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

391–400 of 404 posts

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

#391

Post by mikestorrent »

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.

Thanks, that's a very succinct way of putting my original idea.

It was well put in (one of the) the ending(s) of Evangelion, where the protagonist Shinji learns that gravity, a constraint that removes a degree of freedom, also gives him freedom by providing a surface upon which he can walk; without the constraint, he would actually be less free.

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

#392

Post by mikestorrent »

jack_h wrote: post #376
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.

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,…

I have also lost a friend to heroin (well, probably fent... it was the early days of that, and we suspect that nobody knew how to dose properly...) and so I appreciate your tangent.

One of the things we've learned up here in Canada over the last couple decades is the need to understand that some people just cannot be sober. They will not be, and they will do anything to not be, ranging from the familiar drugs to whatever they can find (gasoline, inhalants, etc). Obviously, there are worse and better choices in this range of options, and there are more and less self destructive outcomes. Harm reduction has become a key strategy; what can we do that will help keep these people from hurting themselves and others?

We've achieved some manner of success helping prevent people from OD'ing, getting needle-transmitted drugs, etc. which helps them and helps all of us at large (in the most utilitarian sense, it keeps social healthcare costs lower). What we've failed at is preventing them from hurting others, unfortunately.

In the long run, I think that what we're going to need is better drugs. We have to find something that makes people feel as good as they need to feel, without all the massively negative side effects of heroin, meth, etc. that result in wrecked lives. Healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry should seriously be looking at it this way; not just working on antidepressants and other clinical meds that are trying to get people to a stable "normal", but drugs that actually make you feel good so that they can displace heroin / fentanyl, without the downsides.

Yes, we would still see people addicted to that....

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

#393

Post by mikestorrent »

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…

> It is not at all proven that a free market will naturally devolve into a monopoly.

I think it comes down to the category of item being offered in the market. Some things naturally lend themselves to monopolies; it feels like perhaps it's based on factors like the difficulty of entering the market with a new product at all, the amount of coordination and manpower required to field it, and the cost efficiencies of having a singular producer vs. many.

There are certainly cases where we see duopolies or triopolies etc. where one really-well-run company might be more efficient, from a labour standpoint; but then, in turn, we all benefit from having a redundant array of supply chains.

There are other cases where we absolutely want a monopoly, such as with policing, or (in many countries) with healthcare, because they apply to everyone and being a consumer of the service is not exactly optional.

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

#394

Post by mikestorrent »

dml2135 wrote: post #378
jack_h wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> a market that is controlled by a monopoly is not a free market.

In other words, the thing you are talking about _does not exist_ except in libertarian fantasies. Without a government (the monopoly on force in a region, that controls the markets within) providing the backbone for this - i.e. with features such as courts, police, mint - there is no freedom, because an aggrieved party has no recourse other than violence.

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

#395

Post by Timwi »

kleiba wrote: post #312
accrual wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there would be a market for schools or daycares offering "pre-digital" style classrooms with emphasis on books, blocks, puzzles, art, outdoor time, and policies to limit phones/screens. On the other hand, these kids will eventually end up in a world saturated with displays and maybe even AR, so there's some argument for getting them involved with digital stuff at some point.

> so there's some argument for getting them involved with digital stuff at some point And that's how the argument usually goes, but I don't buy it: every one of us who attended schools without devices learned to pick up that skill some other way. And usually without any problems. In my opinion, the trade-off swings hard into the wrong direction: there's much more downsides to using devices in the classroom than upsid…

> every one of us who attended schools without devices learned to pick up that skill some other way.

Everyone? You sure? That has not been my experience at all. (It's also a very bold statement on your part to be speaking for a whole generation of people.)

My experience is that people who are not absolutely raving mad about tech do not, in fact, pick up computer skills on their own. My parents have been struggling with technology their whole lives (even basic things like writing in Word, keeping an email address book or bookmarking websites). I picked up these things as a child but I was also interested in programming and networking and more complex tech things, and it was blindingly obvious to me that this is rare because there was maybe one, at most two other kids like that in my school. Nobody else in class had the faintest conception of what programming is really like.

Even today, while talking to people online as well as offline, I am constantly reminded of this. People do not pick up tech skills, period. That includes people in intellectual fields (math teachers, puzzle enthusiasts, what have you), so it's not a matter of intelligence.

Now, I want to make clear that I'm not saying people need tech skills, or that tech skills should be taught in schools, or that a lack of tech skills is somehow an indication of some sort of lack or decline. I'm actually of the opposite view: I think most things taught to children in schools are useless in later life and I think we are squandering children's talents, curiosity and creativity by trying to force, coerce and mold them. As such, I agree with the sentiment that sitting every child in front of a screen for hours every day is detrimental. I just wanted to clear up this vast misunderstanding that just because you picked up certain skills without being taught, everyone would. It does not work that way. You picked it up because you were interested and passionate about the subject. Not everyone is.

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

#398

Post by jldugger »

xg15 wrote: post #214
kleiba wrote: post #94

There is an incredible pressure on a lot of public facing endeavors to include digital , no matter whether it makes any sense at all or not. Take education, for instance - if it weren't such an important topic, it would be almost comical to observe how our schools are trying to jump through hoops to cram more IT into the classroom. (I wish the people responsible would take a look at Scandinavia though, where they are…

> the year 7 comp sci classes they teach in our local high school have what on their curriculum? Yep, that's right, you guessed it: AI. Because that's apparently the absolute basic CS that every student should start with these days. I think, if you went back to the origin of the term "AI" and tried to teach an introduction to the very fundamentals, this could actually be a fun and inspiring class - one that might not…

Well, the first paper on AI was published in 1943[1], but unfortunately requires some knowledge of brain science that was ultimately incorrect to understand, and includes some mathematical notation that is relatively obscure for high school.

And this, Turing, and Shannon predate the Macy conferences / Ratio Club by a few years, so I'm not sure I'd call cybernetics a predecessor so much as a defunct offshoot. Though where math stops and CS starts varies depending on the scholar you talk to.

[1]: https://jontalle.web.engr.illinois.edu/uploads/410-NS.F22/Mc...

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

#399

Post by jldugger »

fxtentacle wrote: post #311
moi2388 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing funnier than tricking teens into liking math

Show them Red Faction (the video game) and then explain that all the destruction is calculated using binary space partitioning and that all they need for making similar games is to accurately calculate the intersection of planes, lines and points. Add a few linear forces and numerical integration and there you have your Trojan horse for getting kids hooked.

> Show them Red Faction (the video game)

Modern example: Donkey Kong Bananza[1]

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIddsPkdX9U

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

#400

Post by fxtentacle »

jldugger wrote: post #399
fxtentacle wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show them Red Faction (the video game) and then explain that all the destruction is calculated using binary space partitioning and that all they need for making similar games is to accurately calculate the intersection of planes, lines and points. Add a few linear forces and numerical integration and there you have your Trojan horse for getting kids hooked.

> Show them Red Faction (the video game) Modern example: Donkey Kong Bananza[1] [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIddsPkdX9U

I'm 100% sure that they never intended this for my age group ... but that trailer looks like it'll be so much fun.

Thank you for sharing :)

Post reply on HN