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

I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

sethpurcell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 404 posts

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#371

Post by headcanon »

kccqzy wrote: post #108
headcanon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Largely agreed, with one exception. If you're ever in Boston/Cambridge MA, check out the MIT museum. I've always told people that its a science museum but for adults. The Harvard museums are worth visiting as well, but the MIT museum really impressed me with their content.

The MIT museum isn't very good. It is a science museum for adults, but it is too passive an experience for the patron. I recommend the Exploratorium in San Francisco instead as the science museum for adults.

I'll keep that in mind next time I'm in SF, thanks for the recommendation!

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#372

Post by paradox460 »

kotaKat wrote: post #117
crazygringo wrote: post #5

> But these physical exhibits require maintenance, and I was dismayed to see that several are in bad repair; some of them weren’t even working anymore, some seemed worn out, or didn’t seem well-designed to begin with. To be fair, that's what I remember children's museums being like in the 1980s as well. A significant number of exhibits would be temporarily out of order on any given day. I don't think screens are resp…

> I don't think screens are responsible for that. Maintaining physical exhibits that can survive constant physical contact with kids is hard. That reminds me of something I’d love to learn a bit more about: the Strong Museum of Play . It appears the Wegmans’ supermarket exhibit where kids are able to work with real point-of-sale equipment has actually gotten equipment refreshes over the years itself, and I was really…

I'd honestly love if there was a procession of PoS systems, so you can view and compare the history

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#373

Post by anl00000007 »

GJim wrote: post #332
loco5niner wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a parent with one of those kids, you never know which mode they will start off with, even with the right prompting. And yes, you correct them and steer them in the right direction and hope they will eventually learn how to behave.

[flagged]

One can question. It's a difficult reality sometimes though. Children have minds and bodies of their own. They mature at different rates.

Outside of taking care of a child's physiological needs, their parents are providing a small proportion of the inputs which go into a child's system of being. Peers, teachers, elder family, media, the economic system [and it's insatiable desire for consumers and tools to leverage the consumers], all conspire to forward agenda that often don't align with and support being a good citizen.

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#374

Post by GJim »

anl00000007 wrote: post #373
GJim wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

One can question. It's a difficult reality sometimes though. Children have minds and bodies of their own. They mature at different rates. Outside of taking care of a child's physiological needs, their parents are providing a small proportion of the inputs which go into a child's system of being. Peers, teachers, elder family, media, the economic system [and it's insatiable desire for consumers and tools to leverage t…

One teaches children to enter a museum or library with wonderment and a wish to learn, yet with a degree of reverence; it isn't a playground.

If your children act the goat, not only are they disturbing others, they clearly have not be told, nor understand, why they are there.

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#375

Post by jack_h »

dml2135 wrote: post #345
jack_h wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A free market actually requires a lot of surrounding regulation to work While I am not a free market absolutist, I think your assertion is based on judging negative outcomes of a free market vs the positive intentions of regulations trying to prevent those negative outcomes, i.e. you’re not considering the negative outcomes of regulations. I don’t think any free market advocate would state categorically that they p…

I think you missed the parent comment’s point. They are not saying that a free market had it’s downsides, but rather that a lassaiz-faire approach often does not even result in a free market, but rather in a market that tends towards monopolization. And a market without competition is not free. In order to have free, competitive markets, you need to have a referee to enforce a common set of rules, like antitrust.

I didn’t miss their point, I challenged the foundation upon which it rested.

You are asserting that a free market is unstable and will inevitably lead to a monopoly. Even if I take this as a fact for the sake of argument, it doesn’t nullify my point that judging the intention of political action (antitrust laws to prevent monopolies) against the outcomes of a system (free markets devolve into monopolies) is comparing apples to oranges. You must judge the outcomes of both systems. As I stated in my original reply, regulations can actually lead to monopolies, so the outcomes matter a lot more than their good intentions.

If I don’t take your assertion as a fact though[1], then what you’re doing is judging what you believe to be the outcome of a free market with what you believe will prevent that through legislation. This is entirely too theoretical and doesn’t even begin to answer which is a better system. Ultimately we need to understand the actual trade-offs that are being made between these systems in order to select the system with the most desirable characteristics.

[1] It is not at all proven that a free market will naturally devolve into a monopoly. This has been a contentious debate in economics for centuries and is absolutely not resolved. People tend to assume a static market and extrapolate into the infinite future, e.g. if a horse drawn carriage manufacturer has 99% market share then will it forever be a monopoly in a broken system or will a fledgling automotive industry dethrone this “monopoly” with a better alternative that is not even a direct competitor? This is a really, really deep subject in either case.

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#376

Post by jack_h »

dml2135 wrote: post #345
jack_h wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A free market actually requires a lot of surrounding regulation to work While I am not a free market absolutist, I think your assertion is based on judging negative outcomes of a free market vs the positive intentions of regulations trying to prevent those negative outcomes, i.e. you’re not considering the negative outcomes of regulations. I don’t think any free market advocate would state categorically that they p…

I think you missed the parent comment’s point. They are not saying that a free market had it’s downsides, but rather that a lassaiz-faire approach often does not even result in a free market, but rather in a market that tends towards monopolization. And a market without competition is not free. In order to have free, competitive markets, you need to have a referee to enforce a common set of rules, like antitrust.

Sorry for the double reply but I think a concrete example might elucidate what I am discussing.

I have had to deal with close friends being addicted to heroin. I believe the free market is harmful when it comes to hard drugs because of my experiences. I am all for the complete ban of these hard drugs. However, that does not mean no one will OD on heroin even though it is banned. Such a law will create a black market, crime due to its illicit nature, incentivize horrific cartels to smuggle it into the country, and cost a lot of tax money to enforce. These are all negative outcomes from legislation whose goal is to prevent people from having access to heroin. I think this trade-off is worth it personally although some would disagree. The point is I’m not comparing the negative outcomes of hard drug use to the intentions of “fixing” it through legislation. Rather I am comparing outcomes to outcomes because there are some serious downsides to such a policy solution.

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#377

Post by wojciii »

proprietario wrote: post #356
wojciii wrote: post #331

I try to limit my kids exposure to electronic devices while they are small. I can't avoid it, but I try. I consider blacklisting YouTube at our house. The withdrawal symptoms look like people having tried drugs. This is scary. I noticed that playing with phones for shorter amounts of time is ok and the kids get creative as soon as they don't have access to electronic entertainment. Currently I play chess with them an…

>I'm sounding like a lunatic lol that was basically my childhood and I am grateful for that, keep on doing it!

I'm in my 40'ies. I grew up without computers initially and had a c64/amiga to play games on.

I made a laptop for my kids which blocks all social media and only allows educational software. I think that the brain-dead entertainment loop is the problem. It takes no effort to learn something.

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#378

Post by dml2135 »

jack_h wrote: post #375
dml2135 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed the parent comment’s point. They are not saying that a free market had it’s downsides, but rather that a lassaiz-faire approach often does not even result in a free market, but rather in a market that tends towards monopolization. And a market without competition is not free. In order to have free, competitive markets, you need to have a referee to enforce a common set of rules, like antitrust.

I didn’t miss their point, I challenged the foundation upon which it rested. You are asserting that a free market is unstable and will inevitably lead to a monopoly. Even if I take this as a fact for the sake of argument, it doesn’t nullify my point that judging the intention of political action (antitrust laws to prevent monopolies) against the outcomes of a system (free markets devolve into monopolies) is comparing…

> You are asserting that a free market is unstable and will inevitably lead to a monopoly.

No, I am not asserting that.

I think the first thing to clear up is our definitions. My main point would be that a market that is controlled by a monopoly is not a free market. I would define a free market not as a market that is free from government interference, but a market in which all of the actors are free to participate on a fair competitive playing field.

I think that lassaiz-faire, with the meaning of "hands off" may be a more precise way to describe what you are saying when you say "free market".

I think that a fair competitive landscape is ultimately what we want out of markets. I agree that it is bad when government actions interfere with a fair competitive landscape. But it is not inevitable that all goverment actions will do that, and in many cases government action can help rather than hurt. And similarly, plenty of actions by non-government actors can interfere with a fair competitive landscape as well.

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#379

Post by loco5niner »

GJim wrote: post #332
loco5niner wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a parent with one of those kids, you never know which mode they will start off with, even with the right prompting. And yes, you correct them and steer them in the right direction and hope they will eventually learn how to behave.

[flagged]

Ha! Yep, I question my parenting every day. Every kid is different, so yes, this is one of many norms. Before I had kids I believed as you do, but believe you me, every kid is different even inside the womb.

Re: I didn't bring my son to a museum to look at screens

#380

Post by loco5niner »

GJim wrote: post #374
anl00000007 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can question. It's a difficult reality sometimes though. Children have minds and bodies of their own. They mature at different rates. Outside of taking care of a child's physiological needs, their parents are providing a small proportion of the inputs which go into a child's system of being. Peers, teachers, elder family, media, the economic system [and it's insatiable desire for consumers and tools to leverage t…

One teaches children to enter a museum or library with wonderment and a wish to learn, yet with a degree of reverence; it isn't a playground. If your children act the goat, not only are they disturbing others, they clearly have not be told, nor understand, why they are there.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. Being told, understanding, and choosing to behave well are not perfectly correlated. They will choose their actions for themselves. Of course you don't allow them to continue acting that way and over the course of time try to raise responsible adults.
Post reply on HN