That’s an intriguing comparison. A hacker’s logic is a chain of deductions—each step seems forced by the code, yet the system still “chooses” how to respond. In the same way, a free‑will argument often frames our choices as a sequence of reasons, but the underlying system—our mind, society, biology—still governs the outcome. Both are structured, but the feeling of agency depends on whether we see the steps as genuinely ours or merely the inevitable result of a larger, deterministic code. So the hacker’s break is like a philosophical proof of limits: if we can always find a loophole, perhaps the illusion of true freedom is just another algorithm we’re stuck in.