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

Google releases smart watch for kids

store.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 809 posts

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#221

Post by NullPrefix »

forgotusername6 wrote: post #158
NullPrefix wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And cars used to be safe even without seatbelts! Me and a lot of people wear them purely out of fear of being robbed by the state

I met a guy who didn't wear his seatbelt. He was a delivery driver and in a collision at 20mph. His head went through the windscreen and it scalped him from the eyes up. He had a scar all the way across from ear to ear. He couldn't shut his eyes for months. He wears his seatbelt now.

So? Obesity is a way worse toll on the human body than a scarred face, but we don't issue fines for people who enter McD's

Other people have their own bodies and they do not belong to you

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#222

Post by 77ko »

Narkov wrote: post #198

> Fitbit Ace LTE has been tested with hundreds of families and is designed to get 16+ hours of use from a full battery. Fail. Adults struggle to recharge their devices every day and my kids certainly won't remember to. Garmin Kids watches, while drastically different in functionality and connectivity, last 12 months before a battery replacement is needed and are wildly more suitable for young kids.

Garmin Bounce[0] for kids, which is the watch which directly competes with this, has a 12-24hr battery life on LTE, although Garmin claims 2day battery.

[0]: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2023/01/garmin-bounce-activity-t...

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#223

Post by tqi »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #106

Ugh, I threw up a little in my mouth just from the headline. This constant tracking of kids is unnecessary and dangerous. Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. And yes, I totally admit, some kids (very few actually depending on the locale) didn't survive. But we've traded this false sense of "safety" for kids that are so risk averse it is seriously negatively…

"This constant tracking of kids is unnecessary and dangerous"

What are the dangers?

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#224

Post by Aeolun »

mateus1 wrote: post #172
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #106

Ugh, I threw up a little in my mouth just from the headline. This constant tracking of kids is unnecessary and dangerous. Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. And yes, I totally admit, some kids (very few actually depending on the locale) didn't survive. But we've traded this false sense of "safety" for kids that are so risk averse it is seriously negatively…

I don’t buy that tracking kids is necessary or increases their safety. This seems to be an American phenomenon.

I guess you have to feel safe in your own neighborhood to not feel like you need to do this.

Can totally see how that doesn’t work very well in the US.

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#225

Post by canadianfella »

thinkingkong wrote: post #209
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #106

Ugh, I threw up a little in my mouth just from the headline. This constant tracking of kids is unnecessary and dangerous. Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. And yes, I totally admit, some kids (very few actually depending on the locale) didn't survive. But we've traded this false sense of "safety" for kids that are so risk averse it is seriously negatively…

Its weird the types of sacrifices we expect kids to make with regards to survival. Like when a school shooting happens we wouldnt event consider banning assault rifles. Those kids dont survive. But if having a tracker on your kid marginally increases their chance for survival in the rarest of circumstances it’s totally out of the question to not have it.

[dead]

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#226

Post by blibble »

philomath_mn wrote: post #65
tamimio wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your kids won’t appreciate it once they grow up and they found out later that their whole childhood been recorded and being used to train AI or even worse, a data breach, since they didn’t have the choice to opt in or out.

I don't think many kids will be bothered that their data was aggregated with thousands of other kids to set the weights in some model in the cloud.

it won't be aggregated though will it

it'll be used against them, personally

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#227

Post by faeriechangling »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #106

Ugh, I threw up a little in my mouth just from the headline. This constant tracking of kids is unnecessary and dangerous. Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. And yes, I totally admit, some kids (very few actually depending on the locale) didn't survive. But we've traded this false sense of "safety" for kids that are so risk averse it is seriously negatively…

I was about 3 years ahead of my peers in spatial reasoning and behind them socially. When I was a kid leaving me alone meant I was likely to wander long distances end up in a pool and drown.

If anything I see this as enabling parents to keep their kids on a longer leash so to speak.

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#228

Post by faeriechangling »

nicoburns wrote: post #175
nytesky wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In principle I agree we don’t need to track our kids. But when I was I a free range kid in the 80s, there were pay phones at every corner, I carried coins and a calling card so could reach my parents. Now they have to interact with an adult somewhere to use their personal phone. And the adult has to trust this isn’t a ruffian looking to swipe his phone for kicks. But a cell capable watch for $200 is pretty compelling…

Why not give them a cell phone but not install tracking software on it?

It’s not strapped to their wrist so it’s easier to lose for starters.

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#229

Post by grecy »

enragedcacti wrote: post #123
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #106

Ugh, I threw up a little in my mouth just from the headline. This constant tracking of kids is unnecessary and dangerous. Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. And yes, I totally admit, some kids (very few actually depending on the locale) didn't survive. But we've traded this false sense of "safety" for kids that are so risk averse it is seriously negatively…

For better or for worse the ship has definitely sailed on the laissez-faire "be home before sunset" parenting of past generations. Assuming that, its probably a net positive if a product like this can give a parent who would otherwise be full helicopter enough assurance to let their kid have more freedom and independence. Especially if its in lieu of a smartphone.

> For better or for worse the ship has definitely sailed on the laissez-faire "be home before sunset" parenting of past generations

Not true at all. Depending on where you live it is very much alive and well.

Re: Google releases smart watch for kids

#230

Post by eks391 »

thinkingkong wrote: post #209
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #106

Ugh, I threw up a little in my mouth just from the headline. This constant tracking of kids is unnecessary and dangerous. Generations of kids survived without their parents needing to know their location at all times. And yes, I totally admit, some kids (very few actually depending on the locale) didn't survive. But we've traded this false sense of "safety" for kids that are so risk averse it is seriously negatively…

Its weird the types of sacrifices we expect kids to make with regards to survival. Like when a school shooting happens we wouldnt event consider banning assault rifles. Those kids dont survive. But if having a tracker on your kid marginally increases their chance for survival in the rarest of circumstances it’s totally out of the question to not have it.

Do you know what an 'assault' rifle is? I only heard that term used by people who want them banned, who usually think this means automatic weapons, like the other commonly misused term machine gun.

The correct term that 'assault' has become an umbrella for is semi-automatic. That means 1 bullet shot for every 1 time the trigger is pulled. There are technically other guns, like pump-action, that require literal pumping of bullets into the chamber between each shot, or even powder guns which are extremely dangerous due to their inaccuracy and jamming (read jamming as: higher probability to explode during use)

'Assault' is used to try to demonify 'bad' guns but really at that point you might as well ban all guns, because the few remaining are useless.

Just be anti-gun instead of anti 'assault' rifle so you aren't pretending to support 'good' guns

Post reply on HN