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

Red Light Green Light

jamessevedge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 169 posts

Re: Red Light Green Light

#111

Post by underdeserver »

darkerside wrote: post #48
nkurz wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you caught this or not, but I think the actual key to the story is that the child in the rear seat of the car and looking out the side window at the light for the stopped crossing traffic. Unfortunately for the anecdote, the "rear seat" part isn't mentioned until the 4th paragraph: "So I was in the back seat sitting next to Ben". I think the issue is that in the US, all children below some age must be…

You ever seen a 3 year old in the front seat?

Yes. Up to a few years ago, I would often see rear facing car seats in the passenger side. It makes it easier for the driver to reach out to the toddler.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#113

Post by ivve »

QuadrupleA wrote: post #87

Sorry to be a curmudgeon, it's a poetic little story - but isn't the takeaway a little banal? "Different people have different perspectives." Well sure. "Consider things from others' viewpoints." Of course. I don't know, it rings a little of management-ese, or something overpaid consultants might present in the boardroom that gets everybody nodding their head and feeling like they've received great wisdom, but is a l…

I mean it is a quote from a guest on the Tim Ferriss podcast. Not exactly a font of anything other than received wisdom and LinkedIn platitudes.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#114

Post by altacc »

matsemann wrote: post #110

My take after reading this is a bit different than the others. I think it's absolutely insane that a three year old has to learn traffic rules to not be mauled to death by passing cars. What a fail of society.

Even in countries with zero child deaths due to traffic, children need to have some traffic sense, and that's part of what helps keep the accident rate low. Cars exist and a child running into the road unexpectedly can still be injured by the safest possible car driven by the safest possible driver. Learning to cross the road is a basic skill children benefit from learning.

Having traffic sense also gives them more freedom and a better roaming range. My son was very traffic conscious from a young age, so I could let him run ahead on the pavement and freely run around small parks near roads. Other parents held their kids close because they were constantly worried they would run into the road. My son started walking to school at age 7 as he knew how to cross roads. These things gave him a lot of trust & freedom early on than other kids don't have.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#115

Post by afandian »

matsemann wrote: post #110

My take after reading this is a bit different than the others. I think it's absolutely insane that a three year old has to learn traffic rules to not be mauled to death by passing cars. What a fail of society.

As someone with a child the same age, I see it very differenly.

The way I explain it is that traffic lights, roads, crossings, etc, are a mechanism by which society co-operates. Everyone's trying to do something a little different, and if we work together and buy into a shared understanding then we can all do what we want to do. That's a really positive thing. We can all get on with what we need to without resorting to ideology which isn't relevant to the task at hand.

Also, I think it's important for children to learn about everything around them, to see how the world works. It's irresponsible to leave a black hole of knowledge. Especially for things that can be dangerous. Mine knows all about volcanoes, dinosaurs, power tools, chisels, hammers, etc. And he's learned how to interact with at least some of those safely.

Otherwise it's quite literally learned helplessness!

Re: Red Light Green Light

#116

Post by immibis »

Jiro wrote: post #73
aeternum wrote: post #15

Similar things happen surprisingly often in companies. Many intense arguments can be diffused by first being specific about what we agree upon. Just to add to this, one strategy from the rationalist community that I rarely see practiced is to 'taboo' certain words. For example if two engineers are arguing about a solution not being scalable, taboo the word scalable. They both re-explain their POV without using the wo…

This is one of those things "rationalists" do that doesn't always make sense. It is possible to tell someone to "taboo their words" to obstruct someone, in order to make it hard for them to discuss something whose meaning you know very well. It's also possible to tell someone to taboo their words because you want to nitpick an imperfect definition--regardless of whether the flaws in thde definition are relevant to th…

I hereby taboo the words "taboo" and "rationalist"

Re: Red Light Green Light

#117

Post by HPsquared »

aeternum wrote: post #15

Similar things happen surprisingly often in companies. Many intense arguments can be diffused by first being specific about what we agree upon. Just to add to this, one strategy from the rationalist community that I rarely see practiced is to 'taboo' certain words. For example if two engineers are arguing about a solution not being scalable, taboo the word scalable. They both re-explain their POV without using the wo…

Without properly-defined terms, where the participants agree on definitions, it's impossible to have a rational discussion grounded in logic.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#118

Post by immibis »

afandian wrote: post #115
matsemann wrote: post #110

My take after reading this is a bit different than the others. I think it's absolutely insane that a three year old has to learn traffic rules to not be mauled to death by passing cars. What a fail of society.

As someone with a child the same age, I see it very differenly. The way I explain it is that traffic lights, roads, crossings, etc, are a mechanism by which society co-operates. Everyone's trying to do something a little different, and if we work together and buy into a shared understanding then we can all do what we want to do. That's a really positive thing. We can all get on with what we need to without resorting…

They are mostly a mechanism by which car drivers ensure they don't run over other people.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#119

Post by ljm »

Buttons840 wrote: post #44
aeternum wrote: post #15

Similar things happen surprisingly often in companies. Many intense arguments can be diffused by first being specific about what we agree upon. Just to add to this, one strategy from the rationalist community that I rarely see practiced is to 'taboo' certain words. For example if two engineers are arguing about a solution not being scalable, taboo the word scalable. They both re-explain their POV without using the wo…

I wish it was a common practice to ban certain words from difficult conversations. But whenever I suggest it people just talk past me as though I've said some weird thing. There's facts and opinions, but also definitions, and too often disagreements boil down to a different definition of a single word. Ban that word and say what you mean and the disagreement may suddenly be gone. Edit: I wrote this before reading the…

Typically I just disengage myself from the topic (or the drama/tension that is brewing up) and start asking what people mean when they use a certain word.

We've somehow started arguing about optimisation, for example. Time to take a step back and ask what "optimisation" actually means.

In fact, me saying "let's step back a bit" is pretty much my go-to phrase for saying we've gone too far down a rabbit hole and we should come back up for air.

I don't think I would have much success trying to make certain words taboo. Much better to create a shared understanding of what something means instead of trying to avoid it.

Re: Red Light Green Light

#120

Post by mcv »

jyrkesh wrote: post #105
Buttons840 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish it was a common practice to ban certain words from difficult conversations. But whenever I suggest it people just talk past me as though I've said some weird thing. There's facts and opinions, but also definitions, and too often disagreements boil down to a different definition of a single word. Ban that word and say what you mean and the disagreement may suddenly be gone. Edit: I wrote this before reading the…

I didn't know this was a thing that had a term either! I don't talk politics anymore except with folks that I explicitly know want to talk politics, but I frequently suggest that people shouldn't use a whole litany of terms in those discussions: right/left-wing, capitalist, socialist, liberal, conservative, communist, libertarian, fascist...so many people use these terms as short-hand for "stuff I really/don't like",…

Totally agree. Many of these terms mean totally different things to different people. And sometimes contradictory things to the same person. Get rid of the labels and talk issues instead.

And I guess the same is true in the examples of tech discussions where people couldn't agree because "scaling" or "performance" meant different things to different people, because by the nature of their work, they focus on different issues.

Post reply on HN