding "why" obviously terrible ideas get investment helps me understand how the world works.
> If we replaced the humans in the financial system with APIs, there would be inputs (pitch deck, founder persona, whatever) that can cleverly lead to an intended solution (raising capital, starting a company) in the same way that I could find a vulnerability on RuneScape or Eve Online
I'm sorry, but you really don't understand how the world works.
> approaching the world in the "hacker mindset" is about observing and manipulating these systems
The hacker mindset is curiosity and discovery, not observing and manipulating. It's one thing to study a thing; it's another to become it.
[deleted]
As someone who doesn't have a formal understanding of finances/economics, I really enjoyed the first half of this post.
Are there any good resources to understand the world's financial systems as a layman? I'm not looking to be an expert.
Are there any good resources to understand the world's financial systems as a layman? I'm not looking to be an expert.
Looking up new terms on investopedia and going down rabbit holes from there is not a bad start, I think.
Great narration! Thanks for the article.
Loved this line: "Nowadays, to me it's about creating good jobs for my friends, helping our customers, and taking care of the community".
Good luck!
Loved this line: "Nowadays, to me it's about creating good jobs for my friends, helping our customers, and taking care of the community".
Good luck!
> A hacker is someone who understands how the world works. It's about
knowing what happens when you type "google.com" and press Enter. It's
about knowing how your computer turns on, about memory training, A20,
all of that. It's about modern processors, their caches, and their side
channels. It's about DSi bootloaders and how the right electromagnetic
faults can be used to jailbreak them. And it's about how Spotify and
Widevine and AES and SGX work so you can free your music from the
shackles of DRM.
This is a very... interesting definition of "the world."
This is a very... interesting definition of "the world."
To know how the "world works", to know the causes of things, either includes hackers, or is identical with being a hacker. Is Aristotle a hacker? Human beings desire, by nature, to know. If you live in a technological society, it is important to understand the thicket of technology we find ourselves in, and how to navigate it. That's just prudence, and just a particular determination of the truth, that it was always good to understand oneself and one's predicament.
I guess you can call that a hacker, or count hackers among such people. But then, if the latter, you must offer a distinguishing characteristic that distinguishes hackers among others in this genus.
And what are the author's presuppositions?
I guess you can call that a hacker, or count hackers among such people. But then, if the latter, you must offer a distinguishing characteristic that distinguishes hackers among others in this genus.
And what are the author's presuppositions?
I feel miserable as I only check 4 or 5 criterions over 8000.
I agree with the premise and conclusions, but what struck me, particularly, about this was how well it was written. Thanks to the author for a super piece.
Do group buys for IDA Pro even still exist?
IDA has gone full corporations since 8.0, but before that china always used to leak the latest version.
Ironically this time IDA 9.0 was leaked by... hexrays themselves, including lumina, hexvault, etc. Pretty sure it was meant to be a demo page in defcon, but someone leaked the URL.
Binary Ninja is a solid competitor if you don't mind cleaning up the binaries before hand to clear up opaque jumps or have 256GB of ram.
Ironically this time IDA 9.0 was leaked by... hexrays themselves, including lumina, hexvault, etc. Pretty sure it was meant to be a demo page in defcon, but someone leaked the URL.
Binary Ninja is a solid competitor if you don't mind cleaning up the binaries before hand to clear up opaque jumps or have 256GB of ram.
I thought the move was just using a cracked version until you make it and can afford a real license to flex.
I really enjoyed reading that. Thank you.
Absolutely great read. My thesis is you have to understand how the world works and one aspect of it is quickly identifying mainstream lies: https://medium.com/thoughts-on-machine-learning/the-secret-o...
This is such a beautifully written story with it's own kind of elegance. Love it!
I appreciate the spirit of this article - to use knowledge to bring about the change you want to see. However, while my friends are being helped by my knowledge, someone else is trying to help their friends. And I imagine this scenario has played out many times in modern society.
In this system, someone has to lose for someone to win. Felt like a strong reminder that capitalism subsumes all critique into itself.
In this system, someone has to lose for someone to win. Felt like a strong reminder that capitalism subsumes all critique into itself.
Thank you for finding a great way to say what I have been trying to say all my life. I will keep this with me for the rest of my life
-Hassan
-Hassan
If I’ve ever seen an article that needs a tldr, this is it.
Just because we’re both hackers, doesn’t mean you can call on me. I don’t care about all your handles or what you think hacking should be, get to the point and stop wasting my time.
Just because we’re both hackers, doesn’t mean you can call on me. I don’t care about all your handles or what you think hacking should be, get to the point and stop wasting my time.
For real. A hacker knows this, a hacker knows that. Does a hacker know how to get to the fucking point?
I appreciate what it is trying to say, it's pretty basic knowledge for anyone that has broken out of "the market is God" mentality though through reading about the basics of finance.
I think the writing style is influenced by WallStreetBets infodumps, which are influenced by Wolf of Wall Street, The Big Short, and kinda remind me of Hunter S. Thompson a little bit. Personally I find it annoying but I understand the culture that this kind of writing is emerging from.
I think the writing style is influenced by WallStreetBets infodumps, which are influenced by Wolf of Wall Street, The Big Short, and kinda remind me of Hunter S. Thompson a little bit. Personally I find it annoying but I understand the culture that this kind of writing is emerging from.
I don’t care what influenced it, I might be more interested if I know the content is actually of interest but it presumably took several paragraphs to get there. I didn’t know it was about marketing, because I stopped reading.
A hacker should know how to captivate their audience, particularly when talking about marketing.
A hacker should know how to captivate their audience, particularly when talking about marketing.
This article took less than 10m for me to read. That is really not much time.
Sure, but if you spend 10m to read an article every time someone gave you an article, when you’re not even sure if you’re interested, then you’re wasting your life.
> 3 - How Money Works
Bold
Bold
Lmao I read the title as Optimus Prime as he says "Calling all autobots"
gz nspky ggwp
If your company is successful, won’t the VCs just spin up some clones?
"It's about knowing more about the web than most, but still choosing to make your site as mobile-unfriendly as possible." /s
EDIT: I actually love that it's text based, even to the point of creating sigma notation out of plain text.
EDIT: I actually love that it's text based, even to the point of creating sigma notation out of plain text.
> “The point is, all of this made me feel very small and powerless after I
realized the sheer size of the problems I was staring at. Nowadays, to
me it's about creating good jobs for my friends, helping our customers,
and taking care of the community. Importantly, I realized that this is
still making a bigger positive impact than what I could have done alone
just as an individual hacker or engineer.”
I couldn’t have said it better. This is why I’m an entrepreneur and still take the pains to do it.
I couldn’t have said it better. This is why I’m an entrepreneur and still take the pains to do it.
mjfl(1)
amne(1)
Web Page Blocked!
You have tried to access a web page which belongs to a category that is blocked.
It ended up capturing perfectly a bunch of ideas I've been having for a few months now. ZIRP was toxic. It made us bad and lazy. Identifying the phenomenons and explaining their mechanisms has been a useful exercise.
I think this post will stay in my brain for a long while. I'm at this point in life and this resonates a lot. I want to build useful stuff with intrinsic value and I'm sick of the BS that exulted in the last decade. In my own way I'm trying to start ventures, so it's a good motivating call.
Slow start but damn solid article.