The hackers didn't make them hackable, but they did hack them.
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.
I do not need a PhD in Accessibility Studies to know that the same tones and messages were played as normal, plus the message from “Elon” or “Bill”
Even the hearing aid connectivity was left intact; my dad has one.
So no, I don’t have an intimate knowledge of the field. And I don’t think you need one for this discussion.
The reddit crack is worse.
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.
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".
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.