Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jobs and Gates banned their kids from iPads and other devices they created

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 99 posts

Re: Jobs and Gates banned their kids from iPads and other devices they created

#31

Post by antran22 »

IMHO, the key thing that we need to do is to teach our kids how to create "things" instead of just "consuming". This is important no matter which era you are in, but the average 15th century kid didn't have that many stuffs laying around for him to just consume. This problem is suddenly in our face now and we are scrambling around to try and keep our children away from the cacophony of information, but the better thing to do is to teach kids to see computers or phones as tools, and they are there for them to wield and command.

What you should actually do varies based on your kids' preferences, your experiences. You can teach them to code, to do graphic design, write stuffs. Hell, if my child feel inclined I will allow them to learn to create TikTok video, but they have to actually *create* a piece of original content, instead of regurgitating other people's ideas.

Re: Jobs and Gates banned their kids from iPads and other devices they created

#32

Post by kredd »

karaterobot wrote: post #23
dubeye wrote: post #19

Easy enough when you have a manager for your nannies

People have been raising kids without devices for a long time. They've even been telling kids they can't have what they want. Kids have even survived not having consumer device parity with their peers, if you can believe that. They did fine for quite a while, inventing things like every great work of art, the Pythagorean theorum, airplanes... heck, even the iPad! There's no real reason it couldn't be done today, it j…

Disclaimer: I don’t have children, but have nephews of different ages.

It’s way easier to say than actually do it, since completely banning your children from devices will just make them an outcast in most of the circles. When they’re hanging out in school, or after sports, they talk about about either games they’ve played or some stuff they saw online. This is one of the cases where all families should come together or some sort of weird regulation to ban children (reads: impossible to control).

I can’t even judge, growing up I had unrestricted internet access in a shared family PC. Spammed WoW and Runescape for hours every day, and that’s what I talked about with friends. Now we didn’t have social media, but we still were on MSN and its derivatives all the time. There should be some sort of ramp up from no internet access to social media-esque exposure to the entire world so the kids would know what they’re dealing with. How? I don’t know.

Re: Jobs and Gates banned their kids from iPads and other devices they created

#33

Post by Stratoscope »

hluska wrote: post #28

Wacky question but does anyone know if this is a paid placement? The last three paragraphs seem to be soliciting investors for some random company I haven’t heard of, but most media declares something is paid. It’s yahoo so nothing surprises me but between the obvious sales tone and the fact an article this low quality front paged has me feeling marketed to.

Yes, this is typical Benzinga.

Re: Jobs and Gates banned their kids from iPads and other devices they created

#35

Post by burroisolator »

Buttons840 wrote: post #29
benreesman wrote: post #13

I started working on social media in 2006. I did it for a big name for most of the 2010s. It can be a good thing, it’s easier to make it a good thing. It’s expensive as hell to make a screen more destructive than narcotics, you need PhDs and server farms and shit for that. The problem is that software companies aren’t “allowed to mature”. Sometimes you tap out the market, you aren’t doing 20% next year without pushin…

How could we remove the temptation to squeeze every last dollar from a company, even if it crushes society in the process? What if the market leader in an industry was taxed such that there was no incentive to make more money than the 2nd or 3rd place company in the market? This would encourage competition, and also remove many of the perverse incentives when a single company is dominant.

What incentive would there be to take the risk of being the first in the market?

One idea I've been mulling is a progressive corporate tax. It would encourage companies to split up if there aren't massive synergies to justify the increased tax.

Re: Jobs and Gates banned their kids from iPads and other devices they created

#36

Post by vlod »

jejeyyy77 wrote: post #27
prmoustache wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can program without an internet connection. You just need the local documentation.

not practical

How do you think developers built programs pre google/stack-overflow? i.e. early to late 90's.

Re: Jobs and Gates banned their kids from iPads and other devices they created

#37

Post by gretch »

IMO clickbait title

> Gates and his then-wife Melinda took a decisive step by limiting screen time to 45 minutes for games, with an additional hour allowed on weekends. This was in addition to the time required for homework.

"Banned" sounds like zero, but they actually got 2 hours (per day?) on weekends. That's a pretty good amount.

Since when are kids allowed to have unlimited access to whatever they want? whether it be entertainment or foods. Even if there was a kid who spent too many hours reading, you'd probably be like "hey you need to go outside once in a while"

Re: Jobs and Gates banned their kids from iPads and other devices they created

#38

Post by throwawaykk4 »

prmoustache wrote: post #10
jimmytucson wrote: post #4

The part I struggle with is, how do I let my kids program and be creative on the computer without being online when daddy can’t program without an internet connection? How will they develop “street smarts” about being on social media without a social media account? How do I let them have the same positive experiences I had playing games without having the deeply negative ones too (I lost that breastplate that took we…

Anyone can program without an internet connection. You just need the local documentation.

Local documentation does not exist anymore, in a practical form.

You need the official docs plus countless other resources from other people and for a relevant version of your software.

Gone are the days a few books and a computer was all you needed.

Your compiler is spilling out some weird message? Go scavenge the interwebs for someone who figured it out or spend your whole weekend in that.

Re: Jobs and Gates banned their kids from iPads and other devices they created

#39

Post by throw_m239339 »

hluska wrote: post #28

Wacky question but does anyone know if this is a paid placement? The last three paragraphs seem to be soliciting investors for some random company I haven’t heard of, but most media declares something is paid. It’s yahoo so nothing surprises me but between the obvious sales tone and the fact an article this low quality front paged has me feeling marketed to.

Yes, that "article" is clearly some ad spam. And the advertised business is barely related to the rest of the article.

Re: Jobs and Gates banned their kids from iPads and other devices they created

#40

Post by lostlogin »

Buttons840 wrote: post #29
benreesman wrote: post #13

I started working on social media in 2006. I did it for a big name for most of the 2010s. It can be a good thing, it’s easier to make it a good thing. It’s expensive as hell to make a screen more destructive than narcotics, you need PhDs and server farms and shit for that. The problem is that software companies aren’t “allowed to mature”. Sometimes you tap out the market, you aren’t doing 20% next year without pushin…

How could we remove the temptation to squeeze every last dollar from a company, even if it crushes society in the process? What if the market leader in an industry was taxed such that there was no incentive to make more money than the 2nd or 3rd place company in the market? This would encourage competition, and also remove many of the perverse incentives when a single company is dominant.

How would that work? Is the market a town, a city, a country or the world? What about companies that supply other companies with goods or materials? What about natural and logical monopolies (eg roads, railways, water supplies). It’s gets messy instantly.
Post reply on HN