Are you tripping on cat urine? Your logic airs a certain ubsurdity to it that disturbs my otherwise silent browsing of HaD. Do you talk the same way you think? Even more appropriate, do you physically converse with the same erratic repore you so arrogantly display for all to see? Your words are somewhat of a pestilence to my eyes. Logic demands thorough thought, and I’m afraid you haven’t the necessary tools.

Just my two cents.

By the way art and technology newer mix together for example when artist try to add some engineering usually end result is bad art and bad engineering (usually it impractical overkill), when engineer try to add art, the end result always less practical than if there was only engineering. It was proven counsels number of times, end result always worse than if it was in separate category, there might be exceptions but they so rare to change anything

But my point is, if we define “hack” as “creative repurposing of existing technology”, this seems to fit in that category.

Do you define “hack” differently? Maybe that would help clear this up.

because when I want to find art I want to use word art, and when I want to find hack I want to use word hack. Lets keep definitions of words so we can use those words when we want and for what we want. We already shave Goggle picture search which will show you porn for any entered word

Must something serve some useful purpose before it can be called a “hack”?

I always thought a “hack” was a creative way to re-use(or mis-use, or ab-use) existing things. This certainly qualifies.