My response was not to the technological achievement, but to the ethics of it. I am always unimpressed with doing wrong things, not matter how impressed others are.
Many people here at hn are capable of impressive cracking, but choose not to even go that way. I'm sure there are systems out there I could crack if I tried, probably quite a few for financial gain. But I dare not go there. That's one cherry that will never be popped.
Say what you will about the technical merits of individual feats, but I'm much more impressed with someone who tackles the problems of other people and goes to work every day building something of use rather than shooting fish in a barrel, which much cracking is.
I stand by every single word I wrote. In fact, it's one of my favorite posts. Since crackers often do what they do to impress their peers, perhaps we should all just be unimpressed so that they can channel their energy into something more useful.
I didn't know what to expect when I made that post, but I have to say I'm disappointed. Why am I so often the only responder who has a sense of right and wrong?
Thanks Thomas, for providing me an opportunity to explain with the only reply that was suitable.
Sometime in the next N*10 years I'm going to end up in the same city as you, buy you a drink, and by the time you finish that drink you will have conceded that what Joe and Jacob did was praiseworthy and impressive. Doubt me? Raise the stakes: I'll bet you $100.
Wait, what? I'll take that bet. I'll eagerly agree that it was praiseworthy and impressive, but I'll hold off on doing so until after I've finished any quantity of alcohol that you're able to purchase for less than $100. If you doubt me, then I think we've found an interesting new variant on Eliezer's AI box experiment.
You're on. Hopefully WITH city = "Mountain View" && N = 1.
Warning: I'm "ethically" required to disclose that I'll be ordering a double Goldschlager top shelf Long Island Iced Tea, so I won't mind losing that bet :-)
"Pomposity" is the last word people who know me would use to describe me. I guess my writing continues to convey unintended meaning. One of these days, people will interpret exactly what I meant. Until then, I'll keep trying...
I was referring to the impression your writing (specifically the quoted sentence) conveys, (as I said, the rest of the post is well crafted) which is why I called it out. If I thought you were really pompous, I wouldn't spend the time or bandwidth. just think of it as purely subjective "tone check" feedback from a well wisher.
"Why am I so often the only responder who has a sense of right and wrong?" is a (relatively) off kilter question. Others do have a "sense of right and wrong". Whether that matches your "sense of right and wrong" exactly is a more subtle issue.
"If I thought you were really pompous, I wouldn't spend the time or bandwidth."
Neither would a prospective customer or investor. I'd just always wonder what happened. Fortunately, hn provides a good safe place to practice. Thanks for the lesson, plinkplonk.
Many people here at hn are capable of impressive cracking, but choose not to even go that way. I'm sure there are systems out there I could crack if I tried, probably quite a few for financial gain. But I dare not go there. That's one cherry that will never be popped.
Say what you will about the technical merits of individual feats, but I'm much more impressed with someone who tackles the problems of other people and goes to work every day building something of use rather than shooting fish in a barrel, which much cracking is.
I stand by every single word I wrote. In fact, it's one of my favorite posts. Since crackers often do what they do to impress their peers, perhaps we should all just be unimpressed so that they can channel their energy into something more useful.
I didn't know what to expect when I made that post, but I have to say I'm disappointed. Why am I so often the only responder who has a sense of right and wrong?
Thanks Thomas, for providing me an opportunity to explain with the only reply that was suitable.