The technology pushed into schools today is a threat to child development - <AUTHOR> https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/08/rotten-stem-how-technology-corrupts-education/ <comment><USER3> Our elementary school uses chromebooks from 1st grade on, and I do see a lot of downsides.

The most outrageous problem, IMO, is that there are 'modules' that must be completed, and kids with computer access at home can work on them at home. Kids from low income families are screwed over - again.

Other problems

\- spellcheck is always on, why learn real spelling when the computer fixes it for you?

\- The de-emphasis on handwriting is mentioned in the article. In-class assignments are still handwritten, but take-home projects can be typed.

\- A lot of 'educational' games are regular games with a minimal pretense of education value. Frogger is still Frogger, even if there's some notion of jumping to the lily pad with the right sum.

\- Same for 'educational' youtube videos. youtube is blocked on my kid's devices, despite insistence that there are channels where they do scientific experiments. The videos are more about funny jokes than the different phases of matter.

( youtube is a funny one. Non-tech parents always tell me how great kid's youtube is. Tech parents are always like "f yea, of course you block youtube" )

Plus the last thing my kid needs is more screentime. I don't want to have to sit next to them all night making sure that they are only doing 'productive' work.

<comment><USER4> Why do you think students will better learn to spell without spellcheck?

As far as I can tell spending class time on spelling per se and/or grading students on spelling mistakes is a complete waste of time and focus.

The ideal way to teach spelling is (1) get kids to read a whole lot, (2) show students their mistakes in context when they make them on as short a feedback loop as possible, without judgment.

It's plausible that showing that a mistake was made but then forcing the student to retype or rewrite the word correctly (without letting them just click once on the word to fix the mistake) would be more effective.

But I have seen no evidence that spellcheck reduces people's ability to learn spelling. I'd like to see some kind of formal study.

Disclaimer: I think giving every 1st grade student a chromebook is a terrible mistake.

<comment><USER5> >The ideal way to teach spelling is (1) get kids to read a whole lot, (2) show students their mistakes in context when they make them on as short a feedback loop as possible, without judgment.

I'm not sure I agree with this. This doesn't teach the fundamentals and rules of how words are put together. Learning to spell isn't memorizing lists of words, it's learning the rules of English and how words are actually put together so, even if you don't know how a word's spelled, you should be able to at least be able to make a good guess based on your knowledge of English. The spell checker doesn't teach you any of this.

<comment><USER4> People don't learn the "rules of English" through explicit instruction. They learn them through years (decades) of exposure.

Anecdotally, the main predictor of how good someone's spelling will be is how much reading they have done.

<comment><USER5> I did. They taught us this in school. My spelling is good. I rarely rely on a spell checker and have autocorrect turned off on my keyboard because I find it annoying rather than helpful. Knowing how to spell and sound out words helped me be a better reader and kept reading interesting for me.

Anecdotally, I've met many people that dislike reading because they find large words complicated to comprehend, their spelling is usually atrocious also. I also know a few heavy readers with terrible spelling because they never learned properly. Their pronunciation of large words is usually atrocious.

<comment><USER4> > _I 've met many people that dislike reading because they find large words > complicated to comprehend, their spelling is usually atrocious also. I also > know a few heavy readers with terrible spelling because they never learned > properly. Their pronunciation of large words is usually atrocious._

None of the people I know who grew up in highly literate families with parents who read with them several hours per week up through age 7+ ever had either of these problems in adulthood. Including the dyslexic ones.

I am highly skeptical that your acquaintances dislike reading because the spelling of long words is too complicated. More realistically they find long words hard because they never did enough reading to become fluent. Nearly everyone can get at least 90% of the way to reading arbitrary English text with about a year of appropriate reading instruction at age 6 plus a few years of regular practice.

As someone who never spent any effort on spelling in school, big words are fine to read and spelling is no trouble. I also dislike and disable autocorrect. I'd happily put my pronunciation of arbitrary English words up against anyone who isn't a professional linguist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It totally is.

I worked in EdTech for the past 4 years and was in contact with the education world.

Digital devices are harmful to younger kids. The brain develops much better when using fine motor skills such as writing with pen and paper. France banned all digital devices in primary schools for a reason and all countries should do it.

The most important factor in getting quality education are not digital devices or educational material but the quality of the teacher. The OECD did a study about the use of computers by students at the school and at home[0]. See the results for yourself. Countries like China, Singapoore, Finland, and Estonia barely use computers but have some of the best PISA academic results.

[0]: [http://www.oecd.org/education/students-computers-and- learnin...](http://www.oecd.org/education/students-computers-and- learning-9789264239555-en.htm)

<comment><USER7> >The most important factor in getting quality education are not digital devices or educational material but the quality of the teacher.

I agree with you in general, but I think the most important factor in getting quality education is parents that value education.

<comment><USER8> Or maybe there's not a single monolithic factor to optimize. Assuming you can even define education in the first place, it will always be very contextual. Of course a single factor is very appealing, but maybe it's an assumption that people impose upon reality and the reality is more complex.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Getting kids away from electronics is definitely important, and in some respects I find myself agreeing with multiple points from this:

I absolutely agree that (in the USA) K-12 Education's basis should indeed be _civic_ education, or the education required to create excellent citizens. I also absolutely agree that giving kids "technology" (as smartphones, tablets, Baby Shark, and the rest are known) can be unexpectedly close to giving them crack depending on the circumstances.

However, there is one single thing with respect to computing I find relevant overlooked:

I also think it's critical, in a civic sense, that most of the populace has a general understanding of what computation is and how computers "work." Not because I think everyone should code for a career, but because everyone should be able to have some understanding of debates about topics like encryption or automation, and in general have an a mental scaffolding that outlines the invisible infrastructure supporting the daily experiences of our times.

In my view, absent this, too much of the citizenry will increasingly see "technology" in a way that verges on being a bit too close to "magic."

I'm not sure what exactly this means for K-12 education, but I'm pretty sure it means that despite my antipathy for pervasive classroom "technology," there should still be some sort of very planned and mediated curriculum that exposes students to "computing."

<comment><USER10> I agree, and having been the volunteer runner of my kid's middle school computer clubs (and occasional stand-in teacher) I think the best way to teach computing is not with computers, but with pencil, paper and classroom simulations.

We've successfully implemented some very simple computers by letting various class members stand in for components, and we had one very good implementation of TCP/IP over middleschooler.

<comment><USER11> Simon Peyton Jones gave a very good talk on this at Strange Loop 2018 - <USER2> it's falling to deaf ears

<comment><USER12> [https://thestrangeloop.com/2018/shaping-our-childrens- educat...](https://thestrangeloop.com/2018/shaping-our-childrens-education-in- computing.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I only ever write on a computer. I own a single pen which I have not needed to replace since I moved into my apartment in 2016. I'm pretty sure I last used it in November, when I had to fill out a form for jury duty.

The article cite studies that handwriting is linked to brain development, and reading on paper improves memory, and so on... I'm certainly not in a position to refute those studies, but I have to wonder how complete they are. People once denounced the printing press for causing us to loose our memories, and as a population, we _do_ in fact have worse memories than scholars during the Middle Ages. If we taught intensive memory training in school, memory would likely improve, but do you think that would be an ideal use of student time?

Maybe handwriting is a magical art that improves brain function across the board, but I'm going to need a lot more evidence before I believe that. In the meantime, we should be teaching the skills that people need in today's world, and that overwhelmingly means typing.

<comment><USER6> It's not about handwriting per se but about using fine motor skills. For a healthy development of the brain, young kids need to develop motor skills which neurologically will allow cognitive skills to develop properly later on.

Sorry I don't have any link to back this claim but I worked for a couple of years in EdTech with pedagogy experts.

<comment><USER14> Does typing Not require fine motor skills?

<comment><USER15> Motor skills, certainly. But not _fine_ motor skills, obviously. There's a pretty big difference between getting within a cm of accuracy needed to press a key and drawing submillimeter-accurate curves. An aspiring artist or surgeon certainly needs that level of skill. But do fine motor skills impart other cognitive benefits?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you're interested in an ongoing critical look at technology in education, Audrey Watters is a great person to follow [0]. She helps keep me honest as someone working in this space. She put out a really long and interesting post, The 100 Worst Ed-Tech Debacles of the Decade [1].

[0] [https://twitter.com/audreywatters](https://twitter.com/audreywatters)

[1] [http://hackeducation.com/2019/12/31/what-a- shitshow](http://hackeducation.com/2019/12/31/what-a-shitshow)

<comment><USER17> That article is a useful summary but a tad sensationalist and should be read with a critical eye. Many of the debacles would be portrayed as successes by a different person with a different perspective. For example, Google for Education (#10) is extraordinarily popular and useful - hardly a debacle. The CSforAll movement (#6) has made a substantial and growing difference in the number and diversity of software engineers. Gamergate (#5) was clearly a clusterf, and it is many things, AND a stretch to relate it to ed-tech.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Nice rant! I think a lot of what the author complains about is already obsolete, our school system (privileged city in Oregon) went through the chromebook/tablet mania and already got rid of them again. As far as I can tell the only "tech" they use are electronic whiteboards. The curriculum across liberal arts and science seems almost indistinguishable from what I learned in high school in the 80s. In Germany.

Still, this was a real gem:

> "How did we get here? The American public education system, a rusted-out > 1976 mustard sedan whose "check engine" light is always on, is driven by a > psychopath who wants, by turns, to crash it for the insurance, to insist > that cars can be submarines, and to spend hilarious sums on unnecessary > parts."

</comment><comment><USER19> >Among the jobs most likely to be automated out of existence are those whose functions are the most similar to computers, including jobs like computer systems administrators, network architects, and computer support specialists, 60–70 percent of whose functions could be automated using current technology.

>Even the brainiest are not safe. In the finance industry, in recent years, we have seen the development of machine learning tools that can perform in minutes the same analysis for which a human computer science major required hours or even days. You can guess which of those resources was less expensive to retain.

EDIT: I'll note that the article cited to support the second point "The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to Computerisation" doesn't acutally refer to "Computer science majors". It lists programmers having a moderate (not high!) chance of automation... and also lists system administrators as having amongst the least automatable jobs of all. Then to support the point that system administrators would have their jobs automated a different paper was cited. I'm not sure how seriously I can take the author with such clear evidence of contradicting the articles it cited and cherry picking evidence to apparently support a point the author had in mind before these papers were ever read. Bluntly the article smacks of outright dishonesty obscured by citing a huge number of lengthy research papers...

Not sure if I buy this take. I received a laptop in school and back then this exact analysis was true and indeed the jobs of administrators, network architects, and computer support administrators was largely automated. So those jobs are far less prevalent than in my childhood right?

Except that's not what happened and the jobs became more prevalent as improved automation made computers cheaper and more useful. I'm not holding my breath over the imminent collapse of jobs involving computers simply because the current work can be automated by... people using computers. Sure this argument is undeniably true if you think computing will stay exactly like it is now except the current jobs will be automated and no new jobs will be created.

My crystal ball is as foggy as anybody elses though. Maybe we will hit the singularity and in that case computing jobs will likely be the very first to be completely replaced.

<comment><USER20> ^^ These parts of the article also bothered me, and tainted many of his other possibly/probably valid points.

> ...we have seen the development of machine learning tools that can perform > in minutes the same analysis for which a human computer science major > required hours or even days.

Statements like this just demonstrate an obvious lack of understanding of how the field of computer science works. Guess who developed those machine learning tools? A machine learning engineer _who more than likely studied CS._

It's just hard to trust the author on other topics where I'm less familiar, seeing the data clearly driven toward a predetermined narrative.

It reeks of cherrypicking to me, regardless of how well justified it is or isn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Most teachers believe that education is supposed to:

1) To make good people.

2) To make good citizens.

3) To make each person his or her personal best.

But our public school system as envisioned by its creator (Alexander Inglis) in the early 20th century was to simply to reduce as many individuals as much as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry and establish fixed habits of reaction to authority.

Inglis, in his speeches, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling is intended to halt a worldwide democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice and unity. Compulsory schooling was to thwart the prospective unity of these underclasses. Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means to stop the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in childhood from ever reintegrating into a dangerous whole.

<comment><USER22> Yep. Educators refer to this as the 'Factory model of education'. Imported from Northern Europe in the late 1800s with heavy influence from industrial Germany.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_model_school](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_model_school)

In the case of such schools (for the unwashed masses, of course), the medium is definitely the message. Uptight. Neat rows of assigned seating in non- nonsense, screwed-down desks with steel frames and hardwood tops. 'Workbooks', authoritarian teaching by rote (to a model, not to individuals), elected school boards, daily pledges of allegiance, lockstep curriculum, nearly invisible boards of accreditation, etc.

Ah, humanity.

<comment><USER23> As Wikipedia notes, this is kind of just a myth - [http://hackeducation.com/2015/04/25/factory- model](http://hackeducation.com/2015/04/25/factory-model)

<comment><USER21> The division chair of the school of education at my niece's alma mater, Augsburg University, fully believes in the factory model of education. My niece almost switched majors over it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I have seen these discussions before. I have seen people who will cherish the times gone by and the skills of the good ol' days becoming extinct - calligraphy, letter writing, book handling... I have seen people with the progressive mind saying that: what's not needed anymore, or what's not going to be needed soon, why even bother!? If it's dying, let it! It's evolution! It's Science! It's Progress!

The problems is both things. There are people who have gone too far with the science and tech craze, "the silicon valley bigwigs" and feel that in the end it wasn't really the tech that made the cut for them or they did see people lose out because they didn't have the other bits figured, despite being wonderful at their niche. The other people are the ones who feel that the world is surrendering to the tech and there is no place where tech won't go. It's better to keep catching up with the times than being left out in dilly- dallying over notions, ideas, philosophies, arts and the like.

My concern is both are narrow ways of thinking by themselves. Yes, tech will be everywhere. Yes it is getting important and you won't find a job if you don't know tech etiquette, soon enough at least. But it won't make the cut without understanding people, tendencies, perspectives, arts, histories. New skills are nice and important, but then old values and ways of doing things have inspirations. You can't "disrupt" everything by "the new way of thinking". You will end up destroying a lot of places. Forget that there's a panacea, "the one unified theory", "one ring to rule them all". That's good for a fantasy movie conveying a few ideas, but incomplete when it comes to real life.

</comment><comment><USER25> First of all, could someone enlighten the non-US readers about what common core is? I hear the term a lot, not clear what the main ideas actually are or how people view it.

My own kids go to private schools in the UK. None of the parents would have any problems buying a load of tablets or VR goggles or whatever if the schools said so, and the schools would not have any problems buying whatever manner of gadgets they thought were needed. These are schools that have historically fed kids to top secondary schools in the area, which in turn feed into the top universities in the country, and the world.

And yet, the classroom is more or less just like the ones I attended as a kid in the 1980s. Bunch of chairs for little people and letters and numbers made from paper cutouts. The blackboard is one of those big touchscreens but it's used mostly like a blackboard. It's a screen for showing videos only when the kids are in after-school care waiting for parents to come get them.

The kids start to read the year they turn 5, and the big kid who is three years in can mostly read an Economist article. Math-wise it's going fine as well.

As a programmer I'd love it if the kids could learn some of what I do, and there's plenty of interest, but essentially the article is right. The point isn't to make little workers who can write an insertion sort. If you are educated, and you wind up in a place where that's needed, it won't take you all that long to figure out.

We've somehow missed the point of education. It isn't to create specific skills that are useful for businesses. The point is to have an understanding of our place in the world, a vast context that encompasses a huge range of topics. If you do that, you will come across those specific skills, and much more.

<comment><USER26> > First of all, could someone enlighten the non-US readers about what common > core is?

A new set of standards for education that are meant to cut across state lines (e.g. California and Texas previously set education standards merely through market volume and being the biggest purchasers). It's mostly fine.

A lot of people are upset that they "changed how math works" but what they really did was introduce a bunch of different ways for students to think about math so they can get a working math literacy. Instead of being a prescriptive standards ("this is how math works") its more descriptive ("here are a dozen ways one could reason about math to get the answer"). The hope is that this will allow students to better pick up and understand more advanced math in the future, while also providing more opportunities for struggling students to "get it" (e.g. because one example worked for them).

> As a programmer I'd love it if the kids could learn some of what I do, and > there's plenty of interest, but essentially the article is right. The point > isn't to make little workers who can write an insertion sort. If you are > educated, and you wind up in a place where that's needed, it won't take you > all that long to figure out.

I think the important thing, instead of learning how to program insertion sort, or even to program (except perhaps as an extra class), is learning how to reason about basic computing ideas.

Explaining basic ideas like Turing Completeness (and the related ideas of no way to control how another device does things impacts on sharing always meaning copying is possible), NP Hardness (allowing people to reason about how computers actually work, it can only brute force and do clever math, what it can and can't know), cryptography (trust and privacy), and what software engineering vs. programming is (like, discuss the size of code bases, where bugs come from, programming as vocational skill like cooking or writing that is also useful in other fields, etc).

<comment><USER27> My eldest is in first grade and so far I'm not a fan of the Common Core math.

I could make a cynical conspiracy argument that much of it is designed around promotion of the type of technology presented in the article. "Carry the one" is the simplest thing to explain with a pencil and a blank piece of paper. All the additional Common Core techniques seem to require some kind of visual representation, either via the games sold to the schools and onward to the parents, or via the overpriced blocks promoted to teach these techniques. Yeah you could draw it all out, but geesh you end up doing 90% drawing and 10% teaching. Whether it ends up helping students is moot; it helps put money into a lot of lobbyists' pocketbooks.

In fact, now that I think about it, I find myself probably believing it.

Even when I'm trying to be positive about it, I find it a bit backwards. I think giving beginning students a dozen ways to reason about the answer only adds to the confusion. IMO the better teaching method is give them one way to get the answer. Once they've mastered that, _then_ start looking at additional ways to reason about it.

<comment><USER28> What if the "one way" doesn't work for some students where an alternative way does? What if the "one way" is interpreted as the only way? A large complaint about math from students (pre common core) is that there is too much memorization. "Is x^1 or x^0 1, or was it 0?" When math is a bunch of memorizations, students can't apply it outside of canned prompts. The goal is to build mathematical literacy and understanding in a way that is accessible to more students than the "one way." Time will tell if common core gets us in the right direction.

<comment><USER27> I somewhat think the opposite though. When you're given ten ways to do it, then it's information overload and you end up just memorizing those ten ways. When you're given one way to do it then not only do you have a way to do it that will always work, but also it leaves your brain ready to find further ways to do it on its own. And that's how thing start to make sense and stick.

Basically, I think for good students, CC just makes them memorize stuff they'd come up with on their own, and for poor students it creates too much confusion such that memorization isn't even effective anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> "Education is the cultivation of a person, not the manufacture of a worker"

It's neither; the american school system is a socialized daycare so that their parents can go work a full day without worrying about what their kids are up to.

<comment><USER30> No, it's not.

If it were, the school day would be more closely in line with work schedules, rather than being about 6 hours long and starting/ending at wildly different times depending on the child's age or just what school they attend.

Parents generally have to supplement supervision at school with beforecare and/or aftercare programs of some sort.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I was considered a gifted child from a young age. In third grade, because of my "giftedness", I was told I could just read instead of participating in the class skit of the planets of the solar system. I used that time to complete the entire Chronicles of Narnia (good books btw - skip The Magician's Nephew and The Last Battle though). I've wondered what would happen if we scrapped the most useless 30% of my state's school curriculum and instead replaced it with reading time.

I know sports generally have a metric of "Wins above Replacement" where players are measured in how many wins they are expected to add to their team over a hypothetical average player for their position. I've wondered if you could similarly measure "Learning above reading" where your curriculum is measured in how much the student learns in comparison to if they had just sat down and read a book of their choosing for the same amount of time.

<comment><USER32> I'm convinced that people would, in general, be much more competent at general writing and communication if they spent more time reading for pleasure as kids. I developed a huge vocabulary and an instinctive grasp of grammar because I read voraciously; constantly immersed in more-or-less decent writing, I could immediately tell when my own writing was "off".

<comment><USER33> There's a comment elsewhere in this thread that suggests there's no link between spelling and higher intelligence.

I disagree. Spelling ability doesn't develop in a vacuum. It's the result of an individual's having seen the words before. Reading develops spelling ability. Reading also develops the imagination and one's ability to reason about abstractions. Reading may not have any influence on spatial reasoning or math ability, but I think it's the primary driver of verbal intelligence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> about six years ago my son let a campaign to turn back the attempt to introduce iPads to the school (they'd been piloted in grade 9 and were to be introduced high school wide the following year). A surprising number of the 9th graders said it was a waste and many kids didn't want them (they already had phone to get whatever distraction they wanted).

The principal finally took him aside and said "I'm not going to discuss your points. The fact is if we don't adopt them the parents will complain and enrolment (in that private school) will drop as we appear to be behind the times."

Years before I was on the school board and the parents were the biggest problem. For example there was a panic that "technology" must be added to the curriculum (apparently the inclined plane or pulley weren't considered "technology"). The pushback came from the engineers and computer programmers on the school board, and the computing teachers at the high school level. But time was taken from something else and all the 2-6 grade kids learned to use Powerpoint and Word which essentially none of them (now all college age) have used in years.

<comment><USER35> Then again, engineers and computer programmers routinelly introduce their kids to scratch, hour of code, code combat, general programming, hacking things and what not.

At the high school level, kids of my collegues (especially boys) have significant advantage compared to kids of other people.

<comment><USER34> indeed, but I wouldn't say "then again": I'd say that teaching kids Word isn't giving them any kind of computational thinking. Teaching them to write a small piece of code (and that exquisite feeling when you finally get it working) is very powerful.

It's similar to how mathematics is typically taught to kids in the systems I'm familiar with (US, DE, AU): mostly as syntactic transformations unattached to anything useful. Apparently the teachers have a propensity to be "afraid" of maths which is one reason they might choose to go into early education. The kids may be able to pass a simple maths test but not really have and feel for what it is.

<comment><USER35> Yes. But "computer should wait till high school" and "this is bad curriculum" are not the same complaints.

And also, basic knowledge of word will not harm them. They are not taught word in deep details, they basically learn few basics - that files exists and can be opened with it. For many kids it is first encounter with anything remotely like that.

Again, it is stuff that programmers kids just know by osmosis living with parents, that is why it looks pointless to teach. But many kids simply dont.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> There is some irksome editorializing, namedropping of irrelevant "theorists", and some egregious use of anecdata, but for all its many flaws, this is fundamentally a compelling essay. The author cites legit data as well, and makes concrete recommendations.

I am grateful to have gone through school before the internet and mobile devices became mainstream. I think kids today have it significantly harder than I did.

</comment><comment><USER37> I heard of an OLPC-like program in Peru that builds a wooden laptop with a Raspberry Pi brain to be used to "improve education". While the Peruvians deserve all props for being able to mass-produce a low-cost laptop for even the poor in their community, my hot take was, if they wanted to improve education, give each kid a THEC64 and limit their exposure to an hour (okay, maybe two) a day. Have them spend the rest of their free time outside.

I think computers have the most to teach us when we are the ones teaching them (i.e., programming them), and that the promise of 1980s computers was that they could do whatever you want (that was within their capacity), the drawback being that they came with very limited functionality out of the box and must be programmed (or loaded with external software) to be useful; whereas today, computers and computer-like devices such as phones come with lots of functionality out of the box, but they do things that might not be what you want. (Crash due to brittle OS/drivers, sudden UI or functionality changes due to "mandatory updates", DRM, spyware...) This plus the ready accessibility of obscene or offensive content makes me very wary about giving internet- connected devices to the very young (< 14 years or so). If kids are to be exposed to computers, we should teach them to be their masters, not their slaves. And we should strictly temper screen time, because their growing bodies and minds need time outside more than they need time in front of a screen.

</comment><comment><USER38> I am gravely concerned about using too much tech in early education, as this will assuredly hinder the development of critical fine motor skills such as handwriting, drawing, painting, sculpting, among many other skills, all of which I learned as a child. Not to mention all of the physical play we had. As a child I remember having to invent games, stories, and adventures. In other words, we were forced to use our imagination, for everything. Perhaps I'm just a cynical and aging critic, but I feel like the overuse of technology in general will make future generations of children lazier, and therefore less creative. I already feel that my own life has been impacted in this way.

Case in point: The widespread use of Grammarly is dumbing down everyone. Why actually learn proper grammar, spelling, common idioms, and syntax, if AI can basically do it for you? What as a society do we gain from such things? I can't help but imagine that at some point our understanding of language will become so simplified that we'll need a proxy language to express "real" phrases so that all we have to do is bang out basic ideas on some kind of modified keyboard which will translate it to real language.

<comment><USER39> Young people just use their motor skills differently, for example for computer games or juggling (pen spinning, cardistry). These skills are now much more available thanks to YT and Internet in general.

I think there is a good case to be made that kids actually learn much faster than ever, thanks to things like YT and Wikipedia. Before the Internet, it was very difficult to connect to really skillful people in the world, there were pockets of talent but really disconnected. If you were outside the pocket, you were pretty much screwed. Today it's not the case.

Of course you can question usefulness of the skills learned, but that is a separate question, I think. Fashion in these skills is probably faster than in the past, for better or worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I half think that the entirety of Common Core Math is designed by lobbyists promoting the type of technology presented in the article. "Carry the one" is the simplest thing to explain with a pencil and a blank piece of paper. All the new Common Core techniques seem to require some kind of visual representation, either via the games sold to the schools and onward to the parents, or via the overpriced blocks sold to teach these techniques. Yeah as a parent I could draw it all out, but then you end up doing 90% drawing and 10% teaching; it's pretty impractical. So I could see cynically that whether it ends up helping students is moot; it helps put money into a lot of lobbyists' pocketbooks and that's all that matters.

NB Even when I'm trying to be positive about it, I find it a bit backwards. I think giving beginning students a dozen ways to reason about the answer only adds to the confusion. IMO the better teaching method is give them one rote mechanical way to get the answer and explain that as best you can. Once they've mastered that, then start looking at additional ways to reason about it (if necessary).

<comment><USER40> What are these 'common core math' techniques? I went to primary school in New Zealand. In around 2005 they introduced a new way of teaching mathematics that we referred to as the 'numeracy programme'. It wasn't very popular with students and parents obviously all thought it was crap because parents are naturally scared of change in education negatively affecting their kids.

But when we actually did it, it was basically fine. Obviously everyone still learnt the standard place value algorithms (by that point we already knew them, and they didn't stop teaching them to younger kids), but people also learnt other strategies like: if I'm adding 47 to 54, I can simplify that by instead adding 50 (47 + 3) to 57 (54 + 3), which is 107. It was about learning what you to terms like 47 + 54 without changing the value.

Another one I think I remember being mentioned was thinking of 124 x 52 as 100 x 52 + 20 x 52 + 4 x 52. Of course, that's exactly what you're doing with the standard algorithm! The 'algorithm' you learn when you're 5 is just the same as the 'strategy' you learn when you're 10, but presented as something you do on paper rather than something you do in your head.

I also remember learning about ways to approximate these sorts of things. So you want to work out 4241 x 1245 - well you can work it out, but you should probably also work out what 4000 x 1000 is and use that to check that your answer is of the right order of magnitude. And if you're just working something out quickly, then maybe all you need is 4200 x 1300, that's obviously close enough for any practical usage.

I don't remember exactly what I learnt then which to me is a sign it was probably very effective: I internalised the strategies, some of which I was probably already using, some of which I probably didn't remember but thought about again later. It all seems very obvious now, of course, but it's different when you're 10.

<comment><USER27> > if I'm adding 47 to 54, I can simplify that by instead adding 50 (47 + 3) to > 57 (54 + 3), which is 107

47+53=107???

Haha, okay I get it, it was a slip. But it's kind of the point from my perspective. All these different techniques of moving stuff around seems fraught with ways to misunderstand it or muck it up. At best they should be supplementary skills, and shouldn't be taught as the primary techniques. Per Common Core guidelines, or at least per the stuff my first grader is bringing home, it seems like all these tricks are taught as the foundation, which seems backwards.

Maybe my opinion will change as my kids progress. I'm by no means married to my stance on the approach, and would be happy if it does indeed lead to better understanding. But now I'm not seeing it as a great approach to math, and the cynical side of me can imagine that there's more money and politics there than people think.

<comment><USER41> I dunno. Having an intuition for _why_ 12x6=72, etc all the way on up through integrals, Taylor series, and the rest of K-12 math just seems a lot more intellectually stimulating, and therefore useful to the development of the mind to me.

I never understood the kids who "just wanted to know how to get the answer." Like, any monkey can follow a protocol. Why does it work? That's the brain muscle worth growing.

Mathematics is a foundation for systematic logical thinking. Rote memorization comes in so that you don't _need_ to work through the why once you have mastered the why of that problem; to enable thinking about more complex relationships. But if you didn't really get the simpler relationship, maybe it's not time to move on...

Disclaimer: I have zero personal experience with Common Core outside the kind of anecdotes I come across like in this thread

<comment><USER27> I agree in principle. Just the implementation of common core seems backwards. My kid is struggling to make sense of it, and I don't have any good way of helping her because it all seems backwards to me. I did teach her carry the one, like I learned, and she picked it right up. But I stopped that too because I didn't want to confuse her. So now I'm somewhat clueless what to do to help. The teacher recommended those dumb video games, after we've worked all our lives to limit her screen time.

That's why I say common core, even though the goal is more understanding and less memorization, actually leads toward the opposite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Article mentions Waldorf. A good, old article about Waldorf in Silicon Valley: [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf- sch...](https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in- silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html)

I just started my son at Waldorf in the Sierra Nevadas. Would recommend to anyone if you have one near you.

<comment><USER43> Waldorf does a lot of good things for pretty bonkers reasons. It kind of depends on what the philosophy your particular Waldorf school if that's an issue or not, and what kind of side effects that has.

<comment><USER44> We did a Waldorf tour and a Montessori tour as I am Piaget constructivist fan. Waldorf was kooky-dooks, the specific Montessori had no soul, I am sure most probably do.

We ended up going with a preschool that was a chaotic hodgepodge, the best part of which they had two mandatory outside play times, no exceptions for weather.

Waldorf is extremely conforming. Good intentions with the wrong focus.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> the whole "computers in schools aren't working" part of the article is being overly focused in these comments. the important part of the article is this:

> STEM ideologues and real educators are pursuing very different goals. The > purpose of education in the sciences is to cultivate children as knowers in > and of the world. The purpose of STEM programs is just to create more of a > certain kind of worker.

as someone with a computer engineering degree currently working on an MFA, I couldn't agree more. I have learned more about the consequences and impact of my work in a half year of MFA studies than I did in five years of engineering studies.

</comment><comment><USER46> Once we got laptops in high school, almost all of the down-time after completing assignments that I used to spend reading in middle school was converted to playing Flash games or screwing around with GarageBand.

<comment><USER47> I remember how it was before - they just screwed around in different ways such that doodling violent or rude stick figures was one of the better uses of the down time compared to outright mischief.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Such a gobbledygook of an article, sure some tech spending isn't helpful and may even be harmful to education but this author doesn't even fully explain what he means by "technology".

<comment><USER45> the entire "STEM Against Science" section is about what he means by "technology" so I am really not convinced you've read the article.

> The sciences and mathematics have a historic place in the curriculum, and > technology does not, for the simple reason that the latter is not inherently > "about" anything. Absent human contributions on specific topics, cut off > from the subject matter of academic work, technology is nothing—an electron > microscope without any samples, darkened VR goggles, an empty spreadsheet. > Specializing in techne as such means trying to teach people to be good at > "making" without having any idea of what to make, or why to make it.

<comment><USER48> I don't have to convince you of anything, that quote is exactly the terrible nonsensical word salad that don't explain his premises. Jumbling all technology as if it is a single phenomenon just makes the author sound high on his own rambling intellectualism.

edit:

> technology is nothing—an electron microscope without any samples,

Pretty sure there's actually not many electron microscopes and quite a lot of samples in schools.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I think 'education' is largely just not aware how best to USE tech.

Teacher's struggle with whatever applications were selected for them.

Schools struggle to pick good systems / programs to use.

It's early stages.

<comment><USER44> We have had Apple II in the class room from what the mid 80s? It is not early stages.

<comment><USER49> One computer in a room is dramatically different than today.

<comment><USER50> I graduated high school in 2007. My entire K-12, we would occasionally go to the computer lab to do things. The lab had enough computers for everyone in the class to use one.

Granted, that's a lot different from each student having a computer in class all the time.

I think the school did actually buy a cart of portable laptops that teachers could check out for doing assignments in class. Mostly I found it to be unproductive. Then again, I found a lot of teaching techniques to be unproductive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> its because the people who are making these programs don't actually have an understanding of technology (just like technologists don't, as a general rule, understand education).

These folks so that successful people are using computers and think that using computers is the goal, not just a handy tool for doing stuff that we're slow at really fast.

To quote Dijkstra, "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes"

</comment><comment><USER52> >The sciences and mathematics have a historic place in the curriculum, and technology does not, for the simple reason that the latter is not inherently "about" anything. Absent human contributions on specific topics, cut off from the subject matter of academic work, technology is nothing—an electron microscope without any samples, darkened VR goggles, an empty spreadsheet. Specializing in techne as such means trying to teach people to be good at "making" without having any idea of what to make, or why to make it.

I wonder what STEM education would have been centuries ago -- a 60-minute class period learning about the inner workings of a steam engine? or how to operate a spinning jenny? It would certainly look out of place in a school curriculum, and better learned on the job or in an apprenticeship.

As a counterpoint to the author, I would point out that universal public education is a recent thing. Sure, maybe classroom education should focus on "the good, the true, and the beautiful" but then why should we expect everyone to do it?

<comment><USER53> I studied engineering in a country with a non-idiotic university program.

Books (in b/w), pencil and paper. Lessons using a whiteboard or blackboard with chalk. Desks and chairs.

Some of the rooms where exactly the same used a century ago.

You learn theory, not how some "new technology of the year" works.

> I would point out that universal public education is a recent thing.

"recent" as in french revolution.

> Sure, maybe classroom education should focus on "the good, the true, and the > beautiful" but then why should we expect everyone to do it?

Yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> It is important to prioritize interpersonal interactions from a young age. Screen time is indirect interaction. It is essential for them to learn how to resolve conflict, play together, and make friends. activities with other people are invaluable to Social, emotional, and intellectual development.

</comment><comment><USER55> In case you understand German, it is worth reading the books (or watching the talks) of psychologist Manfred Spitzer. He makes compelling arguments on why in particular our children suffer from "digital dementia". Among other things, he argues that our brain learns much better when writing with pen and paper than when writing on a keyboard. This resonates with my own experience at university: I remembered stuff much better when I took notes on paper than when I did so using a computer.

Links: [https://www.amazon.de/Digitale-Demenz-unsere-Verstand- bringe...](https://www.amazon.de/Digitale-Demenz-unsere-Verstand- bringen/dp/3426300567) [https://youtu.be/MRrPbNLhEuQ](https://youtu.be/MRrPbNLhEuQ)

</comment><comment><USER56> Everything I learned came out of a computer so these statistics certaintly don't apply to me.

I found human teachers terrible at explaining things. Their explanations are often full of holes and they expect you to move at their pace - They don't give you the time to absorb the content. I felt that math class was just for show. I never learned anything from it.

I failed math in my final year of school, then I went to university and I got distinction in math. The difference was that at university, I was watching videos online and using free online interactive graphing software and programming matrix transformations.

The problem is not technology in general. It's using the wrong technologies.

</comment><comment><USER57> I agree with parts of the article such as the issue with common core requirements that make it easier for computers to grade.

I do not see STEM being taught as an issue as I think science helps move us forward as a species.

Connecticut passed a statue last year requiring inclusion of computer science in curriculum. The one issue I have with this is they want to retrain the teachers and make them subject matter experts in computer science.

Public Act 19-128 ("An Act Concerning The Inclusion Of Computer Science Instruction In The Public School Curriculum, Programs Of Teacher Preparation And In-Service Training Programs For Teachers")

</comment><comment><USER58> >American colleges graduate 50 percent more students each year than are hired into fields like computer and information science and engineering.

I've been told the opposite many times by many different people. Is this true?

</comment><comment><USER59> My kid made a small complaint about missing out on the laptop refresh for his year; it happened the next after he had left the school.

I pointed out that you don't need a laptop at all to learn.

Abraham Lincoln famously used the back of a shovel to write on! (occasionally)

[https://www.lincolncollection.org/discover/ask-an- expert/qa-...](https://www.lincolncollection.org/discover/ask-an-expert/qa- archive/did-the-young-lincoln-do-his-homework-writing-with-coal-on-the-back- of-a-shovel/)

<comment><USER60> > I pointed out that you don't need a laptop at all to learn

I am going to assume that, being a good parent, that is what you do. That when you need to learn something new, you do not research it on your phone or laptop, you go to a library, check out a number of books and reference materials, read them and take notes (maybe not on a shovel, but on a physical writing medium of some sort).

That you did not blow off your kid's concern and left a smug comment about it on HN.

<comment><USER59> Well, yeah. We have a ton of books, including a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica. There is a very strong tradition of learning in our family.

That said, it was no "blow off"; having a slightly newer laptop is not something a student should be concerned with. And they understand that.

But also ... I think researching with your phone or laptop is perfectly fine as long as it is done with care. And is not the only method of research!

ps Chrome spelling checker flagged "Encyclopedia" as a misspelling. Hmm.

<comment><USER61> It's properly spelled "Encyclopædia Britannica" [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Encyclopaedia-Britannica- En...](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Encyclopaedia-Britannica-English- language-reference-work)

<comment><USER59> It was flagged before I started typing the "Britannica" bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Can anyone find a source for that "Give Students a Laptop to Knock off Half a Letter Grade" graph?

It is credited to PISA, but isn't mentioned in the references section and isn't obvious in the PISA publications list: [https://www.oecd- ilibrary.org/education/pisa_19963777?page=1](https://www.oecd- ilibrary.org/education/pisa_19963777?page=1)

I wonder if technology here is actually a proxy variable for country?

<comment><USER63> Also can't find it, even if I google the label. All I can get is another study which finds the same but attributes it to distraction

<comment><USER62> Isn't it ironic that the complaint is about technology, and yet none of us can find anything to back up the claim?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> TV is rotting children's minds. We need to ban television!

</comment><comment><USER65> "the use of technology in schools actually lowers test scores in reading, math, and science, damages long-term memory, and induces addiction" \- citation needed.

<comment><USER66> There are 38 citations in TFA

<comment><USER67> Also, this is a claim in the essay's introductory paragraph and the claim is supported by paragraphs and citations in the rest of the essay. This knee jerk "citation needed" on HN is getting tiresome.

<comment><USER61> The claim that "technology in schools actually lowers test scores in reading, math, and science" is not supported by identifiable sources, so some skepticism is warranted.

<comment><USER67> Later in the essay, the author has supporting examples AND references for his opening claims. For lowering test scores there are two examples that I found in a few moments of looking.

> In a study of over seven hundred students at West Point, those with > computers in class had test scores 0.2 standard deviations below those of > students who did not.12

> In one study, the final exam scores of students whose class permitted > electronic devices were 5 percentage points lower than those whose classes > did not.13

<comment><USER61> I was talking about the figure claiming to show changes in PISA scores caused by various technologies, for which I can't find the source.

I didn't look closer at the West Point study, but I did read reference 13, which by the way required the use of electronic devices for in-class testing, so it did not actually compare classes permitting electronic devices against those that did not. Rather, it had a proctor remind students to put their devices away when they weren't using them for the lecture.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Swapidy: Trade up your old stuff for new stuff - <AUTHOR> http://www.swapidy.com/

<comment><USER2> I'd suggest not calling it Honey. It is too similar to the word money, and can cause confusion. Imagine in conversation...

"so you go to this website and trade your stuff in for honey."

"wait you mean money?"

"no honey. but honey is like money, you can use honey to buy stuff just like money..."

etc.

EDIT: I just looked the pricing model and it is evokes weird feelings. Any reason why you don't just do a 1:1 ratio? Why force users to compute a secondary calculation. True, it is a multiple of 10 but still a calculation and makes me feel like I'm making a foreign purchase.

<comment><USER3> Because they don't want you to do normal math and realize how much you are being ripped off...

<comment><AUTHOR> We have the conversion ratio posted on the homepage itself and want users to know what it is. $1 = 10 Honey.

Also, we are giving users more than market value on products and selling brand new products under retail. The same products would be more expensive if you were to buy them directly from the store.

<comment><USER2> If this is true it would make even more sense to drop down to 1:1 so that users would "get it" and not have to familiarize themselves with a new market.

Converting $1 = 10H might seem like a simple conversion, but you'd be surprised how difficult it can actually be for many general consumers. I've seen people bring out calculators to split a $130 bill evenly between 13 people.

<comment><AUTHOR> Understandable and I think your point is certainly valid.

We're testing to see what works and what doesn't right now. If you think about it, people are more likely to buy or sell if the number is higher. But we will only know if people get used to it within a matter of days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Maybe I'm being paranoid, but your use of virtual currency strikes me as an attempt to later coin your own currency to "buy" other peoples' goods for free. It doesn't bode well for trust, in any case...

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your concern. I will go over this with my your co-founder and come up with a way for consumers to feel comfortable that this won't happen.

-Adam

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> So money can be converted into honey, but honey cannot be converted into money.

How does that not make this strictly less useful than transacting in good old money?

<comment><AUTHOR> With Honey, we can offer you more instead of what Gazelle or eBay would offer you.

Ex) Instead of selling your iPhone for $400, we could give you $440 in some cases.

Does that answer your question?

-Adam

<comment><USER6> You do understand that would be a pyramid scheme, right? You can't sustainably create currency out of nothing like that. At best what you're doing is the same as what the Fed does when they print money, i.e. causing inflation, so that at least there is no big crash at the end where everyone left holding your currency loses everything (though that is exactly what would happen if your site ever experiences a significant reduction in the active user base, as it would cause hyperinflation until there are no sellers left willing to sell anything in exchange for your fake money, making it totally worthless). But you're still removing value from the credit each of the existing users is currently holding every time you do it. And you've set it up so that people can't get rid of the "money" in any way other than by putting it into the hands of some other sucker who has to hold it while its value drops every time you make more of it.

I can certainly see how that benefits your company, but I have a hard time seeing how I should like it as a user, unless I think I'm being savvy by getting in near the root of the pyramid and then immediately exchanging all my fake money for real goods valued higher than those I exchanged for them, and hoping I can make my exchanges before the market saturation point is hit and the free money stops.

<comment><USER7> Have you read the sites context ? It's not a pyramid scheme. Lets recall what a pyramid scheme is expressly defined as

"A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves promising participants payment or services, primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, rather than supplying any real investment or sale of products or services to the public"

Now lets read what the site does

"We buy your products for Honey. You buy anything using Honey." - all the products you buy using honey are new according to the site. There isn't a second hand market place on this site - so there is not any supply issues here. The supply is the company sending out products based on the current market value of the products interpreted into their model.

You sell your product, they will give you virtual currency in order to lock you into their ecosystem and then you buy a new product based on that honey value. Please explain to me, in lay terms, how that explanation is equal to the definition of pyramid scheme above ?

Frankly speaking, dealing with morons from craigslist is becoming a pain in the ass and if the value is not that different and these guys can give me the convenience, delivery and remove headaches - great. It comes down to their pricing vs. others in the market (gazelle and so on)

<comment><USER6> >You sell your product, they will give you virtual currency in order to lock you into their ecosystem and then you buy a new product based on that honey value. Please explain to me, in lay terms, how that explanation is equal to the definition of pyramid scheme above ?

Thank you for pointing out that you don't use their currency to buy the products they purchased from their other customers (though it makes me wonder what they're doing with them then).

But let me put it this way: There are three ways they can offer you more for your products in fake currency than in real currency. 1) They expect users to hold an ever-increasing amount of their currency in their accounts and not spend it immediately. If too many users tried to spend their currency all at once they would go out of business and you would lose your money; it's a pyramid scheme. 2) They give you $440 instead of $400 for your iPhone, but then a new product that would cost $400 on Amazon costs $440 in their currency. It's not a real discount. 3) They take less as profit than Amazon, even on top of Amazon's economies of scale, which is almost certainly not sustainable.

<comment><USER7> I'm terribly sorry. But your continued use of "pyramid scheme" is just wrong.

1) "they expect users to hold an ever-increasing amount of their currency in their accounts and not spend it immediately."

> Where does it say that ? Unfortunately no where. And who wants to hold their > currency ? Use case: I want a new phone. I accept the offer from swapidy for > X currency and then buy a new iphone at X currency. At what point do I want > to hold my currency ? No, I want a new phone and if their pricing makes > sense I transact. Thats it.

2) "too many users tried to spend their currency all at once they would go out of business and you would lose your money;"

> At what point would you loose your money ? The currency is valid and you can > purchase an item. They send you that item. I am assuming your inference is > that they do not stock any of the items they sell and I am unclear where you > draw that inference from ? Please let me know if you have some sort of > information that I do not other than what is illustrated on the site. If you > transact and sell your phone, you send it to them and I assume they will > subsequently sell that. You purchase a new phone and they send you that new > phone. There is obviously the requirement for inventory and stock and so on. > Thats a business and cost inventory issue, nothing else. If the company > fails, you become a creditor - like when any company fails. It's a trust > issue and up to them to ensure that its trust worthy.

3) "it's a pyramid scheme."

> No, its not. Refer above and please refer to Wikipedia or other sources to > learn about pyramid schemes.

4) " They give you $440 instead of $400 for your iPhone, but then a new product that would cost $400 on Amazon costs $440 in their currency. It's not a real discount. "

> Amazon is not a fluctuating pricing market like ebay or other such services. > You will receive a standardized cost on Amazon for a extended period of time > whereas this site infers you will receive the current daily market rate or > close enough. This is the difference and therefore ultimately the difference > in the pricing mechanism. If you want cash, transact at some other market > and see if the pricing differential is more advantageous than what they > offer. Some items will be cheaper and some will not be - don't tell me they > actually want to run a site that makes money ? The use of virtual currency > is to lock a user into their service and there is nothing wrong with that if > you want to accept their buy offer which is more than you would receive > elsewhere. No one is forcing your hand to transact.

5) "They take less as profit than Amazon"

> How do you know what profit they take ? Feel free to let me know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi! This is Adam and Pulkit, the co-founders of Swapidy. We've been tirelessly working on this for a while and hope you'll check it out and give us some feedback. Right now we're only buying and selling limited products but we plan to expand our category line based on demand. If you're in the bay area, there's a good chance that we will hand-deliver your device the day you purchase it and it would be our pleasure to talk to you in person for a few minutes.

<comment><USER8> Congrats on launching guys! I've known the founders for a while.. Extremely talented and persuasive 18 year old college dropouts, check out their team bios.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am kind of surprised to see all of the comments regarding why they would use the virtual currency. It makes sense. They can offer you more by keeping you locked into their ecosystem. A crude comparison would be a company like Gamestop giving you more for your trade-in if you take in store credit as opposed to cash. In store credit guarantees that you stick around.

<comment><AUTHOR> At a business perspective, it makes sense but I think they are curious to know why the virtual currency is valuable to them.

I'm glad you brought the Gamestop example up. Gamestop gives you the option of selling for store credit or cash. If you take cash, they give you 50%. We can offer more than market value because the overhead for us is minimal since we're dealing with virtual currency. The value of the currency never changes and we're always trying to sell for the lowest amount possible to provide value to the consumer.

So certainly valid questions on here and would love to answer as many questions you have!

-Adam

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I went through the process of choosing my MBP to sell: Mid 2011, 8gb, 500gb, 2.7 GHz i7 and it told me that there's no such product.

What does 'there's no such product' mean? Should it say 'we're not currently buying that product'?

I'm typing on it right now so I can assure you that it does exists.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi. You are correct. Please email me at firstname.lastname@example.com and I'll update you on when your product has been added to our database.

<comment><USER10> I suggest you change your wording. Saying there's no such product makes me think I either entered in some wrong information and try again.. and again... or makes me think there's a mistake in your system.

Your best bet would be having an email opt-in pop up letting me know it's not currently a product you're buying but I can be notified when you are. (like you just did)

<comment><AUTHOR> Well in some scenarios, there are no such products due to people clicking multiple filters in the same category.

We're working on making them better and adjusting them to different scenarios.

You're product will be added shortly and I will update this thread as soon as it becomes available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> FYI took about a full minute (55.82s) to load the page for me. Some things you might want to look at are that your asset pipeline is running in development mode (?body=1) and 130 separate HTTP requests (resources) were required to load the page.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey thanks for the message! We realize this problem and will fix it by tonight.

-Adam

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This looks really neat, but I've got some comments/questions:

* Typo when trying to set up a sale of a Late 2010 MacBook air: Choose your product's "condtion"

* Where do the prices come from? Are they competitive with other trading sites? For example, a "MacAir 13' Late2010 1.86GHZ 2GB RAM 128 Flash" in "Good" condition goes for $407 on Gazelle, but h3750 ($375?) on Swapidy. However, Gazelle does give me the option to include my power adapter and specify that I have a working battery.

* Why honey? Why not real money?

Edit: Formatting

Edit2: Clarity

<comment><USER13> I'm also curious about the choice of virtual currency.

From perusing their FAQ, it seems like you can buy Honey with real money, but it doesn't look like you can get your money back out. Ick.

<comment><AUTHOR> At the moment, we're not offering redemption of Honey but we may consider it in the future. The value you're getting of selling your product over market value and buying under wouldn't require you to ever take out money anyway.

Also, if your product is worth as much as a product we're selling, you won't have to pay a single dime.

-Adam

<comment><USER14> > The value you're getting of selling your product over market value and > buying under wouldn't require you to ever take out money anyway.

This is only true if the difference between the sold item and bought item(s) is small. If the seller is looking to offload a macbook but only to buy an iPad a cash transaction would make significantly more sense. In this system the difference in values is tied up in honey which has no value outside of the system. With cash the seller can apply their remaining funds to anything they want.

I would imagine that even though the "value" of honey supplied to sellers is more than what they might be able to obtain in a cash transaction that extra honey is actually worth next to nothing as it sits in the sellers account unused.

<comment><AUTHOR> Think about it this way... A lot of people try to sell their iPhone 4S's or 4's when the new model came out. So what did they do? They went to eBay, Amazon, Craigslist, Gazelle, etc. to sell it. Once sold, they used the money to pay for it plus the difference.

Think of that whole experience done on one site... Swapidy. You sell your stuff to us, get paid instantly, and buy whatever you want right away.

As for the remaining balance goes. New products come out all the time and more often that not, you will purchase a new product in the future, right? You can use that currency that was left over to buy the next best thing whenever it comes out. And better yet, we will always be updating our product lines. So there will always be something new to buy.

So think of it as savings in your bank that's used for something else down the road. The value is never going anywhere... it always stays the same ($1 = 10 Honey).

Let me know if you have any other clarifications I can make.

-Adam

<comment><USER14> I'm not confused about how your product works, virtual currency systems are great for the vendor but the lock into the marketplace carries risks and downsides for the consumers using the marketplace.

> New products come out all the time and more often that not, you will > purchase a new product in the future, right?

That's assuming a lot. New products come out all the time, however I have no guarantees that your marketplace will have another product that I want at any time. If I have a balance of honey I'm taking a risk that I will find continued utility in your marketplace. That same risk doesn't exist if I sell or trade my goods for real currency instead of virtual currency.

> So think of it as savings in your bank that's used for something else down > the road. The value is never going anywhere... it always stays the same ($1 > = 10 Honey).

It's nothing like savings in a bank. My bank pays me interest and allows me to withdraw money at any time for any purpose. Converting money, or my used goods, to honey locks me into your ecosystem and has a significantly smaller value to me in utility and opportunity cost than actual cash. Additionally, if my bank goes out of business my deposits are insured by the FDIC. If swapidy goes out of business the honey evaporates into thin air and it's just a loss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Wanted to let you know that your nav is too wide for my browser window, and one of the nav items is cut off: <http://i.imgur.com/3dORK0Y.jpg>

Probably a good idea to consider 960 min width.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for sharing this with us. We are looking into it now and will resolve the issue ASAP.

-Adam

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Awesome Guys! I know personally Adam & Pulkit, both 18 year old Stanford & Upen dropouts..Extremely Hard-workers and Talented! May the force be with you my young Padawans!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Just an FYI, you can transact on the site product for product without paying a single dime (not even shipping), if your item is worth as much as the one we're selling.

</comment><comment><USER17> Congrats guys! Pulkit is a driven guy. He felt CS193c at Stanford was the right environment to launch a product. :) I wish you, and your team, the best of luck!

</comment><comment><USER18> Am I right in my understanding that this is basically the same as a trade in deal (for example at a car dealership)?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, but unlike a car dealership, we give you more than market value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Congrads on the Relaunch guys Great work from the Under20 network Good luck guys =)

</comment><comment><USER20> How do you guys manage warehousing / storage for all your inventory?

<comment><AUTHOR> Great question!

We have a very efficient inventory system that updates on its own as someone does a transaction both when they buy and sell.

Currently, we're running out a small space where all the products are stored. As we grow... our logistics will get more complex of course.

Feel free to ask any other questions.

-Adam

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Good luck guys! Proud of ya :-)

</comment><comment><USER22> Thanks, I just had a serious philosophical chuckle. :)

From one perspective, 'Swapidy: Trade your old stuff for new stuff' is a such an impossibly elegant example of Web2.0 startup culture _and_ American consumer-materialism.

You guys should enter in to some kind of poetry award as a free marketing gimmick.

<comment><AUTHOR> +1

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Great idea!</comment>


If He Walks Like A Ruby Developer But Talks Like A PHP Developer, What Is He? - <AUTHOR> http://lostintangent.com/2010/01/26/if-he-walks-like-a-ruby-developer-but-he-talks-like-a-php-developer-then-what-exactly-is-he/

<comment><USER2> A quote from the article...

"I've interviewed many developers who applied to a position that was attached to a specific programming language, and didn't even know that language, but I still gave my recommendation to hire them. The reason was that I felt comfortable enough with their current skill set that I knew I could not only mentor them to transition in another language, but they could become really strong. Truthfully speaking, I never once saw a negative recourse from one of those decisions (thank goodness!)."

Contractors have even more reason to identify themselves as an X developer. Most contractors get paid for what they can do "right now." They don't get paid to learn a new language or for any transitioning period. In most cases, a contractor just needs to get the job done.

<comment><USER3> That's a great point gexla. I wasn't taking into account contractors in the article (naively so). I'll add an annotation to the article that mentions how contract work is slightly different.</comment></comment>


Tell HN: New Starbucks Rewards in April - <AUTHOR> http://morestars.starbucks.com/#section-1<p>To me, as a gold member, this seems like they're making it harder to get "free drinks" - what does it seem like to you? <comment><USER2> Exactly. If you purchase a regular drink daily, your buying power with redemptions will be about halved.</comment>


Announcing Dart 2.3: Optimized for building user interfaces - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/dartlang/announcing-dart-2-3-optimized-for-building-user-interfaces-e84919ca1dff <comment><USER2> Can anyone explain why emacs and vim are moved to unsupported platforms?

I am not sure why dartlang being an open source language support proprietary editors like vscode, indirectly forcing them to be snooped by Microsoft and others. Hopefully the team will give equal support to open source editors Emacs and Vim for dart language in the name of security and privacy as they were promoting it in google IO 2019.

<comment><USER3> [disclaimer: I work on Dart team]

Short answer: there are a lot of different editors in the world, but Dart team is not large enough and does not posses necessary expertise to develop top- notch integration with all of them. So it makes sense to focus on the very popular ones (and both VSCode and IDEA _are_ very popular) and provide _very_ good support for those.

We hope that community can take and support other editors. That is why we provide tools (e.g. dart analyzer which has an LSP wrapper) that make it easy to build Dart plugins for any editor you like to use.

There are plugins for both emacs ([https://github.com/bradyt/dart- mode](https://github.com/bradyt/dart-mode)) and vim ([https://github.com/dart- lang/dart-vim-plugin](https://github.com/dart-lang/dart-vim-plugin)), which I think work relatively well, but they are not maintained by the Dart team.</comment></comment>