That sounds like good fun! My four-year-old daughter likes to play on an old net book that we have.

She pretends she's working like she's seen Mam and Dad do around the house due to the pandemic.

I've only shown her the text editor where she'll type her name and other words. Stealthily teaching spelling and typing through play.

Would say it's usually about 20 minutes to boredom at the moment!

I think this is great! I'm curious, though; how much time does she spend on `see octonauts`? I've seen the way kids get absolutely glued to the current crop of CGI kid shows (ye gods the pacing is frenetic) and I guess I'd expect most kids to just mash the button like a rat in a Skinner box, so I'm pleasantly surprised to hear you say she spends less than an hour at a time.

Love this idea. Could you just expand a little on PlayOS? It's this running an underlying OS which then boots into a bash console running your repl?

Just curious, would love to do something similar (or use yours if it was available!)

Sure.

My first response to "let's do computers daddy" was to install a kids KDE Linux with some things like TuXPaint and whatever. But I noticed she really wanted to be doing what I was doing - typing. Also I had to launch everything. And it seemed inevitable that within minutes alone with the machine she'd accidentally get into desktop configuration and hide the task bar or something.

So then I thought, what about just Bash?

That didn't work so well either, and I ended up aliasing so many commands to simpler things - but it was a step in the right direction.

So now I just launch into a "kiosk mode shell" made in python that dispatches the commands we talk about together. We say... wouldn't it be cool if a computer could do this or that, and then I think about how to make that a single three letter command with a few options. I'd love it if she'd get into bash or programming properly as another commenter's kid did, but I won't push it, this is foundation work. There's every possibility she'll say "I'm bored with computers dad" and I'll just have to try not to be broken-hearted :) Perhaps the main aim is to cultivate a respect and healthy attitude for real computers, so tablets and phones seem like the toys they are.

Wow, this is a fantastic idea and I love the way the you've thought it out.

I really like the idea ( and it is likely not a bad way to introduce the kid to command line eventually ). Consider adding it on github ( or similar ). I am relatively certain you will get an audience for it.

amazing, can you write a full blog post about this.I want to do something similar.

I applaud your purposeful-ness with your daughter but:

I would strongly recommend that calling her friends “retarded monkeys” is a mentality that will do far far more damage in the long run than any screen time.

Being right and being self righteous are too very different things. Be purposeful there too. I say this as someone who struggles with passing on the same problematic mentalities to my children.

Edit: parent removed the statement.

Yes and she's 7, so 1) her friends have probably already told her that phones are better, and 2) she's probably aware of her dad's attitude and therefore isn't fully open with him about what she's interested in and what she does at friends' houses.

And FYI the statement has not been removed, or it's been added back in.

What's odd and maybe telling of this person's mentality is that calling them monkeys would have been sufficient since he said "pawing at".

Monkeys don't even have paws.

They definitely can be called that, even if not technically correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkey%27s_Paw

Urgh, now I'm one of those "actually, language is how people use it" types. Literally.

Paw is sometimes an informal/humorous word for 'hand'.

They said "pawed at", which is a phrase for an inelegant bumbling interaction with something. It is not literal. And they also said "like retarded monkeys", not that they are retarded monkeys.

Content was never removed. I stand by it. Of course I never call her friends that, which would be destructive, inappropriate and alienating for the all the reasons you wisely relay.

I stand by it because I'm talking about their behaviour, not what they are. They're bright kids ( or they wouldn't be her mates ). But what I often see them do, which looks a lot like randomly bashing at a screen to "make shit happen", isn't the pinnacle of technology I want my kids to experience. Not until 15, wasted with her mates and playing the 2032 version of DOOM or whatever.

Interestingly, if there's any friction or danger it comes from not biting my lip in criticising other parenting styles. That's actually where the weird stuff is, in the relations between the grown-ups. Most parents are naturally touchy about even implied criticism. And many do feel guilt about using phones and tablets as pacifiers.

As I say in the book, I learned that a long time ago and am a practising but not preaching digital vegan.

Do you think your mentality of using that language bleeds into other negative influences? You might benefit from learning from the criticism of your post and rethinking things.

It's just a word. Certain circles take it much more seriously than others. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and remember that using that language with ones peers on HN is different from using it in a professional or social setting.

If he'd said "silly monkeys" I don't think anyone would have even commented.

In my opinion, the "it's just a word" mentality can often be harmful. There's a reason we use words and language, it s how we communicate our thoughts to others and hence our choice of language is very important.

As it turns out, some words have connotations which are bad, and by using them you're communicating something that isn't an example of what you want to reinforce in a child, or anyone at all really.

So I am not suggesting that GP should be ostracised over saying 'retarded' but I think it's important to atleast question why they are using language which hurts a specific group of people that have done nothing to deserve it.

Here's a quote from a website[0] that explains why using 'retarded' in the way GP did here is harmful:

“It hurts and scares me when I am the only person with intellectual disabilities on the bus and young people start making “retard” jokes or references. Please put yourself on that bus and fill the bus with people who are different from you. Imagine that they start making jokes using a term that describes you. It hurts and it is scary.” – John Franklin Stephens, Special Olympics Virginia athlete and Global Messenger

Hopefully that quote helps to see why no one would question the usage of 'silly'.

[1]: https://www.spreadtheword.global/resource-archive/r-word-eff...

When you use the word idiot, it's also at their expense. The capacity to use these words in a derogatory sense is owing to their meaning, and it has not changed. The reflective attitude that similar terms are comparatively cleaner as they exist in a sort of bubble as "pure insults with no meaning" is a fantasy.

It's not good to be an idiot, and it never will be. Take your r-word, there's no shortage of others that mean the same thing. It's possible to love and show compassion to those with intellectual disabilities, not insult them to their face, and still accept that these conditions are not a positive, to the extent that in broader society people will show disdain for irrational behavior by invoking any one of these words, at the expense of those who don't know any better.

I don't think calling someone an idiot necessitates that the mentally disabled are harmed for it. Btw, Stephens is coached.

>The reflective attitude that similar terms are comparatively cleaner as they exist in a sort of bubble as "pure insults with no meaning" is a fantasy.

You do raise a very fair point. I did want to argue that idiot and other such words are 'different' from the r word but admittedly, I do not have a rebuttal.

It does make me question though, where did society choose to draw the line and why is the line drawn there. There definitely is a lot of talk about how the r word is harmful but I think it's fair to say that isn't the case for idiot and stupid for example.

Thanks for giving me some food for thought, cheers and have a happy new year :)

>It does make me question though, where did society choose to draw the line and why is the line drawn there.

The line moves, as and when someone in society gets up in arms at exactly that and is sufficiently powerful to move it. See "mentally handicapped", "special needs", etcetera. A new word gets generated that's less "bad", but it doesn't resolve the issue that the concept it describes is fundamentally bad.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/euphemism_treadmill

"That language" isn't the issue. Americans seem to have an odd prudishness over a few words, and retarded is one of them. GP is from GB where it's not so much of an issue.

A change of language wouldn't modify the negative connatations of the GPs statement, so the fact you think this critism has learning, maybe means there's some learning in this for you.

Thanks. I find your writing interesting (and the focus of other commenters on specific words weird) and I just bought your book. Looking foward to reading it!

I'm pretty sure this person is trolling..

No, ycombinator attracts many of these ultra controlling engineers who also see everyone as inferior who doesn’t follow their strict guidelines of technical superiority. It’s very very common in the Eng field in my experience.

"I try to limit my child's exposure to addictive, soul-sucking tools"

Yeah, sounds like a real troll to me!

That's an interesting approach though I'd avoid comparing her friends to retarded monkeys. I can tell you from experience she might actually enjoy hanging around some of the 'retarded monkeys' and the knowledge that mum or dad feels that way about them is an unnecessary source of tension.

"retarded monkeys"

Yikes

YIKES, indeed. I do NOT want to read deplorable filth like this on Hacker News in 2023. I think behavior like this pleads for a teaching moment. Perhaps a 2 week ban and a violence prevention course? This kind of hate speech is what keeps me up at night. That, and violence against women.

Nice satire.

I didn't include a /s.

Wouldn’t have upvoted you otherwise.

I wouldn't have complimented your satire had you spoonfed it.

> Perhaps a 2 week ban and a violence prevention course

Too tame, let's call their boss and get them fired.

/s obviously

Words have meaning. You only react in outrage to the word "retarded" because it was made taboo in the last 5 years. Think for yourself.

It's more of a cringe than outrage. And yeah, you are right, words do have meaning, which is exactly why we should be intentional with our words.

Saying retarded has been uncouth for a lot longer than five years, not sure where you have been. I've had plenty of time to think about it for myself.

ok homo

I had a friend raised like this in a millennial context. Strict diet of restricted TV and computers, 1 hour a day for each. Cable TV was banned, network television only. Books were all him and his sibling were allowed to interact with. He was homeschooled for a bit.

In high school he discovered World of Warcraft, through chance. He started playing at school. Then sneaking over to friends houses to play. Then did everything in his power at home to play WoW. He became hopelessly addicted. For 2 years all he could do was play WoW. It had a huge effect on his grades and his friends. While I don't know all that happened, I think he was just unprepared to deal with modern digital consumption appetites that the rest of us grew up with.

I am a little like that. When growing up we had very little allowed TV time (admittedly this was common in the 80s, due to limited selection) and I get distracted by TVs very easily. Compared to friends who grew up with TVs running constantly in the house and who have no problem having a conversation with a TV in the background, I can't help to watch the TV. I therefore hate most modern pubs, which have TVs running everywhere and try to always sit so not to have a TV in my fov (which is often difficult).

You've described me.

I've gotten better at eye-fixation control, and also careful selection of seats. If I can get a seat facing away from the TV I do much better, and I even catch those around me gazing at the TVs from time to time.

It is exhausting trying to exert that amount of self control, though. The quick bright movements naturally catch my eye and I often can't help myself. I'd like to chalk this up to innate hunter instincts, but... ;)

My experience is that these kind of people (grew up in houses with tv on the background 24/7) have difficulty doing meaningful in depth work. They can "block it out", but only for doing simple tasks, like chatting to someone. When it comes to sitting doing and doing some nuanced analysis, and thinking thru edge cases, they can't do it.

I'm not sure any of us have figured it out. I grew up with the internet and video games. I was hopelessly addicted to Counterstrike for 15 years. I don't think kids should have complete (unsupervised) control over their own entertainment, but it's clear that strict limits aren't sufficient.

I think people have been looking at it from the wrong perspective and you hit the nail on the head. He was unprepared, yes, but... How exactly are we preparing our kids for the internet and video games? This is something we aren't talking or thinking about. Putting limits isn't enough. It's like forcing abstinence on kids without trying to teach them safe sex or about healthy relationships or character values. I think there should be some limits, but there also needs to be an effort to cultivate interests/skills/experiences outside of gaming.

I would recommend reading “Indistractible” by Nir Eyql if you are looking for more tools for this

+1 for this. "Nir Eyal" btw. From excerpts, it's a very good guide with plenty of common sense psychology and practical advice.

Read a few pages and this looks useful, thanks.

i really hope we reach a point where more parents play video games with their children, especially as a teammate rather than a hoverer. it seems like in most homes vidya is usually tolerated as a necessary carrot or a babysitter rather than something that is shared. kids learn from the people around them, this is why sportsmanship gets such heavy emphasis in junior sports leagues. we recognize that it is not enough for them to learn how to hit the ball, they need to learn how to be gracious competitors as well. imo this is equally true of games. if kids aren't given an example of what good habits & moderation look like, then why are we shocked if they emulate the grinders and the nolifers?

I knew about a dozen college kids in the millennial context who grew up with no restrictions on video game use, and it was fine for them because their parents handled every aspect of their life. Fine for them until college, when they were now responsible for themselves and couldn't tear themselves away from the screen because video games were all they knew. They lost their scholarships and flunked out.

As for myself, I felt shameful if I spent more than an hour playing a game because long video game binges is something I never became accustomed to in the first place. The habits kids learn as kids will follow them at least into young adulthood.

Video game use was also a privilege that my parents used to teach responsibility and priorities. If I wanted to be allowed to play games, I had to get all As in school, complete all chores, and participate in athletics. They didn't police my gaming time, so I learned to regulate it myself to meet those conditions.

I think what you describe is closer to my own experience than to unregulated screentime. You say they didn't police your screen time, but it sounds like they did forbid you from playing games if you weren't keeping up with your other obligations. In my case, my permitted screen time was moderately increased if I got good grades and severely decreased if I got bad grades. I think a scheme like this, or the one you describe, is a good way to do it.

No regulation of screen time at all, no conditions about behavior/grades, is dangerous territory. It teaches harmful habits which some kids will have a very hard time shaking. Have a bad time in school? Come home and numb the pain by spending 12 hours playing games late into the night. Go to school the next day without enough sleep, the cycle repeats but the whole thing doesn't collapse because you're still forced to go to school. That is, until you hit college and now have the option of skipping class to continue playing video games. Then they flunk out after a year or two of wasted tuition money. Many of the friends I made in freshman year at college flunked out due to this vicious cycle of video game binging. All of them were long-time gamers by that point, expressing great incredulity when I told them I came from a household were I was limited to an hour a day. They said I had been abused, while they were flunking out due to their own lack of self control.

Or they could make school more fun and also start later.

But nooo, force the kids to suffer and then act surprised when they rebel.

Oh for sure, making school start later in the day would be a huge benefit to teenagers particularly. But this is the way it was in college, most of us scheduled most of our classes for the afternoon and the gaming addicts still skipped class anyway. Both are problems, but I don't think addressing one will address the other.

As for school being fun.. if you're doing well and the course material is interesting, then school is generally fun I think. School becomes particularly unfun when you're struggling with difficult/uninteresting material combined with the stress that comes from knowing that good performance is important to your future. That struggle+stress can be very hard on some people and lead them to self-medicate by binging alcohol or video games. Booze and game binging make people feel better in the immediate sense but harms them in the long run. I don't think you can address this problem by making school more fun, except insofar as you can shift students into subjects they care about and can do well in. But stress avoidance has its limits, even if school is an absolute pleasure, everybody will encounter stress eventually in life and knowing alternatives to escapism is important.

On a tangent, I knew a girl in high school who had their love life completely owned by their parents since she became a teenager. Her mother was a chaperone on her dates, her dad was closely monitoring her phone for 'sexting', no bedroom door, etc.. It's safe to assume she didn't have much success with boys. Come college time, she broke up a marriage, did some porn, is now a single mother who moved back with her parents. Not saying her parents are to blame, but I can say she grew up with a very unhealthy view of romantic relationships.

It's also possible that the woman you know is, for predominantly genetic or personality reasons, highly sexed and sociosexually unrestricted, and her parents' efforts at best delayed some matters. There's a line of thinking, articulated in Bryan Caplan's Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids and elsewhere, that a large component of personality is innate and parents spend way too much time trying to micro-shape their kids.

There is an interesting writer and tweeter named Aella: https://knowingless.com/ who has described at length how she was born into a fundamentalist Christian family, found herself doing work she hated in a factory at 19, and escaped it via nude camming and then sex work (both of which she likes a lot, relative to alternatives). She's tweeted about how her mom appears to LOVE the trad Christian life, and how Aella and some of her siblings hate it. Who is "right?" Maybe no one: people's personal propensities and desires vary in many ways that appear to be genetic in origin, even if their expressions may change across cultures, and this may also include in matters of sex.

There are lots of pseudo-Freudian theories about how the way one is raised affects one's adolescent and adult sex life but I'm not sure any of those theories are true.

Kinda surprise her parents still let her in. So I guess they are not that bad after all.

Another anecdote... People think my dad was nuts for letting me drink a beer here or there growing up.

It was always in moderation. Typically only one drink, maybe two spread out over lots of time if we were fishing. He talked openly about keeping drinking in check. He even addressed alcoholism in our family history, admitting to keeping a close eye on his consumption due to those predispositions; stressing that I'd have to watch it too. Since I was a young kid who felt privileged sippin' on a Highlife I listened closely taking a lot away from those conversations.

Fast forward to HS/college... never drank in HS because it was primarily only losers who would drink at the time... and in college I was always the party nurse or DD because I wouldn't drink to get drunk - I just didn't see the point. Dad had took all of the novelty out of it for me.

---

Kids who come from overly strict or controlling parents often have behavior and moderation issues once leaving the nest. Your #1 goal as a parent is to engage them and teach them how to navigate life in careful and healthy ways vs. trying to outright control their behavior. Hard truth is you're not always going to be there - my dad died when I was 14. Being an authoritarian doesn't give your kid a healthy mental framework to help them through life's complexities, you're only teaching them to be afraid of punishment and consequences.

14. Shit that made me cry. I hope you always manage to steer clear of alcoholism if your old man thought you might inherit a disposition. And your dad sounds very courageous and wise to talk straight to you.

Some great notes here! Moderating is hard, but it's crucial in development. Too much or too little of anything has absurd longterm impacts.

Moderation mixed with education has tremendous positive impacts. Going with the alcohol example, you grow up knowing what it tastes like and what it does, rather than growing up completely unaware of it other than your college friends say it's cool to get hammered.

You have to be teaching your kids about life, it seems like so many forget this trying to create the ultimate curated experience for them.

"The forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest."

Sadly this approach doesn't always work, but this is the only way to at least to give an idea on how it tastes and feels. Works great for spirits for up to 12-14 years, though, kids don't like the bitterness at all.

> because it was primarily only losers who would drink at the time

What was the dynamic like at your high school where the losers would party with alcohol and the cool kids stayed sober?

To readers of the comment above, keep in mind that this approach likely works best with such a wise and calm man, and perhaps it helps having a son of much the same disposition.

In aggregate, it's shown that children who drink in general have more drinking problems as adults.

> Then did everything in his power at home to play WoW. He became hopelessly addicted.

I was like this and spent a shit load of that time on a computer. Everyone around me said it was a waste of time until I realized I wanted to work in software. Then I realized they were all full of shit and it was actually a very profitable use of time

On my recent workshop regarding kids' psychology, there was said that social media and online world in general is the only drug that you have to learn kids to get used to gradually.

There's no point in restricting them screen time completely, because phones and computers are just everywhere, you cannot shield kids forever and sooner or later they will find a way how to get connected, so better they are prepared and know what's going on and what to be aware of.

I remember a book talking about Robert Morris, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Morris_(cryptographer), who didn't allow his kids to watch television (something about the low quality of TV programs made for children was the main reason).

He found out that his kids, including son, Robert T Morris, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Tappan_Morris - later Internet email worm author, were having trouble socializing with other kids at school since the other kids would talk about the TV shows that they had watched (like Sesame Street) but Morris's kids were clueless.

So his kids were allowed to watch PBS so they didn't become social outcasts.

I find it strange how you’re so proud that you’re teaching them a very niche - and outside system administration and programming obsolete - way of interacting with computers. There are excellent GUIs to learn that will make them more productive with computers and also make them feel like they have some skills that may actually impress other kids instead of making them look weird.

These kinds of projects read to me like using the kid as an excuse to build something that the parent thinks is cool. And then it starts to make sense, because you obviously think that the command line is cool and look down on the kids which use touch screens. The bad news for you is that the child’s social circle decides what’s cool, not the parent.

Parents teach their own niche skills to their children all the time. Which is why for most of history, children entered the field their parents worked in. Cobblers begat cobblers, potters begat potters, etc.

Is cool what really matters?

His child being confident in the terminal is a good skill to have, her typing skills will transfer over to her writing for the many essays of highschool, so she'll be productive faster than other kids.

> you’re teaching them a very niche - and outside system administration and programming obsolete - way of interacting with computers.

Most people are scared of the command line, but she has an edge knowing it.

It will open the door to countless productivity benefits in the future, she could automate a lot of her future work in her own creative way that modern guis don't allow.

Small cli scripts go a long way in practically any job. Sadly most people still waste hours on spreadsheets and the like when they could spend minutes in many cases.

> These kinds of projects read to me like using the kid as an excuse to build something that the parent thinks is cool.

It is, and that's actually very healthy and okay. It's called co-construction. I'd urge you to read educational theorists like Friere - building motivation through shared interests etc.

You're possibly mistaking what I'm doing from actually trying to teach bash and python etc. That would be insane. Those, and the whole vocation of coding, may well be dead by the time she's a teenager. It's about engaged parenting.

Yikes. With all due respect, in my view, the self-righteousness of this comment dismisses the point it's trying to make. The 'retarded monkeys' comment really sells it...

> Most of her friends drag their fingers over images on tablets

I guess there's value in thinking your kids are better than other kids. I wonder if you have the same level of transparency involving animal kingdom references with your friends about how their kids use their devices.

But anyway, I don't believe the UX is the problem here. The idea is to 'limit' screen time and subsequently information consumption at the ready. Not sure how a command line interface is a solution better than say parental controls with app time limits, over an already existent UX that everyone is familiar with.

PS: Your book was on my reading list. Was.

> PS: Your book was on my reading list. Was.

You absolutely dodged a bullet there. If you don't like strongly opinionated writing save your time and money. Now, where else could you get such up-front pre-views than HN. Gotta love this place eh?

The more I reread this the less it makes sense.

> each time she expresses an interest I add a python tuple

Did you get into computers by intentionally expressing an interest and then having tidbits fed to you by someone? Or did you discover it organically through full access to libraries and the internet and video games and magazines? When she expresses an interest in something you aren't familiar with, will you let her explore it herself or will everything be filtered through you?

> By 9 I expect her to have mastered a computer by typing, including sending emails to mom and dad etc.

You think she'll be better at typing than kids that are constantly texting and Googling Roblox mods and arguing in YouTube comments?

> retarded monkeys

This has been addressed enough in other comments. But just to give you an example, I was raised without cable TV because my parents didn't have it. But they didn't call my friends retarded, and they didn't care if I watched some with friends or relatives. As a result, I still didn't watch much TV, but I didn't feel guilty when I did and I didn't feel like I had to hide anything from my parents.

I turned out great, and my friends who had a TV in their own bedroom with 1000 channels also turned out great. Access or lack of access to TV has had no discernible impact on anyone I know.

The 'retarded monkeys' characterization was coarse, but I do think there's something special (and especially dangerous) about mobile devices.

1) They're always with you

2) Input capabilities are limited so they tend to encourage consumption over creation

3) They run robust software stacks which enable addictive experiences

A general computer sitting on a desk isn't going to be used as often, and when it does get used, it'll be easier to write on. Writing's good for the brain.

A television has really limited input capabilities, it's not healthy to watch TV and the "TV rots your brain" concern predates the Internet. But it isn't as addictive as a mobile device.

A phone or tablet is the worst of both worlds. I've put a fair bit of effort into reducing my time with those devices in recent years, and I think I'm happier and more productive as a result. If I had a kid I think I would do the same with them.

> 2) Input capabilities are limited so they tend to encourage consumption over creation

This is an interesting point that I haven't really thought about before. I absolutely hate the trend of moving away from laptops/desktops and towards phones, partly because I much prefer a keyboard and mouse to tapping away at a screen. It'd be hard to quantify but your statement rings true at least from my experience.

This is worth replying to because you ask important questions;

> Did you get into computers by intentionally expressing an interest and then having tidbits fed to you by someone? Or did you discover it organically

As a kid in the 70s I discovered it as "monkey see monkey do". Other adults (airforce buddies of my dad) were doing clever shit with them, which obviously impressed and engaged my dad, so I was drawn in.

> interest in something you aren't familiar with, will you let her explore it herself or will everything be filtered through you?

I am a student of Paulo Friere [1] and fan of John Taylor Gatto [2] so I'd find over-controlling pedagogy quite abhorrent. The trick of "Liberation pedagogy" is to open doors to the earliest self-sufficient (auto-didactic) exploration. Unfortunately the unfiltered internet is not a fit place for a 7 year old. At some point I intend to curate a "mini-net", probably a downloaded Wikipedia on localhost.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulo_Freire

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Taylor_Gatto

> Unfortunately the unfiltered internet is not a fit place for a 7 year old.

I wholeheartedly agree. 6 and 9-y-old here. Apps and websites are approve-only, and no YouTube/YTkids.

Something bad happened a few years ago which gave us a big scare.

Don't let your kids loan their devices to other kids, especially if the devices (and the other kids?!) are not restricted as you mentioned!

I gave my 5 year old a pc running linux when she learned to read. She became interested in the command line when she saw me using it to help her find a file she had misplaced. I gave her a list of simple commands and let her explore. By the time she was 7 she had full mastery of the command line and was writing her own bash scripts to provide herself with functionality similar to your "PlayOS".

The other one never got into it, he prefers to use the gui with the touch screen and mostly consumes minecraft or youtube videos about minecraft. If he needs tech support he asks his sister. I'm fine with all of it. He builds some amazing things in minecraft.

I love that your kids are on the "opposite" ends of the tech stack. One is achieving mastery of relatively low level software and file manipulation and the other is achieving mastery of high level visual programming.

Maybe you could introduce your other one to command blocks and logic gates in redstone. Not that they have to enjoy computing in that way, but it was a big reason I became interested in the field when I was younger.

people are dogging on you and clutching pearls, but this is really cool and cute. I strongly agree that quality of screen time is an important, oft-neglected consideration.

I feel bad for your daughter being raised with someone who thinks they are so much better than other people.

You may not be calling them retarded monkeys in front of your daughter but I’m sure your sense of superiority comes through.

I hope your daughter doesn’t pick it up

> but I dread the day her friends, pawing at screen like retarded monkeys, tell her that phones are better :)

Most humble HN poster. The unearned hubris is astounding. Pray tell, do you like Rust? Haskell?

> As a Digital Vegan...

I can now cross "involuntary shoot cappuccino out of my nostrils" off of my bucket list. I don't think that I've ever read a more loaded sentence opener.

That’s great. You could try her out on BASIC too, she can write out games from the old magazines and then play them and modify the code. That’ll really get her going without providing her with access to the internet etc

Thank-you for your many comments here. I'd like them to use computers early, but to make the operation of them have some meaningful friction. The CLI is ideal.

Absent television, the older is

  * Somewhat *dedicated* to collecting 
    coins.
  * Partitioning space with rectangles and
    building "dungeons" (ADND 2e).
  * Scrawling random numbers on 
    construction paper we have cut into
    bill-sized rectangles.
  * Taping coupons onto popsicle sticks.
  * Other crafts-related stuff.

I try to insert learning moments, like decomposition of problems, making lists and tables, and just try to sneak CS ideas in there.

I'd like him to know as much as me before high school, so college can be about applied math/physics and business. Make him a graycat or sysadmin, but with the knowhow to be a business owner.

Equipping him thus is how I imagine a better future could be. I could be wrong. I can only do what I know. It's the longest project I have undertaken.

Once he can read my vast trove of Humble Bundle ebooks, the world is his.

> Hopefully I'm helping build a life-long skill

A low value skill. What you're teaching is how to use a keyboard, not how to use a computer. Best case scenario by college she will have graduated to become a code monkey.

Can you please share your code?

> pawing at screen like retarded monkeys, tell her that phones are better :)

Well, my relatives in their 40s keep telling me that each time I suggest they get a real PC.