[googlryas]

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.

[borski]

If you think there is no overlap between those definitions of “hacker,” you do not understand them.

[googlryas]

I don't, so I guess I'm good by that heuristic.

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".

[borski]

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.