Hacker News Reader

Comment by Argorak | Hacker News Reader

I don't see anything what you describe as inherent and necessary to nerd culture.

What you want is an abrasive culture and I oppose that.

I certainly never "left the world" and certainly not because I found all those things useless or oppressive.

I can still nerd out on a multitude of subjects from music to board games to digital culture and I do prefer to do it with people that don't use this culture as a reason to be terrible to other people.

I run 3 meetups (one of them now the biggest NoSQL UG for one technology in Berlin), organised 8 very well-received conferences and moderated multiple bulletin boards. All are nerdy to the core - and are successful because you can expect not to be met with aggressiveness. Our credo is that the baseline to attend is interest in the subject. Anything else is hindering.

Your nerdiness is definitely not mine.

View on HN

What you want is an abrasive culture and I oppose that.

Why? Why can't hyperion2010, or anyone else, have an abrasive culture if they want to?

There is nowadays some controversy about, best as I can tell, gamers who like abrasive gaming, ie. shoot and insult each other. I can see how one might not want to participate, but why the need to force them to stop? Wouldn't leaving them to it be a reasonable solution?

If some nerds prefer a different code of conduct than you, can you really oppose that? Do you really think you can or should go into their group and tell them how they should behave?

What happened to live and let live?

The problem here is that hacking, gardening or whatever else people do is not "owned" by those who practice it currently or did before others and neither should it be. If they wanted to start their own Abrasive gardening club, where they would be abrasive to each other, then not many people would complain. I don't think it would be healthy, but they are free to do so.

What they aren't free to do without push-back is to tell others who want to do gardening that they should tolerate their abuse. I agree with Angorak that there is nothing in what we do that would require people being assholes which is why I, too, find it unacceptable.

> What they aren't free to do without push-back is to tell others who want to do gardening that they should tolerate their abuse. I agree with Angorak that there is nothing in what we do that would require people being assholes which is why I, too, find it unacceptable.

The real problem is that there is no coherent definition of abuse and people who are better at playing the social game use that skill to define everything as abuse which they do not like / undermines their status. And that is what the article calls out in the context of 'nerds', 'nerd culture' and 'newcomers' (or at least that is my interpretation of it)

That's exactly the reason why I put up CoCs for example - we define what is inacceptable in a certain space and put it in clear writing to avoid gaming. It binds the organizers as much as the attendees. It cuts out the play. For example, CoCs for dating environments look very differently then those for confs. (did you know there are cuddling meetups and they have very strict rules to ensure people feel comfortable?)

There are many abusers that are quite good at the "social game" you describe, by exploiting insecurities about rules, especially in their absence. Saying they are "bad at the game" is actually one of the standard plays (and terribly harmful to those that are _actually_ "bad at the game").

The solution is not "there are no rules", but "we have rules here and others here". We need more spaces with with different sets of rules, where everyone can nerd out in their fashion, not chaos.

The problem about society is that you can't cut out social interaction from humans. Any attempt to do so is doomed in my opinion.

The way I see it, any space with written rules (e.g. CoCs) are essentially spaces with restrictions that dilute cultures so that several cultures with a narrow shared interest can mingle productively. Codes of Conduct are essentially anti-cultural for the sake of achieving collaboration between cultures that share a common interest. This isn't a bad thing. It's certainly productive in ways and produces something of value, but it is necessarily limiting of cultures (and sub-cultures).

The moment you're thinking in dichotomous terms like "the organizers" and "the attendees", you're not talking about culture. The moment you cut out the play, you're not talking about culture. Every culture has varying degrees of play (that go well beyond the amount of play allowed by any CoC I've seen), and that play is acceptable but only known to members of whatever in-group is in question. Introducing rules that eliminate the play inherent in cultures is okay when you do so for the purpose of letting members of disparate cultures to interact safely with each other. The big concern hackers have and that the author of the article we're discussing is getting at, is that the values from which CoCs are fashioned are fine within the confines of the events where they are enforced, but when those values are foisted upon every hacker and nerd sub-culture (including the abrasive ones) and attempts to squelch the diversity of cultures, then it no longer represents intersectionality inclusive of weirdos.

    The problem about society is that you can't cut out social
    interaction from humans. Any attempt to do so is doomed in
    my opinion.

Exactly. CoCs cut out many types of interaction by humans. That's okay and that's good. The problem is when the values that led to those CoCs are indiscriminately applied to everyone that participated in an event even when they no longer are participating in an event. One sub-culture might be abrasive. It's good that that abrasiveness is not allowed in shared spaces like meetups and conferences, since it allows those without the capacity to handle abrasiveness to participate. It ceases to be good when people try to enforce those values against people even outside venues that proscribe CoCs.

    What you want is an abrasive culture and I oppose that.

It's fine to oppose when such opposition is limited to venues like meetups and conferences, but universal opposition applied at all times and all places, is inherently not inclusive of abrasive people.

highly relevant: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137392506516022&w=2

> The moment you're thinking in dichotomous terms like "the organizers" and "the attendees"

Hold it right there. I run the space, I raise the money, I sign the contracts, I'm can be held responsible if someone misbehaves (morally and legally) and I'm the person that doesn't watch the talks, but uses them as a time where they can actually make sure that the next person has their time and the tables are clean?

And "organizer" and "attendee" is a dichotomy? Both are roles and forcibly assuming that everyone plays the same role is harmful.

The idea is that you can do whatever you want at a conference you run...and so can I.

I think that CoCs are not bad, but the question asked by the article or rather the problem found is: Who writes the CoCs? Who is "we"? My understanding of the article is that there's a "weirdo nerd" group, which has their CoCs. These are rather loosely defined (the weirdos like it this way) and build the status quo (because the weirdos were there first, they defined the space, they wrote the first CoC). Now, various groups of newcomers - all better versed in the social game than the original CoC authors - join this space and start a "war of CoCs". Every new subgroup says "We and ONLY WE have the right to push CoCs", while the next subgroup cries foul, because in their world only THEY are the final arbiters of the CoCs. That's why we are both right on the point of "good at the game": Some groups use the "we are bad at the game, so don't bother us" tactic and try to win the war that way. Another group is more direct and uses the "we are good at the game, so listen to us" tactic, another group uses a third tactic. All abuse their skills for their own purposes. But that is not the point.

The point is: In the end none of these group has a right to redefine the CoCs. They've joined a space which has been built by the "weirdo nerds" for their purposes and has the CoCs those deemed fair. Joining this space was no problem, the "weirdo nerds" welcomed them (or didn't bother to say: GO AWAY, both interpretations are acceptable), but now they try to dominate this space by abusing their skills in the "game of social skills" and rewrite the spaces CoC to one they like more and that's neither fair nor right.

The answer to this is really simple: the people running the space. Run you own space, have your own CoC. Done.

If you can't get enough people to stand up and say "we're running a conference for tough as nails abrasive people, make sure you come in armored clothing", that might be a description of a problem.

This is flat out wrong. If a group of people start a hacking or gardening social subculture, then it is "owned" by them. If people start a goth subculture, others who join subsequently don't have a right to say "I don't like all the make up and candles and satantic stuff. If you want to start another club and call yourselves by a different name, that's fine. But you don't 'own' being goth."

If someone doesn't like the mood and tone of a given culture, they can start their own club or practice the activity without taking part in the social culture. They don't have to right to demand that everyone else change because their sensibilities are offended. If the members of a culture want to change to be more inclusive, then that's their decision. It has to be internal, not forced on them by pushy new members.

I think the difference there that goth is a subculture, while tech and software development is a job. Sure, there's also various subcultures in the software development industry, but there isn't one big subculture there. There's the abrasive brogrammers, there's the sensitive political correctness advocates, there's the quiet nerd that just wants to be left alone, there's the hiring manager looking for new employees, etcetera. All of those people are different, unlike goths which is a more clearly defined subculture.

Maybe the analogy would be a goth at an alternative conference, where you have emos, punk, neon-hair cyberpunk people, SM enthousiasts, etcetera. What's acceptable for one subculture (say, smoking in public, to use the South Park stereotype) may not be appropriate for the other.

Software development is a job, but the original post wasn't talking software development. It's talking about being a nerd. Sure, I have nerd "creds" and could easily fit in with any stereotypical group, but I don't claim any nerd status nor appear like it to the outside observer. I not gonna tell my group of friends to stop playing DnD or making shitty jokes no matter how embarrassing it is in public, and I expect the same courtesy. The problem I see is that folks seem to have this idea that they have a right to never feel offended. Well tough shit, you don't. You shouldn't be harassed, but if you don't find a group of folks ideals to your liking, well that's just life. Again, we're not talking professional lives here, but that of a subculture. Unfortunately, the problem is an overlap of folks who can't maintain a professional demeanor.

> I think the difference there that goth is a subculture, while tech and software development is a job.

And here I think is the crux of the problem; it's what the article was about. Tech became mainstream, and attracted people who look at it as a job. From the point of view of us native nerds, we became colonized and are being pushed back from the thing we built as our little place in the universe where we would feel safe from the society calling us "weirdos". It's not just a clash of cultures, it feels like an invasion - contemporary tech industry is not the place it used to be. As a native tech nerd I honestly feel threatened by it.

Damn well said!!! Thanks ;)

We wanted to make tech be ever more awesome, we told everyone we knew how cool it is, regardless of whether they were interested.

We asked for this, whether we like it or not :)

> We asked for this, whether we like it or not :)

Yes, unfortunately we did. We dreamed for an amazing world, but it's not what we got when the world joined in.

I think we got an amazing world :)

We democratised technology. We built a global IP network-of-networks and used it to connect a UNIX-like kernel in everyone's pocket, in a way that serves and delights them.

I distinctly remember a large family gathering in summer 2010 where I expected the usual pattern of sitting in a corner of the garden with the handful of other techie cousins, discussing whatever was new in our world. Instead, I had people coming and asking me if I was holding an iPad, and if they could play with it. That was a profound moment for me, it told me that we'd really achieved something special - a form of cutting edge technology that wasn't something non-techies ignored until they were forced to use it for work or banking or some other mundane task. Instead, they were drawn to it with the same fascination and wonder that I have always been. For that moment, everyone present, was a geek. I loved it.

Have some of the complex technical things that I once held as "mine" become dulled by the need to serve the masses? Of course. If that annoys me from a philosophical or technical perspective, my best choice is to forge ahead again and find a niche equivalent, or build something for myself.

In many cases, I welcome it, because something that I once had to invest time and effort into, is now smoothed over and shifts into the background, making time for me to focus on something else.

Thank you for your comment and your perspective. You literally just made me smile and feel very warm feelings inside.

Yes, this is the amazing world we wanted. :).

> Have some of the complex technical things that I once held as "mine" become dulled by the need to serve the masses? Of course. If that annoys me from a philosophical or technical perspective, my best choice is to forge ahead again and find a niche equivalent, or build something for myself.

> In many cases, I welcome it, because something that I once had to invest time and effort into, is now smoothed over and shifts into the background, making time for me to focus on something else.

Here you captured what I never could in words, so again - thank you. It's exactly what I feel - as cool tech I held as "mine" became mainstream, it also became dulled. I know it's an irrational feeling, but I do have it. But as you say, the best thing to do is to move on, find a new frontier, a new niche, and live there, until it again becomes common, and you can go even further. That is the beauty of progress!

Thinking more about it, I realize you're right. We have that amazing world. But with it, unfortunately, we once again exposed ourselves to the people who reject us and want to bully us. I'm not sure what to do about it. Should I escape even further, into another niche, one that hasn't been tainted by the culture of dishonesty and signalling games yet? It's getting harder and harder, because now everything is on the Internet, and the bullies move at the speed of light.

waaaah

I don't understand this US vs THEM mentality. Yes, you were the nerd that might have been excluded from other people's world because they didn't deem you 'cool enough'.

But now you are excluding others from joining your world. Are you not as bad as the people who made you feel displaced?

Why not take the stance that you can be better?

Because they're not joining, they're invading, and we have all the reasons to feel afraid that we will get pushed out again. And honestly, I'm fine with the fact that tech has grown beyond the culture that created it. I'm uncomfortable that what this "extended tech industry" produces is often a bastardization of what we so loved and cared. I get it, different priorities, I'm fine with that too.

What I am not fine with is the cultural invasion, the people suddenly appearing, realizing there is more of them than us "weirdos" and telling us "this is our field now, you are outnumbered, you must conform to our standars". "OK, join our field; the good land is rich, and can provide for everyone. But why won't you let us live in peace, why you need to keep bullying us?".

This US vs THEM mentality is something that was not created by "weird nerds" - all those nerds wanted was to be accepted. But we had to escape, because mainstream society doesn't accept our way of thinking (curiosity, intellectual interests, intellectual honesty) and bullied us. It's them who started it, and it's them who are invading our safe harbour again.

And it probably would still be fine if social justice crowd just stayed away.

Anyway; the article explained it very well, actually.

So, how come a lot of those projects creating those shifts are run by long-standing community participants? Are they traitors?

> And it probably would still be fine if social justice crowd just stayed away.

I have no sympathy if you feel uncomfortable or threatened by people who expect you to treat others with respect, especially when you use terms like "invading" and prop yourself up as a paragon of intellectual pursuits.

> if you feel uncomfortable or threatened by people who expect you to treat others with respect

That's not the people I'm talking about. Social justice crowd is the exact oposite of treating others with respect. And by their actions they are exacerbating the very problems they claim to fight against.

> when you use terms like "invading"

That's what it feels like.

> prop yourself up as a paragon

Well, I played Paragon Shepard, for what it's worth.

I grew up as nerd and was bullied both emotionally and physically (although less so physically than others probably). Since i have have some small understanding of what it's like to feel excluded, I welcome all folks involved in social justice into our nerdy communities.

I've always been a nerd. From birth. From the ugly glasses and the math team and the BBSs on. From dumpster-diving for computers because I couldn't afford them. From emacs vs vi.

I'm also female. I don't like being pushed out of my own d*&mned nerdy home by people who think I'm invading because I happen to stand up for myself.

Heres a dirty little secret about "real nerds". As far as bullying and exclusion goes, they give as good as they get. I knew some so called nerds in high school who were picked on. I knew more who socially isolated themselves by being arrogant jerks to everyone else, especially those they considered to be of lower intelligence. I dont fit the real nerd stereotype. I played football and I don't like dnd. I resent the notion that I am some kind of brogrammer picking on the poor helpless nerds. Who is really picking on who here? If it truly is about the code, as the author states, then why should this bs about authentic nerd culture even matter?

> I knew more who socially isolated themselves by being arrogant jerks to everyone else, especially those they considered to be of lower intelligence.

I knew people like that too, though I can't tell how often it was because they were just jerks with technical interests, and how much it was a defense mechanism, trying to maintain a little bit of self-esteem while being constantly bullied.

> I dont fit the real nerd stereotype. I played football and I don't like dnd. I resent the notion that I am some kind of brogrammer picking on the poor helpless nerds. Who is really picking on who here?

I don't think that was the message coming from the article. Most of the hardcore nerd circles I know would happily accept you and wouldn't mind you like football and are not into DnD. But usually this doesn't work the other way - your DnD-playing football-agnostic nerd gets picked on and called a "nolife".

> If it truly is about the code, as the author states, then why should this bs about authentic nerd culture even matter?

Because the author states that the nerd culture is (among other things) about "the code over status games".

>I knew people like that too, though I can't tell how often it was because they were just jerks with technical interests, and how much it was a defense mechanism, trying to maintain a little bit of self-esteem while being constantly bullied.

Yeah well 9 times out of 10 the "jocks" who bullied the "nerds" were doing it out of a deep seated insecurity too. Just because someone self identifies with a subculture does not mean they are any less capable of being an asshole.

The article presents a huge falsification of history. I dare to say that most of the technical development was made by people who doesn't fit into the narrow definition of "nerd" as presented.

The impression I got when I got started in technology two decades ago was that being weird was accepted because we all liked technology. Not that you had to be weird to like technology. Heck, today you don't even have to like technology. Just know the right cultural-references and you're in.

> From the point of view of us native nerds

I can't stand nativism anywhere I smell it.

Don't read politics into a simple phrase. Cf. "digital native".

Stop trying to make yourself one dimensional. Existence precedes essence. You aren't a nerd, you're just a dude, that does nerdy things sometimes. The things you do aren't you, and you aren't them. If other people want to do the things you do it does not detract from your enjoyment of them one iota, unless you're so self absorbed you can't enjoy it without exclusivity.

grow the fuck up.

As I tried to explain in comments downthread, it's not about being detracted from enjoyment because new people are arriving to the scene. It's about that what was once a refuge from bullies is no more, because the safe harbour became mainstream interest, and now "weirdos" are being pushed back again by the society that requires you to conform to its definition of "normal life" and "normal interests".

> grow the fuck up.

I always say I'm 5 years old, and I like it that way.

Yeah but you feeling threatened by newcomers to the industry is no different than my old white grandfather feeling threatened when hispanics move next door. The tech industry was the one place where you felt accepted. Isn't it selfish to deny that acceptance to others?

Only dogs bark at strangers. The rest of us say "welcome."

> I think the difference there that goth is a subculture, while tech and software development is a job.

To you, it's a job. To me, it's one of my many hobbies that I enjoy doing. It just turns out that there's more demand in the business world for software engineering than there is for admiring artwork of anthropomorphic creatures or swinging swords around.

Thirding what my sibling commenters are saying, just for the additional data point.

The article was about hackers, the set of outcasts that self-identify based on rough consensus and running code and merit. The article wasn't about hackers, the buzzword that is good to have on your meetup and LinkedIn profile.

Such is the extent of the appropriation of hacker culture--there is this weird notion that workplace professionalism (whatever that is) somehow now has to be embraced by people claiming to be hackers. It's bullshit.

That's why I moved to "maker" if I absolutely have to pick a one-word label. So it goes.

I was and still am involved in the "maker culture" thing and from what I see, the term "maker" is already dead as well. Media found it, it became a popular label, and now everyone who knows which side of duct tape is sticky is a "maker". And don't get me started about the events. What do startups showcasing their newest commercial 3D printers have to do with "making" again?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-dept-of-retro-warns-we-m... Appropriate onion article if you change some nouns :) Can't disagree with you, sadly.

In general: If you're an outcast and you don't ostracise yourself from a community that has grown large, you are not really an outcast.

In detail: Hackers can't complain that their movement has grown and developed facets they don't like. Hackers are mischievous, hackers are smart, hackers are always ahead of the pack discovering and inventing cool new things. Therefore, hackers, by their very self-definition, can't be called hackers anymore, they must have moved on elsewhere and developed new labels for themselves. If they haven't, and have become complacent and jaded with newcomers, they have ceased to be true hackers.

(I use "they", because one should never self-apply the term hacker :)

The people who claim "hacking" today didn't start it. In fact "hacking", to the extent it ever had a common definition, has changed to accommodate the people that are more interested in being part of some culture rather than having an interest in technology.

I think it's substantially different if that subculture operates in an open environment that encourages participation.

If you want to have a private, invite-only community that has strict rules of abrasive (or other) behaviour, that is also possible.

If, however, you run around the world telling everyone how amazing your culture is, how it's producing things that will change all our lives, how it's great for getting a well paying career, etc, etc, all of which the hacking culture has done, then you have nobody to blame when people start paying attention. We asked for all of this, and we reap the rewards, good and bad.

I recommend you to attend a meeting like the Wave Gotic Treffen in Leipzig. You'll see exactly those things happen and it's called "generation change".

My other pet project for a long time was moderating a metal board - what do you think happened when people came up with Nu Metal? It was an outrage.

> If they wanted to start their own Abrasive gardening club, where they would be abrasive to each other

If a few people founded a company like this and became successful, some people who joined later would complain about the abrasiveness.

And if the complainants happened to be from certain "protected classes", abrasiveness would be legally prohibited.

Replace "company" with "tech industry" and it's exactly what happened.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, blfr... but:

If people like hyperion2010 or others want an abrasive culture, why can't they take what they dish? Why is it so ok for someone to call me a c*&t but I can't say the words "male privilege"?

Because they're on the inside and you're on the outside.

Is she? Why?

An insider can make any comments they like about an outsider (up to the point where the comments themselves become problematic to other insiders), but an outsider cannot say anything negative about the group or any of its members without being perceived as attacking the group and all of its members.

Basic in-group/out-group dynamics.

No, that I get and understand. I meant, why is she in the out-group? Or, more precisely, how do you know she is in the out-group?

The one is a personal insult that can be brushed off. The other is an accusation of unfairness in the entire system.

Are you surprised that the system (and the people within it) reacts to broad-based accusations about its structure, rather differently from how it reacts to angry beefs between individuals?

On a structural perpetuation-of-the-organism level, no: you make a good point. On a personal level, I do find it weird that people take critiques of a system more personally than personal insults. We were all born into a system that we didn't create; we reshape it through the actions in our lives.

We do take what we dish all the time, what we pretty much never dish is public and directed attacks on individuals (or other social attacks of which there are many, such as spreading rumors). If I'm in a room with someone that is continually spouting off about all men being sexist pigs and making period jokes I really don't care, that is their prerogative and I have no right to stop them much less publicly attack them (nor do I feel the need, but that is another issue altogether).

Absolutely. If someone doesn't like the abrasion, all they have to do is not participate in the activity. Not play the games, not go to the con's, not get a job in the industry.

Let them take up knitting.

How are any of these activities improved by an abrasive culture?

The only thing it creates, ultimately, is the endgame of the Geek Social Fallacies: a place where the only people left all have nasty personalities and no social connections to any other kinds of people.

http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html

If you haven't been in an environment where everybody is tolerated -- you're really missing out. I've been lucky enough to work on projects where programming nerds mingle with visual artists, mechanics, hardware hackers, fashionistas, musicians, and more, and it's amazing. And furthermore, it's not like we're watching what we say all day. In my experience, if you have a baseline where everyone knows they are accepted and have recourse to call someone out, then there's lots of "inappropriate" humor.

I don't want to get into the nerd vs geek debate here but my interpretation of TFA was that it was specifically talking about the types of people that simply didn't want to play the social hierarchy game. Just being interested in and doing nerdy/geeky things does not place you in that group (unfortunately the terminology we have does a poor job of distinguishing this).

I also don't think there is any implication that I want an abrasive culture. I do not think that early google style corporate culture is a good thing. I think we need to dissociate nerds behaving badly from simply not picking up on social signals or not caring about them. The reason I say this is because when you treat someone as a villain who is simply thinking out loud you basically stop any potential for real dialogue in its tracks.

> Just being interested in and doing nerdy/geeky things does not place you in that group (unfortunately the terminology we have does a poor job of distinguishing this).

The two groups are not identical, but the probability of being uninterested in playing the hierarchy game increases significantly when conditioned on being a nerd (and even more so, being in the infosec scene, where the author and I spend most of our time) to the point that they dominate the social scene.

I'm not sure what you mean. The "infosec scene" has always had stricter social codes than any other form of hacking.

I have no experience in this, but I don't feel like anything from the article is "abrasive", or even really anything from the previous poster you replied to.

Sidenote: The word "hacker" doesn't seem to mean anything anymore, it has been used in so many different ways that it has become too ambiguous. I personally like the phrase "weird nerd" better, because it might be a little more specific, and it is how I feel. (Probably doesn't help that I don't have the skills that seem to go along with "weird nerds"/"hackers".)

Sounds more like you do professional get-togethers than nerdy stuff. People behave more like "at work" at those meetups and conferences.

I used to run eurucamp (I'm on a hiatus), which is a very affordable summer community conference at a lake with impromptu bike rides, canoeing, parties and lots of visitor participation. We have only 1 invited speaker (keynote). We have people setting up podcasts programs for the whole conference just as a _community effort for fun_.

On the peak, we ran a 5-day conference set with a one week program around it only on voluntary work.

We currently have an attendance that is very diverse (we don't count) and we worked for that a lot.

It couldn't be any less professional and if it can, we'd like to remove that.

http://2014.eurucamp.org/concept/

The Elasticsearch usergroup is run at a small community-driven coworking space (and existed before Elastic, the company) and the Rust usergroup definitely has no professional outset.

I also ran devrooms on FOSDEM.

One of the meetups the Ruby Berlin e.V. runs (the governing body for all of this) has _3 full talks_+Lightning talks every month, without any company involvement other then providing rooms.

Suits are really of no interest to me in this case.

Also, I'd like to say that I'm not discussing from a theoretical point here - I've been doing community work for more then 10 years and have put all the things I say here into production at some point and in multiple contexts. With measurable successes and failures.

I don't say you're an impostor :)

I just say all this sounds more like "conference" (= prof) than "hacker space" (= hobby)

Both can be fun.

I'm from Stuttgart and going to the Shack is a whole different experience than going to any meetup or conference.

They are all hobby, on top of my work time. Many of the attendees are there for fun, especially on eurucamp, off their own pocket. Obviously, 3 days of meeting with 300 international people isn't going to be all random (even things like the CCC only _seem_ hackish).

I do help and attend spontanous meetups of all forms and fashions as well - still, they all have rules and they are all better for it.

> What you want is an abrasive culture and I oppose that.

I agree.

I prefer to use the term "nerd" to mean that type of abrasive person and "geek" as someone who is enjoys the same interests but is not interested in point-scoring and other aspects of that abrasive culture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com