Well, at the end of the day, my job isn't so much to code as it is to make my employer, that is your competitor, money. So you've just called the man making your competitors a lot richer incompetent. Indeed, one of us is being disingenuous.
I appreciate the comment, but I'd like to make some counter arguments.
You say there are benefits to using a debugger, but I've never had any issues not using a debugger. I've been coding for 26 years. The worst thing that's ever happened to me is that I once commented out a couple lines of code, forgot to uncomment them and pushed it to production. This affected maybe 0.001% of our users. Of course, I've learned to be more careful since then. Regardless, I've asked myself many times over the years every single time I make a mistake if it could have been prevented using a debugger and the answer is always no.
You say that you use a debugger to step through every line of code to examine the state and state changes, but I always do this in my head and have never had any issues. My colleagues always use a debugger and they constantly make mistakes. I often feel that the reason they make so many mistakes is because they rely so heavily on the debugger that it has a negative impact on their ability to analyze code in their head.
This is also why I always teach my son to do math in his head and never on paper. Relying too much on calculators and paper is in my opinion the reason why so many students perform poorly in math. But this is of course another topic.
I'll keep that in mind for my next interview. I find it's always best to avoid jobs that discriminate in such ways, and if not using a debugger helps me to dodge a bullet, I'll consider myself lucky.
Well, most of the time we're working in Dart/Flutter. I admit that a debugger seems useful for race conditions on the back end. However, when I do systems programming in my free time in Rust or Haskell, I would try to prevent these issues which to my knowledge the languages should do by default unless you're using unsafe Rust or Haskell. So is a debugger in this case not just a bandaid?
Perhaps this is why I've never needed a debugger: prevention is the best cure.
Whitehats are basically people who do what is legal whereas grayhats do what they think is right. For example: Say you are sitting on the toilet and your neighbor comes into your house and takes $10 out of your wallet and leaves. Also, let's say you see him but have no proof. Legally, you cannot break into his house to take the money back. You need to report it to the police etc. Of course, if you have no proof, then there isn't much point in reporting it. I think a lot of gayhats would just walk into their neighbor's house the next time he leaves and take the money back thus avoiding all the red tape.
Regarding what you did... It's not exactly certain because it seems like you kind of did it by accident, at least initially. Generally speaking, you need permission to hack someone. Someone can give you explicit permission or they can give people in general permission. Regardless, if you don't have permission, I believe you are supposed to stop immediately, inform the business and if they don't give you explicit permission, continuing to hack them would be illegal. If you continue, then that would be grayhat hacking. Illegal, not necessarily unethical.
My biggest concern with this is how easy it would be to steal. If I'm sitting in a train, someone could just yank it off my head and run away. That's $3,500 bucks down the drain. When using a phone for example, I don't really have to worry about it as long as I'm careful. I wear a shirt long enough to cover my pockets making it hard for a thief to lift up the shirt without me noticing and grab the phone in my pocket. When I use the phone, I keep it close to my body. If I were using the Vision Pro, I'd have a giant screen in front of my face. I wouldn't even see the thief coming. Maybe they could make a strap that you attach around your chin like a helmet and charge $1,000 bucks for it. Or perhaps screws to drill it into your skull.