In the early 2000s, growing up in a third-world country with limited resources meant computers and operating systems were constantly breaking. That scarcity pushed me to tinker and experiment, I learned to troubleshoot hardware, reinstall OSes, and reverse-engineer odd behaviors. I even experimented with keyloggers out of curiosity. That practical, trial-and-error schooling is where a lot of the so called “common sense” about security comes from. It is less theory, more failing, fixing, and learning what actually keeps one safe online.
I think it all stemmed from curiosity to learn and tinker. I wonder if gamifying it is enough but it’s a step.
Started modding Android ROMs at 13. That age is perfect; old enough to understand consequences, young enough to not care about breaking things.
Hardware hacking tools have gotten more accessible since then. The Flipper Zero makes this easier now; 256KB RAM, open firmware, $200. Compare that to needing a full PC setup in the 2000s. Lower barrier, same curiosity-driven learning.
Guided challenges vs pure exploration; both work. The structure gets more people started. The ones who stick around will break out of the sandbox anyway.
“El hambre agudiza el ingenio”, we say in Spanish. Hunger sharpens the mind.
Growing up with fewer resources than others paradoxically leads to better outcomes sometimes, since you’re conscious of the barriers around you and that motivates you to overcome them.
If I had grown up with the latest iPhone I would never have cared about rooting and custom ROMs, for example.
Early 90's were more fun. I modified DOS command.com file to change the outputs it prints, drilled holes into laptop to attach broken hinges, break electronic garbage to salvage wires and interesting things, disassemble disk drives, ...
Haha that reminds me, Qbasic using the help file to figure out how to program. Taking apart a HD and getting my fingers pinched between the two bloody strong magnets.
Amazing what you learn when you have no other distraction xD
I agree that the early 90's were a lot of fun – I remember drilling holes in 3.5-inch floppy disks to increase their capacity, blissfully unaware that actual HD floppies had a different coating entirely…
I suspect gamifying it isn't enough, but as you say it's a step, and if it helps more people get involved then hopefully others can provide more steps to follow.
So the Nobel commite was wrong to decide this because you think otherwise?
Interesting. Any more indepth analys about this?
Btw. you don't just build AlphaFold by doing only 'computers'. Take a look at any good docmentary about it and you will see that they do discuss chemistry on a deep level
Deepmind isn't a chemistry company. Demiss Hassabis isn't a chemist.
A tool they developed in their area may turn out to be useful in Chemistry. They may spend some relatively short time and effort to apply their tool to Chemistry. They can do the same thing in many areas in every few years and collect all the Nobel's in many areas. That effort is worth for a prize but the context is different.
It is possible that some committee members might have raised this same concern in their discussions.
relatively short : in comparison to real chemists, whose work is the basis for this development.
This is my first interaction in Hackernews, and I was expecting a more polite discussion. I just expressed my idea. You could ask for my explanations.
You didn't start a discussion with a good argument from begin with though.
And i personally really think if people from a different field, jump into a new field and revolutionize it, a nobel price is not a bad thing to appreciate this effort.
