Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | sevenzero's commentslogin

Children have no concept of violence or empathy or right or wrong. Children often are extremely violent to other kids and sometimes even adults. They kick they scream they punch and they destroy objects. It's on the parents to teach them these concepts and its fun to have settings in which that behavior is allowed.

> Children have no concept of violence or empathy or right or wrong

This is not correct. I remember having a sense of shame when I was 4 when I tried to hurt another kid. Kids will also hide the things they do wrong, because they know it is wrong.


> because they know it is wrong

Or they know they'll be told it was wrong. Children start knowing nothing then they slowly absorb what they're told again and again, and what they see around them until they feel it. They go from knowing nothing, to knowing what the adults told them, to internalizing that and feeling it rather than just knowing it (maybe these 2 concepts fully overlap in other people's minds).

But until they do get all of that, they'll spend a lot of time plucking wings off of insects, burning ants with a magnifying glass, pulling the cat by the tail, or throwing rocks at dogs and frogs.


That simply was not true for me.

How could it be possible for anyone to accurately reflect on the mechanisms shaping their emotional reaction to a specific situation when they were 4 years old? It should be transparently obvious that this is unknowable. First, by the time we begin to form memories, these influences have already been shaping us for months to years. Second, even if at 4 years old you remembered every moment from birth to now, you still wouldn't have the ability to actually reflect on all that data. Most adults aren't even capable of reflecting accurately on the influences affecting their current decisions!

I have other memories when I was 4, and talked about them with my parents years later. Another significant one is I wandered away and got lost in London, and some cops noticed me and picked me up and took me to the station.

My parents filled in some details, some of which I did not remember.

And yeah, I remember the emotions I felt.


I don't doubt that you have memories from when you were 4, I have memories from that time too. And I'm sure you felt the shame you described. But I know that it's impossible for a 4-year-old to accurately decipher why they feel shame when they do!

You disagreed with sevenzero when they claimed that concepts like violence and right and wrong are actively taught by parents instead of being innate to children. Assuming you read all three lines of sevenzero's comment before disagreeing: the perspective of your 4-year-old self is not a reliable source, because 4-year-old children cannot accurately differentiate between innate or taught feelings.


I would certainly agree that one gets taught more refined and nuanced notions of right and wrong, but those are innate feelings. At least for me.

I recall seeing a TV show where they studied very young people by putting them in right and wrong situations, and they definitely knew what was right and wrong.


> I would certainly agree that one gets taught more refined and nuanced notions of right and wrong, but those are innate feelings. At least for me.

How could a person who was taught social concepts of right and wrong since birth ever hope to reliably determine which parts of said concepts in their own mind are innate, and which aren't? Human minds are infamous for being terrible at introspecting their own mechanisms at the best of times.

> I recall seeing a TV show where they studied very young people by putting them in right and wrong situations, and they definitely knew what was right and wrong.

Unless said very young people were raised by wolves, chances are that they've been taught these concepts since birth as well. You can't determine the innateness by only looking at people who share this bias.


Some animals are social in behavior, others are not. Humans are social animals. Why would one believe that social behavior is learned, not inherited?

Selective breeding of foxes has turned them into social animals.


I can't say whether it was or wasn't true for you. But I can say your certainty is misplaced.

Most of your memories and everything you think of now about early childhood were formed long after it. They were created from bits and pieces of real memories, stories, backsplanations for things that happened later, retrospective, etc. Even if you had now an accurate debug dump of your child brain, you'd still not be able to process that the way you processed it back then.

Your kid brain was a black box, a CPU with a different architecture running code that you've never before or since. You later tried to recreate that code for the CPU you have now, based on input from others who've also never seen that original code or have access to that type of CPU. And you are certain you recreated it accurately?


> And you are certain you recreated it accurately?

Yes.


> ... because they know it is wrong

No. They hide the things they do wrong because they learnt there are consequences and they dont want to get caught.


Not my experience.

I accidentally killed a baby bird when I was little. It still hurts when I think about it.

Some kids are indeed savages. But not all of us.


No, not all kids are a little sociopaths. They in fact hide things they have no experience of being reprimanded or punished for, because they feel bad about them. Kids do care about other kids, animals or adults in their lives. They do feel empathy - underdeveloped and sometimes weird, but they display it very clearly.

And they do care about right and wrong.


I am an incredibly non-violent person, but have a toddler has really made me work hard to understand the difference in what associations we attach to "violence" as adults.

I try to help him understand this slowly, but a lot of "play" can look violent to my eyes, and I struggle to remember that. A 3 year old just doesn't see it that way yet, and that's fine. But it's hard to remember that in the moment.


Most people nowadays use phones. Mobile first isnt exactly a new concept either...

>Mobile first isnt exactly a new concept either...

It's not a landing page for some SaaS, it's a manuscript for some academic publication. "Mobile first" is definitely not top of mind.


Yea maybe adapt to what screens people use nowadays?

PDFs are not optimised for mobile screens. Adobe Acrobat Reader on mobile can reflow text (liquid mode) and fit phone screens without manual zooming.

True, most people get the full ad driven internet experience and it drives me nuts. Everytime I have to help other people with computer stuff I almost get an aneurysm when opening their browser...

At some point I started just installing ABP/uBO without even bothering to ask/tell them, if I had the opportunity. So far my reads seem to have been correct regarding whether this would conflict with each person's typical web use, as I've never heard back about any trouble.

>Why not? Because even pre-AI, very few companies spend time practicing restoring their backups, or disaster recovery, or picking infrequently-used runbooks to practice, or seeing whether they can easily rotate secrets without downtime, or trying to redploy the system onto another vendor's cloud/platform, or, or, or...

Exact. Let insurance cover it, say sorry to your customers twice and shwoop never happened.


I hate that it now tries to verify frontend behavior through a headless browser instead of just looking at the code...


You can turn off the browser use tool in the harness if an instruction not to use it for this is not enough.


I did. He just went ahead and built a script to run headless chrome and take screenshots anyways.


Wow.

I hope that in the future they can differentiate better when something is constrained intentionally, rather than persistently working around every blocker it encounters.


I just want to start /claude in my CLI and start working. It worked fine before, why do I have to opt out of shit now? Opt in for this type of stuff sounds way more reasonable.


And I want it to verify my frontend in the browser, so there's that.


big disagree. Making assumptions about UX from code only without looking was a major problem. (Although vision is still not great. Trying to be patient)


I see that as a win


>real native components

Since when does React Native use real native components? Last time I've checked it wasn't capable of doing ANYTHING with my phones NFC scanner or native camera...

With flutter I can just build a Kotlin component and integrate it easily into my app. Also Flutters performance is extremely good, I dont know what you are on about. Our app is used on extremely old phones and has great performance. (I am not even a professional android/flutter dev, so I didnt optimize for performance).


You're mixing UI components with platform APIs. React Native does use native platform-backed views. NFC and camera access are separate concerns. If an API isn't exposed, you can write the native Swift/Kotlin module and bridge it, just like you would integrate native code into Flutter. Camera support also already exists in Expo.


I see, thanks for clarifying!


Give me 1-2 examples of useful info we can get from ads?


There are some cases where ads are useful for sure.

For example, I found out about the local farmer's market in my city via advertisements being hung up around town, and that helped me get fresh produce and find some community. I'm not sure if I ever would have found that farmer's market otherwise.

I also found one job via a "Who's Hiring" hacker news post, and that's obviously an advertisement thread advertising open positions.

Of course, these do not balance out the negative impact of ads, such as advertising credit cards and sports gambling and gacha gambling games to get people into debt, advertising tv shows and movies to waste people's time watching garbage, and generally advertising garbage that makes people who were otherwise happy waste money and time for no real gain in life satisfaction.


I see, these are valid. Especially in smaller communities in rural areas ads can really help bringing people together. I live in a small village since about 2 years now and have NO idea what's going on here (as I don't watch/read ads). Sometimes thats sad, but usually I want to be left alone anyway. A farmers market sounds cool though.

I'd categorize job postings a bit differently, if Facebook was full of (legitimate) job postings I think it would be less of an issue. I agree on all the gambling stuff you wrote.


You basically pointed this out already but there’s a big difference between something designed to notify you about something you might not have known, similar to what you’d find on a community bulletin board, and something trying to manipulate you into buying something you don’t need at all.

I think a lot of people use the term “ad” to refer solely to the latter category. This goes back to the origin of modern advertising (and even earlier with snake oil salesman and charlatans, which were scamming merchants using music and stage shows lol — sound familiar?) and using the term “public relations” as an alternative to “propaganda”.


Like whenever/wherever there's a sale going on about something you were out to buy anyway, helping you save money.


Do you think companies run those sales so they can earn less from you? If you didn't buy it before the sale, then why not?


Misconception of the year. If you can guarantee the steam it produces rains down in areas that actually re-join the water cycle easily, you might be right (even though you still have to cover the just in time demand). You can not guarantee that though.

Best regards, European person where lakes dry out atm.


They are not drying up because of AI datacenters and especially not because of European datacenters.

While man-made climate change is undoubtedly real, the yearly "our lakes dry up"-media cycle is not proof of it at all. Check if the return to normal in November will make the news.


>They are not drying up because of AI datacenters

I am aware and never claimed that. Though, the global push towards mega factories, data centers and whatnot does not help the situation. Lots of places here in Germany already struggle with having enough water, so the mindset to "lets just build a Tesla mega factory here" is something I never understood. Can't be that different for data centers. We should use our resources smartly, not for profit margins.


> I am aware and never claimed that

Your comment very much implies a strong link between the two however. That you then switch from data centres to factories is also a shift that is not related to the discussion at hand.

Personally, everything I've read on the issue indicates that the water usage, for a product that I hear mentioned daily by people in the street, is insignificant.

I have many qualms with AI, mainly about the politics of AI labs and its effects on inequality, and I am active in this field. But I see its environmental costs as a weak argument and don't use it, despite of how receptive people that I try to convince are to it: it uses much less energy, harms many fewer animals, and serves more of a purpose than animal agriculture, so I prefer to move my environmental actions towards that.


"Our lakes run dry" is a meme at this point. Apparently the doomers entirely forgot their kvetching about Lago di Garda drying out a couple of years ago. Memory-holed doesn't even closely describe this sort of behavior.


I think you mean "re-join the FRESHWATER cycle"? Because obviously it rejoins the global water cycle.


Well the Reflecting Pool in Washington DC dried up two times in a row recently, and although there is no direct video evidence, there is a highly credible witness who blames it on almonds and windmills.


> a yearly printed book with verified, accurate information

Seems difficult to produce nowadays as even well researched topics are constantly attacked. Climate change papers as a small example.


It seems relevant that it's a one-way communication. If someone reads a social media thread about climate change they will also see all the comments from idiots. But if someone reads a book about climate change they don't. It isn't as strong an effect any more as people will discuss the book on social media and they will have already seen the idiot comments before reading the book anyway.

So many former regular Fox News viewers have reported changing their mind when confronted with some alternative information sources for a while. News is also one-way, and most Fox victims aren't people who discuss issues with all sides.- they're in bubbles.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: