I will grant that using this on someone else without their knowledge is more questionable
If you set that alarm, you know why and what for you are conditioning yourself, and that is even true if you know how and why someone else set it; but when it's just a faceless event that you learn to adapt to, possibly while even having a narrative about it that has nothing to do with reality, that's not just slightly different or worse, for me that's worlds apart.
Since it's all just anecdotal anyway, I also like to think back to teachers and other adults. As a general rule, those who treated me "as an equal" (not an actual equal, but without condescension or trickery that wasn't for the purpose of humour or pain/fright relief), I loved to learn from, did never mind to be corrected by. The rest? I found holes in their facade and had at them. Nature abhors a vacuum, and strong children abhor fake authority. Weak parents think disrespect is the problem, when often enough it's their own weakness. Children aren't "programmed" by nature to be a pain in the ass, far from it. They are "programmed" to learn, to be curious, and to love even. It actually takes quite a bit of fuckery to destroy that, but our society is good at it. And then those kids become parents and perpetuate it.
And frankly, most of the criticism has nothing to do with parenting but with intellectual honesty and how much you yourself understand about the world. If you teach your kid 2+2=5, I will be sure that is wrong, and "but you don't have kids" is a hilarious rebuttal.
Until you talk to a few parents and they say, "2+2=5? Yeah, we tried that. It worked pretty well up until 6 or 7 when we were able to have a real conversation about addition. Why do you think that's wrong?"
Then you might realize that, yes, not knowing anything about parenting actually does mean you have no basis to evaluate parenting decisions.
Until you talk to a few parents and they say, "2+2=5? Yeah, we tried that. It worked pretty well up until 6 or 7 when we were able to have a real conversation about addition. Why do you think that's wrong?"
I would ask what did they mean by "working"? If the kid doesn't understand addition anyway, and asks what is 2+2, why not tell them 4? What would be the rationale to say it's 5, what is "working" here? It answered the question, but so would the correct answer.
Then you might realize that, yes, not knowing anything about parenting actually does mean you have no basis to evaluate parenting decisions.
If that parenting knowledge gives people expert insight, why don't they share it? Why hide behind "only parents would understand" (even ignoring that some parents disagree with them)? Why not refute the so obviously wrong armchair amateur advice with the correct facts? I see lots of talk, where is the money?
not knowing anything about parenting actually does mean you have no basis to evaluate parenting decisions.
It's cute, but sadly I saw what you did there: What or who, other than asexually reproducing life forms, or maybe those that lay eggs, does not know anything about parenting?
Let me take a step back here and lay this out in a more reductionist way.
There is an scientific approach to parenting. We can take a testable metric like body weight, and apply rigorous analysis of contributing factors, like eating habits and exercise, and arrive at a more-or-less objective conclusion like, "Feeding kids lots of sugar will make them fat." That's not a conclusion that's amenable to subjective analysis, and non-parents are as capable of drawing them as parents are (and in fact, non-parents may be better, because...)
There is also an intuitive approach to parenting, which is how most parenting decisions actually get made, because once you get the little details of keeping your kid alive and healthy taken care of, you start running into abstract problems like, "I want my child to have a happy and fulfilled life," for which really actionable scientific evidence is thin on the ground. Parents develop this intuition over the course of years of near-constant exposure to their children, where every single little thing they do has some consequence which they have nowhere near enough time or energy to seriously consider. It's the sort of problem our brains are made to solve, and generally it works out okay.
Consider that if you aren't a parent or full-time-plus childcare professional, you have something like one one thousandth that level of interaction with children, and much less in a custodial role. So let's swap out some nouns and see if this makes sense to you:
There's a question about a programming language. In the discussion are a layman, who has never used the language, and an amateur, with fifty thousand hours of subject matter experience. Somewhere are educated people studying the language rationally, but they are not here.
The amateur says, "Look, I know you have your own opinion and all, but I don't think you're really even qualified to discuss this if you haven't done any programming before."
The layman says, "Why not? This stuff is just common sense."
The amateur replies, "I understand it looks like common sense to you, but, in the nicest way possible, you just don't know anything about this."
The layman protests, "Of course I know about it! I use computers almost every day, and so does everyone here."
The amateur is frustrated. "That's... not really the same thing as programming at all."
The layman feels challenged. "Okay, if you're the big expert here, why don't you just share some of this so-called expertise with the rest of us?"
The amateur is perplexed. "...that's what I'm doing."
This discussion will never arrive at a productive result. There is just no path from here to there.
Funnily you ignore that everybody who was a kid usually has about 10 years of all sorts of adults trying all sorts of things on them. And some of them were bright, separated the wheat from the chaff right then and there, and do remember. Sure, if you know that AND parenting, I'd like to hear your advice. But if you don't have the faintest clue what that even means, you could raise 10 kids and I would not be impressed.
Look, I know you have your own opinion and all, but I don't think you're really even qualified to discuss this if you haven't done any programming before.
Yeah, but if the programmer actually does have the experience, he CAN prove it, albeit in language the layman may not understand or follow. I don't see this happening here in this particular case. And therefore...
The layman feels challenged. "Okay, if you're the big expert here, why don't you just share some of this so-called expertise with the rest of us?"
The amateur is perplexed. "...that's what I'm doing."
This discussion will never arrive at a productive result.
Where are you guys doing that, sharing the expert knowledge? You skip INSTANTLY to "only parents would understand", AND you ignore the facts that some parents disagree, which is rendering your entire argument zilch -- that isn't hard to get, I already mentioned that and am now repeating; will you repeat with an even bigger wall of text every time I point out that flaw? Are you treating me like a kid, perhaps? No need to explain, just keep using big words and bloat it up? Pah.
The fact that your intuition is deceiving you is expert knowledge. The lesson, as has been reiterated by parents several times in these comments, is: Parenting decisions in the real world are hard, complex, and individual. It's treacherous enough for one parent to judge another's decision; if you are not a parent, stop now.
Maybe I should make it explicit that I'm not a parent; I've just heard enough experts say that to believe it. I am flattered you think I talk like a grown up, though.
So you're not a parent, but say the following... that's hilarious and not worth further comment. But here's the reply I would have made to a parent, anyway.
The fact that your intuition is deceiving you is expert knowledge.
Nah, it's gotta have slightly more substance than that; no matter how often you repeat it. Just literally telling me to shut up won't cut it either.
Riddle me this, how is it not possible to tell your kid you want them to be not yell so loud when playing computer games impossible, and in what situation is it preferably to deceive them? If they actually respect their toys more than their parents, that's clearly a FUBAR situation.
You might say you don't know, because you are not familiar with the details. Well then, what of the stuff you do have experience with would lead you to say "hands off, it's 'their' children"? I mean, by this logic you also give carte blanche to any and all abuse, too: after all, nobody should judge what people do with 'their' children. I say bollocks to that, and am still waiting for a single argument that actually applies to this situation, instead of just hiding behind generalities, strawmen and logical fallacies.
Riddle me this, how is it not possible to tell your kid you want them to be not yell so loud when playing computer games impossible
Oh, it's possible. Nobody claimed it's impossible. The question is, what do you do when (not if, when) it doesn't work? And by "doesn't work", I mean that they stop yelling for 30-90 seconds and then they start again.
and in what situation is it preferably to deceive them?
What people have been telling you over and over is that these decisions aren't as clear cut as
if A and B and C then deception.preferable = true
What's going to work best depends on a lot of factors: age and psychological makeup of the kids, environment they live in, etc.
If they actually respect their toys more than their parents, that's clearly a FUBAR situation.
That statement reveals a profound lack of understanding of the subject matter, which is why so many people are criticizing you.
I say bollocks to that, and am still waiting for a single argument that actually applies to this situation, instead of just hiding behind generalities, strawmen and logical fallacies.
Which just goes to show you haven't actually bothered to look for those arguments. If you had, you would have found an explanation I offered, based on my experiences with my son, on observing other kids and on talking to other parents and educators: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5155974
Feel free to disagree with the explanation, but please stop throwing hissy fits because people called you out on your lack of credibility.
Which just goes to show you haven't actually bothered to look for those arguments.
No, it means I got a LOT of replies goin on and on about strawmen. I consider those replies to my posts, imagine that.
please stop throwing hissy fits because people called you out on your lack of credibility.
Well, I appreciate the irony and the projection. Mocking non-sequitur arguments repeating what they missed isn't throwing a hissy fit just because I'm not going out of my way to read the whole thread over and over, and your argument boils down to "believing in Santa doesn't hurt anyone either". Well, that still makes it an undesirable, unnecessary, mediocre thing at best. And I don't buy the whole "kids at 4 are super egotistical" either, some are rather protective of their baby sibling for example, so they clearly know what being disturbed is. Actually, I remember one thing my father told my when I was a kid, that you can't lie to babies, they always notice... I took that literally, and told my baby brother I'd go to the toilet, thinking "I will go to the kitchen instead". When I left the room and he failed to cry, I was disappointed, I was already planning on using him as lie detector. You see, the fact that you shrug off the myth of Santa, the uttering of which would have been like crapping on the carpet for my family, just tells me we experienced and live in different worlds. And I couldn't care less about the additional credibility which the "parent" flag would give me, it's just not relevant; if I have kids they might turn out to be completely different persons who I was. But instead of speculating about a kid who is not me, even if it's "mine", I actually do remember. As you say so ironically, "Feel free to disagree", feel free to claim I remember wrong or whatever; but don't throw hissy fits just because your kids don't notice that shit.
Don't deceive them, let them be kids, yadda yadda are almost funny to read. Like you said, walk a mile in the parents' shoes.
Or, have had the luxury of having great parents who never bothered playing such mind games with you. Of course, since such gifted parents are rare, it's easy to simply dismiss such a high standard. But once you go non-bullshit, it's just hard to go back.
>Or, have had the luxury of having great parents who never bothered playing such mind games with you. Of course, since such gifted parents are rare, it's easy to simply dismiss such a high standard. But once you go non-bullshit, it's just hard to go back.
It's interesting that you're responding from the perspective of a child to a statement from the perspective of a parent.
It's interesting that you're responding from the perspective of a child to a statement from the perspective of a parent.
Yeah, it's almost as if it's a relationship between two humans, instead of a one-way input pipe.
Do you have children?
What makes you ask? That I respect kids more than quite a bunch of folks who are actually raising some? Or is that just an attempt to dismiss what I said without addressing it? That shit is getting real old.
I don't know why @incision asked, so I can't speak for him or her. However, I know why I would ask you the same question: I would be curious whether you were simply speaking out of profound ignorance and entitlement or whether there was actually any credibility to back up your stance.
That I respect kids more than quite a bunch of folks who are actually raising some?
This has nothing to do with respect and a lot to do with hard-earned experience, which you don't have. And I say hard-earned because there's no decent parent out there that doesn't regret a whole lot of mistakes they made while they were bringing up their kids. Your attitude of moral superiority is not only undeserved, but it's also quite insulting.
Or is that just an attempt to dismiss what I said without addressing it? That shit is getting real old.
Is it? Funny, from where I stand, it looks like you were coming up with criticism and theories you never bothered to verify in any way, just because you feel entitled and I can tell you: that shit has been ancient before I was born.
I suggest you read Steve Yegge's "Have you ever legalized marijuana?" [1] or, if you're short on time, a relevant XKCD [2].
from where I stand, it looks like you were coming up with criticism and theories you never bothered to verify in any way
?
"have had the luxury of having great parents who never bothered playing such mind games with you"
And I run into PLENTY of adults who just tried to use their privilege, or lies, for shortcut solutions. I know how they fared. So what exactly don't I have experience with, other than doing it to someone else?
"I suggest you read Steve Yegge's"
I suggest you actually address the content of my posts.
You haven't said anything. No content, not even an anecdote. You just spat out a couple of emotional, condescending quips, likely in hopes of teasing out another abstract argument [1].
Maybe stop thinking that for a second and pretend you are actually supposed to give me an actual answer. I mean, it's neat and easy and all that, I understand, but you're flat out wrong and that you are just looking at an exit while being unintentionally ironic. I am not teasing these abstract arguments, I am time and time telling you stop with the logical fallacies and generalities, give me the argument for this situation. I also love how you hold exactly the BS responses I complain about, including yours, against me.
You haven't said anything. No content, not even an anecdote.
So you would rather talk about the messenger, than the message, also ignoring that some people with kids say the same fucking thing. Well, I already established that, too, the question is how often are you going to repeat proving it?
That's not repression, it's polite behaviour. I'm fairly certain that every mother ever has told her children to stop yelling in the house at least once.
If they want to yell while playing games, then they can play games outside.
From the single bit of data I have, your idea of repression seems to be anything less than complete anarchy... do you have children?
If they want to yell while playing games, then they can play games outside.
Not computer games they can't. And not in all seasons/kinds of weather, either.
I'm fairly certain that every mother ever has told her children to stop yelling in the house at least once.
And I'm fairly certain every parent (mother? what?) also sometimes allowed it. You know, politeness is kind of about a sentient counterpart, rather a fixed sound threshold in a panopticon.
From the single bit of data I have, your idea of repression seems to be anything less than complete anarchy
How so? If I think it's repressing if a child is under no circumstance allowed to yell out in joy or fright while playing? What does this have to do with anarchy? That's not anarchy, that's life.
Stop being so dramatic. No one in this comment thread has expressed an opinion anywhere near one of being opposed to allowing kids to yell out of joy or fright.
Let me ask you: would you mind sitting next to a group of kids at the movie theater chatting away and carrying a running commentary throughout the film all out of sheer excitement?
I suspect you would; I know I would. Why? Because it's disrespectful. Telling a kid to quiet down while playing a PC game is usually done simply to teach them to respect the presence of others around them. Sure, there are controlling parents out there, and in those cases, you may call it repression, but most of the time it's as simple a lesson as teaching a kid to say please and thank you.
No one in this comment thread has expressed an opinion anywhere near one of being opposed to allowing kids to yell out of joy or fright.
The topic is about the question how to blank the screen when a certain loudness threshold is reached. Which means "is even anyone else in the house" or other such factors do not enter into it. Which in turn means this isn't teaching politeness, this is like teaching a dog; no disrespect to dogs intended, but I mean that they usually just learn what to do, not why (which is fine in the case of a dog, unacceptable for a kid).
Maybe it just seems like being dramatic to you because I'm actually paying attention to the finer details here, and you don't. I complain about this specific case, and you defend it because there's sometimes a reason to tell a kid to not yell etc... which is funny, but not quite the rebuttal you imagine it to be.
Telling a kid to quiet down while playing a PC game is simply to teach them to respect the presence of others around them.
I completely agree; what in anything I wrote makes you think I don't? And what about the topic makes you think what is being done here?
Though I would add that I wouldn't want to be the person who doesn't sometimes also get joy out of the loud expression of joy from others. Depends on what you're doing etc.,.. so respect also means letting the kids holler sometimes. Respect doesn't just go one way, and if you haven't made children to become happy humans, what have you made them for?
But don't get sidetracked, remember: The parent in question does NOT tell their kids "I want you to be more quiet, so I made this script", they outright lie (and proudly report that it's working, too), and even seek to automate it just to put a hard cap on the loudness levels of their kids.
And that's okay because it's effective, gets the desired result, case closed...? Well pah, I disagree, just like I also frown upon telling kids they should be nice so Santa gives them presents; not because I am against being nice, but because I'm against the layer of indirection and dishonesty.
This is the second time I responded to a strawman, and I find that telling in and of itself. I have nothing against something the parent in question isn't even doing, I have something against what they actually are doing. Is that so hard to understand? You don't turn kids into "good adults" by not taking them seriously and telling them the computer is annoyed by loud noise... What. The. Fuck. That this topic is not _full_ of ridicule, just like the comments on the linked site, is just sad.
I just don't see being loud as a necessary way to express yourself. Hell, you could teach your children to use sign language if they want to express overt emotions. That would actually be pretty awesome.
On the bright side of things: maybe this scenario will drive the children to "fix" the computer. Maybe they'll learn new things that they never would've learned if not for their father's "repression". Maybe they'll realize that parents are sometimes full of shit, and shouldn't be trusted implicitly.
I am a divorced father with a 3 years old son. My son does not yell at me nor at any one else (AFAIK).
When he wants something he requests it, and I will usually honor his request unless I see a good reason for not doing so. If that's the case, I will take the time to explain it to him even thou I know that he will not understand everything I say. I think that's important, because it shows commitment to him. My decisions are usually final (for now). This will change when he grows up and becomes able to articulate good arguments on the reasons of what he wants.
He does play with other children. And when he does, he is quite clear on the limits with him. When another children attempts to steal one of his toys he will stand on principle (I really like that he has this personality). He will talk with other children but not yell. If the other child is yelling he will probably ignore him. And he chooses to play with other children who are also calmed.
If he does not do something I want him to do, he will get punished (as part of the feedback loop). It usually involves not looking at his favorite cartoons. If he does something right, he gets a praise.
What is even more interesting is that other people's sons and daughters also behave like that when they are with me. So, it leaves two possible choices:
1. I am somehow special and children behave different around me.
2. Lots of children also behave like my son.
So far, I have chosen option number 2 as my belief. I also think that if you make clear the boundaries for children, they will honor them.
What on Earth has "yelling while playing" have to do with "yelling at a person" --- ?? I am truly tired of all these strawman being trotted out. Some actual replies would be nice.
He will talk with other children but not yell. [..] Lots of children also behave like my son.
Does he also not ever squee real loud for sheer excitement? You know, humans only have a short window where they can even experience the world that intensely. Sometimes it's good to let them.
I also think that if you make clear the boundaries for children, they will honor them.
Yes, but I think it's important to have good reasons (there's plenty for "don't yell at people", not so many for "do not ever, under any circumstances, exceed this loudness threshold while playing"), and to be honest about them; like you are, and like the OP decidedly isn't. Even just "you cannot understand that yet", if it's actually true and spoken in a bond of trust, can be enough. But "the magic pixie dust in the computer has spoken because I can't be arsed to tell you to shut up while I leave you alone with the computer?" Nah.
He does not yell while playing at all. A part of it is that he sees no need nor utility to yell (or cry) in order to get what he wants from me, so he did not learn that he has to yell to achieve it. I do think that children can be loud sometimes but, if it is too often, I would also look for the way to stop them from yelling, even while playing.
And I do agree on the fact that telling lies to your own son is counter-producing. He will learn that you lie and not take into account what you say.
> I will take the time to explain it to him even thou I know that he will not understand everything I say
This worked surprisingly well from a very young age (<1) for my son. It seems like it shows him I take his concerns seriously, but that I have good reason for my objections.
There is also CodePen ( http://codepen.io/ ), and dabblet ( http://dabblet.com/ ) now seems to have (alpha) javascript support, too; the more, the merrier :D
Not only did he build the worlds largest technology company
With what tactics and strategies, though?
he's making a global philanthropic impact.
How would one measure the destruction Microsoft caused? The wasted time? The wasted money, the wasted lifes? I mean, if HNers can scream bloody murder about Shirley Hornstein "stealing jobs that would have gone to others" ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5135436 ), surely that should enter into this as well. If someone takes with one hand and gives with the other, you can't just count the giving. Well you can, but I can't follow. Personally, I judge people solely by how they react to a pie to the face, and Bill Gates scored quite low on that.
How would one measure the destruction Microsoft caused? The wasted time? The wasted money, the wasted lifes?
Wat. I'm sure lots of work that gets done at Microsoft is misguided or redundant. Welcome to working at a big company. The pay is competitive and the environment, from what I hear, is some of the best in the software industry. It's not some sweatshop where you're forced to toil for pennies; I bet a lot of people here would enjoy and benefit from the experience of "wasting their lives" at MSFT for a few years.
I think he meant the time 'wasted' or perhaps just used working with Microsoft Windows. Rebooting, configuring/reinstalling every few months, etc.
Every reboot required during the install or upgrade of a Microsoft product multiplied by an install base of hundreds of millions of machines is a big number.
(Not that this is really relevant to Bill Gates's work today)
Wat. I'm sure lots of work that gets done at Microsoft is misguided or redundant. Welcome to working at a big company.
You misunderstood me, I don't really care about the fate of anyone working there. I am more thinking about the brain space wasted with deceptive marketing claims, the money extracted from people, not to mention schools, and the horrible waste of people investing in learning about the MS ecosystem and the proliferating it. Microsoft learned to eat chalk, and the hard and scary way it learned to open up a little, but Mr. Bill Gates was once perfectly looking forward to the internet being a flop and everybody using MSN, to name just one of dozens examples clearly mapping the ugly underbelly. And far from silentely trying to improve the world without caring about the credit too much, MS was always keen on talking about stuff they didn't come up with as if they did, without technically lying.
Microsoft isn't special in that regard, sure, but to me even the best achievements are seen on the background of corporate armbandism and become morally worthless at best.
I am perfectly fine with someone who owes their life to the Gates foundation loving the guy, and happy for every life saved. But when it comes to me thinking Bill Gates is "cool", it just doesn't work out that way. So when someone else implies I kinda have to agree that this is all super awesome, I resist. Yes it is, but it doesn't make up for the other stuff, not one iota. Apologizing for all the lies and FUD about Linux, now that would be something... because hey, if people save money that way, they can buy healthy food, or go to a doctor of their choosing, and that's good thing, right? right?
Why is it always that we first allow a bunch of clowns to run just about everything, and then are grateful for the breadcrumbs they let trickle down? I am sure there are many people in China singing the praises of some party members who helped them get surgery or whatever. Yes, and? Take a step back, see the individual parts and how they fit together. Suddenly it's much less impressive, and the real heroes turn out to be the ones giving their lives to help others who DID NOT first sell a bunch of drugs or whatever to get the means to do so.
Agreed on the tactics. Of course we've seen incredibly rich people set up charity funds before. Like Alfred Nobel who invented the peace price after he became wealthy because of his invention of the detonator for dynamite and nitroglycerin.
>> "I judge people solely by how they react to a pie to the face, and Bill Gates scored quite low on that."
Please tell us how you'd react? Let me guess, you'd disarm the pie-throwers, crack a joke related to pies, smile into the camera as you're carried out on the shoulders of cheering onlookers?
>wasted lifes?
You should learn more about Gates foundation. Here's a passionate speech he gave recently in London about eradicating polio http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=R-JRogtrwRk
If you set that alarm, you know why and what for you are conditioning yourself, and that is even true if you know how and why someone else set it; but when it's just a faceless event that you learn to adapt to, possibly while even having a narrative about it that has nothing to do with reality, that's not just slightly different or worse, for me that's worlds apart.