And did not do anything malicious like remove the actual accessibility tones.
My point isn’t that they are some kind of Robin Hood, but that their actions don’t warrant anger, whereas the insecurity of a public system we rely on… should.
They could just be "not thoughtful". I understand that you want to present the alternate viewpoint as absurd in order to bolster your own viewpoints, but this isn't reddit and you don't need to operate this way here
Can you look in the mirror for a second? You accuse me of a bad argument, but then this entire post is you just asserting your viewpoint as true, with basically just a "cmon, obviously!".
That is not what I did. I provided multiple examples of how they left various accessibility features intact. In fact, I have not found one they hadn’t left intact.
Have you? If so, that would be a useful argument, and I would not respond in the same way.
Thus far, I have provided some semblance of evidence, and you have provided speculation, which is a bad argument.
I’m not saying I’m right. I might not be. I am saying your argument is not.
They're not being as dismissive as "cmon, obviously!", and they're citing a pretty good piece of evidence (the tones still being there) while the other side is citing nothing.
You apparently don't understand that "hacker" has multiple definitions. Sorry to hear that. The guy who named this site wrote extensively on "hackers", which you're free to read. Try "hackers and painters" first.
If you think this is a site all about people who gain illicit access to systems which they shouldn't have, then you must be very confused by the content frequently appearing here.
Now, I'm curious why you responded to me, but you didn't bother responding to OP who seemed to think that the only definition of hacker was essentially "someone who illicitly breaks into other people's systems".
Because that is not what they said. Their comment was “Apparently hacking is something the denizens of Hacker News disapprove of these days?”
Hacking, by one common definition, generally refers to a clever, benign, and "ethical" prank or practical joke, often challenging to execute and amusing to the community. This was certainly true at MIT.
This fits all of those characteristics. That it happened to involve doing something illegal was not the point.
Putting something on the MIT dome is also illegal; if you get caught, you’ll get charged with trespassing. But trespassing was never the point.
