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

381–390 of 404 posts

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

#381

Post by acdha »

dragonwriter wrote: post #310
stevage wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoa I had not heard this. I'm really surprised that holds up legally.

D.C. legalized recreational marijuana under local law by initiative, including, explicitly, gifting, but as I understand it requires a license to sell it, and the licensing system hasn't been set up. The buy something else and get gifted weed is a workaround for that, but it probably only works because the District government itself sees the problem as being its delays in getting the regulatory and licensing set up,…

DC legalized in 2014, but the house republicans have added language preventing the DC government from spending any money implementing a licensing program for the last decade:

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/210566-house-gop-blocks-d...

I don’t use it so this isn’t directly relevant to me but I’d been looking forward to some Colorado-style boosts of tax revenue other than my property taxes.

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

#382

Post by adr1an »

graemep wrote: post #101
GuB-42 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that science museums being places for kids is a good thing. The are the ones who benefit the most. If you want science for grownups, you have conferences. Also, that it is for kids doesn't make it impossible to enjoy as an adult, especially if it is about things you are unfamiliar with. Now, if you go to a science museum and think "only a kid can enjoy that". Then the problem is not that it is a place for kid…

> If you want science for grownups, you have conferences. Adults outside a field do not go to conferences. > As for art museums, the problem is that they are usually just exhibitions, and to be honest, that's boring, especially if you are a kid. Some kids are interested in art. It can be well presented. You can have guided tours aimed at kids.

The greatest Science museums leverage interactivity. Art museums do up always 'up to some extent'. Kids should be able to paint anything (moustache?) over Mona Lisa.

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

#383

Post by PatchworkCasino »

My favorite museum experience ever was at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry in the early 00's where they had this whole room that was just wood blocks, a little plastic tub running like a creek, a few little water-directing mechanisms and a couple water guns. No goal, I dont think it was even teaching anything, it was just me and 8 other kids. When I first got there some kid was telling everybody how to use everything and what little project he was working on and how they could help, basically like a little foreman. I helped and had fun with everybody for maybe 15 minutes until he had to leave and by then I had been there longest and just naturally ended up taking over as "foreman" until it was my turn to go and I told another kid everything that was left to do. It's a very important dynamic you experience a lot in life, and that exhibit taught me it naturally in half an hour. It's such a shame to see how many of these learning museums are now basically having these kids just walk from point to point and read and maybe play something that would have been bad as a flash game. The Seattle one (forget the name) I went to last year had a decent number of physical exhibits (which I still enjoyed as an adult) but none of them had any social element. Ironically, the screen games were all very poorly maintained.

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

#384

Post by aleph_minus_one »

jansper39 wrote: post #335
ghaff wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a tangent, I find it a bit annoying that so many UK museums advertise free pretty aggressively and then provide such "very strong encouragement" as you put it to attend. Mind you, there's less direct pressure than there is in some places. The Met in NYC used to have an optional but not really optional policy for museum admission as you got your pin though it now not optional at all for non-NYC residents.

I find that less annoying than what some museums around Europe charge to let you through the door.

> I find that less annoying than what some museums around Europe charge to let you through the door.

I really don't get what you find wrong about this.

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

#385

Post by aleph_minus_one »

stevage wrote: post #247
watwut wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely, there is no special backstory and the painting was simply commissioned. And most likely, there no super special composition in that portrait and the style is exactly the same as the style of surrounding paintings. Most paintings dont have a cool backstories. They are just paintings. Art student can see technical details of how they were done, but those are not really interesting if you are not trying to…

But even that basic context is useful and interesting: "in this era it was common for wealthy people to commission portraits." Etc

> But even that basic context is useful and interesting: "in this era it was common for wealthy people to commission portraits."

This is basic knowledge.

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

#386

Post by mptest »

acdha wrote: post #381
dragonwriter wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

D.C. legalized recreational marijuana under local law by initiative, including, explicitly, gifting, but as I understand it requires a license to sell it, and the licensing system hasn't been set up. The buy something else and get gifted weed is a workaround for that, but it probably only works because the District government itself sees the problem as being its delays in getting the regulatory and licensing set up,…

DC legalized in 2014, but the house republicans have added language preventing the DC government from spending any money implementing a licensing program for the last decade: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/210566-house-gop-blocks-d... I don’t use it so this isn’t directly relevant to me but I’d been looking forward to some Colorado-style boosts of tax revenue other than my property taxes.

Pull almost* any thread, when the question is "why haven't we made more progress", and you'll find the same answer

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

#387

Post by mptest »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #366
liveoneggs wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

teachers love them

Really? At best, it's a mixed bag.

The real answer is the same reason younger generations grew up learning how to use excel and word and windows, a rich company found yet another way to acclimate users to their ecosystem and bypass all those pesky regulations around tech and kids[1]. They give out dirt cheap tech to schools to get buy in, they get data, users, (mostly for life, how many non stem people do you all know who explore things like the software landscape?), in short, like everything else, money is the answer. they get marketshare. Schools get to boast about their modernity. only ones losing are us 99%'rs.

[1] https://youtu.be/N3zU7sV4bJE

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

#388

Post by moi2388 »

bee_rider wrote: post #368
moi2388 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I absolutely love that you referenced that game. What a wonderful experience that was as a kid

Was that the one where you could blow up almost every wall (or at least the main type of terrain, which seemed to be some sort of dirt or rock). No idea if the game was actually fun to play “competitively.” But as a tech demo it rocked.

It was. The campaign was good fun

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

#389

Post by fivestones »

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.

As a parent of more than a few kids of my own, I can say from my experience that even if you raise them all the same, some kids will understand and behave exactly the way I would hope—full of wonder and reverence—and others will act the goat, over and over. Some kids are different than others. Even in the same family. I can only imagine how much the difference might be from one family to another—even if all the parents make sure they have been told and understand why they are at those museums or libraries.

Also, I’ve been using the em-dash since the late 90s.

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

#390

Post by skirmish »

dml2135 wrote: post #347
skirmish wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recent experience: called a HVAC contractor to fix a heating furnace, they spent 1 hour convincing us to scrap the current furnace and install a new one; once we told him "no" at least 10 times, he spent 30 minutes "diagnosing" the problem while on the phone with somebody with technical knowledge; then he quoted $250 to replace a part that I could buy on Ebay for $15. Finally, I bought the part and replaced it myself…

I understand being annoyed at a sales pitch, but this sounds like about 3-4 hours of work for the contractor, which comes out to about $80/hour. That doesn’t sound so unreasonable to me.

Sorry, I skipped some details. They had a pre-agreed $180 "diagnostics fee", which we paid, then they tried to charge $250 on top of that for the part. The contractor had no technical knowledge and kept video-conferencing the office for help. He had lots of sales training, though.
Post reply on HN