71–80 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Many schools", is this a problem in Greenwich? If not, your concern isn't applicable.
Schools there allow dogs: https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Land-mine-detecti...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Dog attacks and bites are…way more common than car accidents This is nonsense. There are on “average 337,103 ED visits each year for dog bites,” with an “annual incidence” of “1.1 per 1,000” [1]. This makes them “the 13th most common injury,” exceeding “those occurring on motorcycles (14th), to pedestrians (15th) and firearm gunshot injuries (16th).” These result, however, in just 30 to 50 deaths per year [2]. Moto…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is absurd! How would you feel if your workplace implemented such a rule? Why don't you propose you just shoot them on the spot instead, that will teach them that actions have consequences and will scare them straight!
A workplace where coworkers weren’t fidgiting with their phones in every meeting? Slacking and texting non-stop? Sounds like an absolute paradise.
Our middle school has banned phones during school hours, and it's been great. Even though most kids own phones and have them in their backpacks, they aren't seen. There are less problems during classes and kids have to talk to each other during lunch instead of going head down in their phones. Parental pushback has been really minimal - most parents love it, and it's good for the kids. Making no phones a blanket poli…
it's all good until that thing that happens at American schools, happens... That is my one hang up here. It would be idealistic to believe that the Police would protect kids, but in reality there are far too many cases of them being grossly negligent in this exact circumstance... in many of those cases, having a phone played a pivotal role in security. I don't want to get too far into details on HN for the sake of ke…
Do you have an example?
Every case I recall involved kids calling their parents who only got mentioned because they got in first responders’ way.
There is a striking divide between how the rich and FAANG employed treat technology around their kids versus everyone else. The single most potent difference I’ve seen as a result is their kids’ ability to maintain eye contact during conversation.
I must not find the divide as strikining because it's not clear to me whether your comment intends to highlight rich+FAANG parents as better or worse at appropriately managing technology around their kids.
Limited anecdata, of course, but it makes sense that they’re aware of the dangers (they’re building them, know people are, or at least understand them) better than the median civilian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Dog attacks and bites are…way more common than car accidents This is nonsense. There are on “average 337,103 ED visits each year for dog bites,” with an “annual incidence” of “1.1 per 1,000” [1]. This makes them “the 13th most common injury,” exceeding “those occurring on motorcycles (14th), to pedestrians (15th) and firearm gunshot injuries (16th).” These result, however, in just 30 to 50 deaths per year [2]. Moto…
Perhaps consider "attack" as broadly defined or metaphorical, similar to "cell phone == crack pipe", which of course isn't nonsense either, or is it.
Still doesn’t work.
There are over 3x more motor vehicles in America than dogs [1][2]. There are more households with cars than dogs. Our interaction frequency with vehicles is much greater. The threshold for damage, given a vehicle’s power, is much less. For any measure of “attack,” the frequency and damage from cars will always exceed that from dogs.
It’s a stupid aside that doesn’t make any actual arguments about why taking cell phones from kids is bad.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183505/number-of-vehicle...
[2] https://financesonline.com/number-of-dogs-in-the-us/
[2]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they asked them not to use cell phones and they did not follow the rules, what will happen when they are banned? Simply put. They had rules in place but failed to enforce them. Why will banning them make the enforcement problem solved?
> Why will banning them make the enforcement problem solved? Whether the phone was being used is debatable. Whether it exists is not. Banning makes communication and enforcement easier.
Kids fe still going to bring them, and kids are going to still feel as it’s their right to have them. On top of that only a few people in the sv bubble would agree with taking phones away.
Having used a Palm Pilot to genuine benefit in highschool in the 90s, and having finally just gotten a smart watch in part specifically to reduce smartphone usage, I have mixed feelings about broad restrictions. Networked smart phones absolutely have major addictive and disruptive effects, and are hard to police in practice. But watches provide some pretty useful health and emergency benefits, while IME have lived up…
> watches provide some pretty useful health and emergency benefits Fitbits let you “see calls, texts & smartphone app notifications on your wrist when your phone is nearby” [1]. It has all the attention, focus and de-socialisation problems of a smartphone. [1] https://www.fitbit.com/global/us/products/smartwatches/sense...
Having used a Palm Pilot to genuine benefit in highschool in the 90s, and having finally just gotten a smart watch in part specifically to reduce smartphone usage, I have mixed feelings about broad restrictions. Networked smart phones absolutely have major addictive and disruptive effects, and are hard to police in practice. But watches provide some pretty useful health and emergency benefits, while IME have lived up…
Me and my wife were discussing this earlier, and we both agreed we missed the days of cellphones + PDAs. That era was so much less predatory to our time, and there’s something to be said about the mental separation between “fun text time” and a dedicated work device. It’s just a shame that given the current technological landscape the closest we have to PDAs are tablets, which are typically too large to pocket (and n…
https://ewritable.com/best-e-ink-tablets/#Best_Dedicated_Not...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why will banning them make the enforcement problem solved? Whether the phone was being used is debatable. Whether it exists is not. Banning makes communication and enforcement easier.
We have videos of kids attacking teachers for taking away devices. These things, whether we like it are not, are ingrained in society. Taking a phone away can be akin to saying you are going to cut a part of my brain out. Kids fe still going to bring them, and kids are going to still feel as it’s their right to have them. On top of that only a few people in the sv bubble would agree with taking phones away.
I’ve seen kids screaming for iPads on flights, too. I don’t have high expectations for them in life.
Also, when did we normalise violent kids? If a kid attacks a teacher for any reason, they should be automatically suspended at a minimum.
> only a few people in the sv bubble would agree with taking phones away
I live in a rich town in the Rockies. Most parents don’t let their kids take phones to school. (None of the private ones permit them.)
There is an emerging class divide on phones is schools. When you meet them, you can clearly tell which kids need their phones to function and which do not. (Eye contact during conversation.)