that's sort of my point, though ... you still don't need a computer science degree (or even much CS knowledge) to understand this tutorial. i would think that self-taught hackers might be offended by the title of this article, since it implies that you need to have some deep ivory-tower CS training in order to understand it. but in reality, it's quite well-presented and accessible to a general techie audience.
true, i can't dispute your logic :) but if something is totally hyperbolic and doesn't fit expectations, then it's still weird. imagine reading something that says "X for SUPER-DUPER-GENIUSES!!!" that somehow implies that X is not for regular folks, even though logically it shouldn't. oh well, people are irrational
It starts off by using the abbreviation DAG, SHA-1 hash, and object. If you know all three of those without looking them up, you're probably some sort of computer scientist.
I'd especially draw the line at DAG. At that point, we're talking abstract mathematics, not programming.
That makes me think about what would be the set of terms that, when seen and you instantly recognized them, probably indicate you are some other sort of scientist.
For example, let's say you were a student of Weird Science and thus were a weird scientist. You would probably instantly recognize:
1. space-time continuum
2. Cthulhu
3. zombies
4. fembot
5. mind control lasers
6. Tesla coils
7. flying monkeys
8. dead matter reanimation
You don't need "deep ivory-tower CS training" to have knowledge of computer science. I don't know why anyone would be offended to be called a computer scientist; it's not like being such precludes being an excellent programmer, nor does being a self-taught hacker preclude being an excellent computer scientist.
