Taking Children Seriously - <AUTHOR> http://fallibleideas.com/taking-children-seriously <comment><USER3> I fully agree that you have to take children seriously, respectfully and make sure they are able to live life to the fullest.

But the "rules are bad" trope is, unfortunately, a trend in The Netherlands. Parents that live by this rule are sacrificing themselves. It's bad parenting.

I see a lot of parents (mothers mostly) in public places desperately trying to explain their dissatisfaction to their misbehaving children. The children meanwhile are completely disregarding them and will continue doing whatever they were doing untill the parents give up. The parents will end up awkwardly trying to ignore their children, visibly ashamed but still unable to use their authority for fear of breaking their chosen path to happy parenting. They won't even raise their voice.

As a parent, I see this all the time. In school, on the street, in stores, it's everywhere.

Reasoning with kids that are completely unwilling to listen to your "adult talk" is completely hopeless. Rules aren't fun but they aren't bad either. You don't have to explain your rules everytime, just make sure you enforce them consistently.

<comment> anon-20171203A Let me provide you a personal experience that might help put this "rules are bad" trope in context.

One day I was with my daughter (~24 months old) at the Zoo and she wanted an Ice Cream and I said "nope". She looked around with wide eyes and noticed all the people near by. Then, she did something I had never seen before -- she dropped down on the ground, twisted and swirled, and started to scream; for quite some time. I calmly sat down nearby and asked her: "when you're done, could you let me know?". Over the next minute or so, several parents gathered around to gawk at the spectacle. When my daughter got close enough to some urine on the ground, I got up, walked over and said: "careful, icky pee here". Without stopping the rolling or the screaming, she immediately recognized and steered clear of the urine. I then sat down again and said, "when you're done, could you let me know?". After another minute or two longer, with hoarse voice and a few bruises, she stood straight up and said: "Fine; I'm done. Monkey next?".

What was problematic was the reaction of other parents. During the episode, they became increasingly anxious looking at each other and trying to catch my attention. One of the mothers asked me "Where is your wife?", to which I responded: "at work, but don't worry, I'm the primary care giver". A father said (after being nudged by his wife): "well, you're just going to sit there?" to which I calmly responded: "It's a temper tantrum". One final mother didn't say a word, but made sure to give my daughter comforting eyes and looked harshly at me, making sure I knew she was dialing someone (police?) on her cell phone.

Once my daughter got up, we inspected her pants for horse urine and talked about how that was an extreme waste of time. Later on I asked her what the Tantrum was about. She explained it quite clearly to me: "well, daddy, one other boy just had one and he got the ice cream, so I wanted to see if that would work". I explained to her that this was pretty bad behavior and that if I ever see it again, we will go home immediately. I've had a few tantrums since, but none of them have been public. My daughter and I then had a very fantastic afternoon talking about Monkeys and more effective ways to communicate her desires.

This was a very unexpected experience for me. I seriously didn't expect that in 1-2 minutes, I'd have a dozen adults gathering around in a circle. I didn't expect 2 of them would be brave enough to hurl insults. I didn't expect one of them to be implicitly threatening police (CPS?). I can see how many parents would have caved under such peer pressure. Perhaps it's not the parent's fear of the children that leads to these problems, but instead, fear of what other parents might say or do?

So. I'm not sure how to connect this to this thread. First I'm not sure a "rule" would have helped. Punishing her wasn't going to help (I evaluated going immediately home, but I think the event was traumatic enough for her already). I'm not sure. Would you do it differently? If you saw me on the bench, would you think that I had given up?

<comment><USER4> > "well, daddy, one other boy just had one and he got the ice cream, so I > wanted to see if that would work"

Pretty advanced for a 2 year old.

With 2 year olds in general, and any discipline advice: YMMV for everyone because they are very unpredictable at that age.

Any "I did this with my 2 yr old" and "I got this result" causality should be taken with a pinch of salt.

<comment><USER5> I can assure you that young children are way smarter that most give them credit. They can pattern match pretty quickly.

<comment><USER4> > "I wanted to see if that would work"

This seems advanced to me. Of course this could be a stock phrase copied from an adult. My 2 year old does this a lot and it makes her sound grown up. As an adult I use confirmation bias to say "yup she's smart".

<comment><USER6> 2-year-olds are definitely capable of this kind of thinking. The ability to explain it and introspect is more rare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My brother, who have no kids, have a kind of doing things that makes the kids like him (he was a handball coach at the time). When I asked him what it was many years ago, he told me : « I treat them as adults, talk to them on an equal base »

So when my children was born, I decided to do the same for them. Talking like an adult (with sometimes words they had no chance to understand), explain the why and how of stuff we ask them to do.

Never raised the hand on them. Sometimes it's a little hard to deal, but most of the time everything goes well.

We'll see when they will be teenagers, but for now, we all live in harmony, and we are often complimented by other parents for their behavior.

Maybe we got lucky (we will never know) or may be this approach was good.

But for us, it's the way to do.

<comment><USER8> It's always worked for me. Kids are used to being dominated and condescended. If you talk to them as respected individuals, you usually get respect back. It also gives more weight to the times you have to be more assertive.

The other helpful thing is to let them be right. Make mistakes on purpose and let them correct you. They're so hungry to be right that it gives a real confident boost.

It should go without saying that this strategy should be used only when it's reasonable, not in cases of safety or when keeping kids from wrecking havoc etc.

<comment><USER9> > [Subordinates] are used to being dominated and condescended. If you talk to > them as respected individuals, you usually get respect back. It also gives > more weight to the times you have to be more assertive.

This is actually pretty good advice for any time you're trying to manage people -- and kids are just little people.

<comment><USER10> The Coding Horror blog has a great piece on how the book _How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk_ helped him out with a lot more than just his kids.

[https://blog.codinghorror.com/how-to-talk-to-human- beings/](https://blog.codinghorror.com/how-to-talk-to-human-beings/)

<comment><USER9> Excellent blog post!

And if anyone is looking for the book (like I was), this seems to be a more recent edition (with better availability):

[https://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Kids-Will- Listen/dp/14516638...](https://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Kids-Will- Listen/dp/1451663889/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I like this idea but let's take it to the limit. Very young children (<2 say) aren't reasoning or reasonable creatures in the usual way we might expect of adults.

They are very scientific (aka will try all the things and are surprisingly astute and pragmatic about learning what works) but they do not have a broader perspective on the world.

"Rules" like "time to go to sleep" and "I'll stop you running onto the road" are not negotiable in any meaningful sense. Other rules for older children can often be viewed as extensions of this.

Mistakes are not free. Some rules are OK.

<comment><USER12> Clearly it is a process - the point the article is making isn't that rules shouldn't exist, rather that any rule should just be a conclusion being explained to the child.

i.e: The answer to "why" should never be "because I said so".

I get that many kids will just ask why infinitely, and lots of parents say that because they are fed up and know the child isn't taking on board the answer, but I'd recommend instead insisting on a specific question - when they ask "why", ask "what don't you understand?" or drill down. This has the advantage of potentially catching a real miscommunication where the child doesn't understand something but truly is trying to work it out, and tends to remove an easy annoyance of the "why" forever.

If the child isn't old enough to understand that cooker == hot and hot + hand == pain, clearly you have to stop them touching the cooker, but that's not mutually exclusive with helping them understand why, if possible.

I remember my parents teaching me not to put my fingers in the door frame when it was open by putting a carrot through and letting me close the door, slicing the carrot in half. I wasn't afraid of punishment or following a rule - <USER2> understood why I shouldn't do it, so I didn't.

<comment><USER13> Pretty much this. A personal anecdote: a few months ago we realized our daughter was waking up very tired in the morning, so we figured she wasn't getting enough sleep. When we told her that bedtime was moving earlier, her initial reaction was to get very upset and ask why. Instead of saying "because we've said so" (like I know a lot of parents do), we calmly explained how it's important for humans to get adequate amounts of sleep, and that at her age she should be getting X hours of sleep at night (and we showed her the math matching the new bed time with the time she has to wake up for school). The explanation made perfect sense to her, and she's so into the new routine that we don't even have to tell her it's time to go to bed most nights.

<comment><USER14> May I ask how old your daughter was at the time?

<comment><USER13> 9.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If you are a parent and are interested in this article, I highly recommend you go find another parenting method that actually provides any semblance of research, investigation, etc. This is nothing more than an anecdotal blog post about parenting, filled with agreeable-sounding ideas. Many of which seem to only pertain to handling children's learning, rather than overall parenting, but the author suggests them generally.

My two cents: children are not little adults and should not be treated as such. Adults have >20 years of life experience, children do not. Children do not know how to control emotions and are not reasonable (duh). There is substantial research into how children develop, including their brains and thought processes. For example, young children are not capable of abstract thought like adults are. This recent fad of treating children as equals is, to me, bizarre and damaging. Don't learn from a random blog post - go read the science (or a parenting book by someone who has). Anecdotally, children I encounter who are raised by this sort of method are rude, brittle know-it-alls who cannot accept being told 'no'.

My favorite parenting rule of thumb: teach your children now with rules and tough love because if you don't, the world will teach them later - and the world doesn't love your children.

<comment><USER16> Another thing that seems pretty suspect is that this article makes no mention of ideas of empathy, emotion, or love. I don't have kids, but it seems a little cold to raise a child without an emphasis on understanding their emotions and the emotions of others. Teaching rationality is all well and good but it's no substitute for helping kids learn softer skills -- since the human interactions they facilitate in later life are probably more important than being able to solve a hard math problem.

Also the section that "Children Aren't Fragile" is a gross oversimplification. Kids are extremely fragile when it comes to things like neglect, abuse and instability in their environment.

<comment><USER17> I would not go as far as "extremely" there, kids are resilient too but anything with big enough impact will have far reaching results.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There are some useful, attractive parenting principles here, but it's worth remembering that raising a child is like a large, complex, multi-year software dev project with a vague spec and constant scope creep. There are some methods that can help, but every one is a unique snowflake. I love the concept of critical rationalism, but it isn't going to work always, or work for all kids. Sometimes, someone in charge just needs to make a decision for things to work.

Set the example, be consistent, give them your attention, help them to own their decisions, and teach them to follow Wheaton's Law. After that, you've just got to hope that things work out.

Source: father of two (quite different) children, with approximately 10,000 parenting failures under my belt.

<comment><USER19> I love your humility. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> With my daughter, I avoided telling her something was wrong, or bad. If she was doing something that negatively impacted the people around her, I'd hold her attention. (This practice started around nine months, so quite literally held her attention. Both hands, and maintained eye contact.)

In a calm voice I would ask her questions about what she is doing, and those around her. She's usually come to an understanding of her own, pre-veral she'd go give hugs and change her behaviour. Post-verbal she would apologize, and change her behaviour.

I was always very proud of her ability to learn and look at out side perspectives. Even if she had to be prompted into viewing them.

I recently thought about this, (earlier today actually). How it differs from sending to their room or corner to "think about what they did."

They don't know at that age what they did. Heck up into young teen years. What do YOU do when sent to your room? If you're like me, you stomped, you sulked, you threw things, you thought about how much everyone hates you. That you're just a burden, that no one would even notice if you were gone... Then your think, no they'll notice, that they have less food to make, less expenses etc, all the ways your mere existence is a burden. Maybe, again, if you're like me, you drift into thought about your grandparents, they love you, they'll miss you. You're never a burden to them. You contemplate running away, maybe to their house. But at no point, do you think about apologizing, what did you do? They're just mean control freaks!

So if you didn't come to think about your actions, you an intelligent, thought oriented, hacker type, what hope does your adolescent child have?

Share your wisdom and insight. They'll learn better if you let them think and help them to it, than if you tell them to and leave it at that. They might even help you think about new perspectives, who knows.

<comment><USER21> > In a calm voice I would ask her questions about what she is doing, and those > around her.

Would you mind to elaborate and give concrete examples?

In day care we have a 2y old child (younger brother to a 3.5y old) that bites (hard), scratches and hits other kids when it does not get its way. This goes on for over a year now. The parents dont seem to know how to cope and just shrug it off as "he is just wild, thats what kids do in this age".

The other day i could witness myself how he was hitting an older kid with a sound wood full force on the head (because the other kid did not want to give away his toy). The other kid started crying and he had this evil grin, knowing full well he hurt the other kid.

What to do with such a child?

<comment><USER22> I'd see a psychologist because your child kinda sounds like a sociopath: [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when- yo...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child- is-a-psychopath/524502/)

<comment><USER23> It's not his child

<comment><USER22> I'd see a psychologist because THAT child kinda sounds like a sociopath.

<comment><USER22> I know this is HN and the mob is capricious and vengeful, but the downvotes make no sense. Hurting other children and laughing about it is actually a frightening symptom of sociopathy. But I know The Atlantic isn't about startups so everyone's probably just ignoring the article.

<comment><USER19> Your advice is unhelpful, in two ways. One, you're suggesting a psychological diagnosis without nearly enough information. Two, the action you suggest taking (see a psychologist) is not an avenue available to the person you're talking to. How would them seeing a psychologist help when another person's child is the perpetrator?

That's my guess about why you are being downvoted. If I had enough karma, I'd do the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Yes and no. From my limited exposure to kids (father of two - 3.5 and 1.5), while in vast majority of cases explaining makes a difference, there are areas where there's perfect understanding but that doesn't lead to desired behavior. Like the older taking everything away from his little brother. He knows perfectly well he can't do it. He was also shown how it feels (I took everything from him for several minutes). He still does it. There's a certain emotional (on one side) and moral (on the other side) aspect that goes beyond mere explaining and understanding.

<comment><USER25> I've been reading the 1-2-3 Magic book (expecting my first soon), and the philosophies have extremely stark differences. The 123 approach outright attacks (what it calls) the fallacy of "little adults" \- saying that explaining is just frustrating to children who don't have a chance at understanding. The 123 approach probably comes across as more traditional.

The best theory I have is to build rock-solid boundaries, but to do so at a meaningful distance. Humans and animals are good at working with a "duality" of personalities. Children should have plenty of space to explore, be creative, and develop relationships, but going beyond a certain well- established limit brings out the bad cop. A lot of 123 methods looks like, to me, ways to make the kid recognize and respect the bad cop... but still have confidence that bad cop won't show up if they will stay inside of defined bounds.

Constant behavior correction is terrible, and leads to psychological problems. Too much of what I see takes this problem and turns it around to "no correction". That's probably not AS bad for the child, but is inviting disaster on the part of the parents.

<comment><USER24> Me and my wife (a highly qualified childcare professional) used to have theories, too. Now that we have kids, we no longer have theories. We just play by ear.

BTW I never heard of 123 but it just sounds like a pretty natural, common sense approach.

<comment><USER26> I suspect that we are strongly influenced by how we were raised ourselves, and possibly even by genetics. The deluge of parenting advice may give a false impression of how much control we actually have.

<comment><USER19> This is the closest thing to true, imo. I'm not trying to say we know nothing about parenting. Beating your children probably leads to worse outcomes than not, for example. However the rest is vulnerable to a host of selection bias issues, which rarely seem to be addressed. I'm not saying to ignore advice either, but take it with a grain of salt. If it doesn't work for you, maybe you are doing it wrong. Or maybe your kid is just not the type for which it will work.

<comment><USER17> There is beating and then there is Pavlovian discipline. While really not the best thing to do, sometimes it really is the last resort... (Say when the kid really is attempting something deadly.)

Have to be real careful when forming associations this way, like some other poster tried with his kid potty training and messed it up. The whole situation gets associated not just what you want. And it is real hard to reverse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm skeptical. Their emphasis on "rational philosophy" and Popper* would be more convincing if they put the research front and centre. Everybody has advice on how to bring up someone else's kids. Most of it isn't nearly as helpful as they imagine.

* Aside: seriously people, there have been rational philosophers since Popper

</comment><comment><USER26> Here's a puzzle that I've struggled with: I love critical rationalism, but I'm a terrible debater and negotiator. Put in the context of raising kids, if they ask "why" and end up winning the debate despite being wrong, do they get their way?

Should my own actions be dictated by anybody who happens to be a better debater than me? I hope the hell not.

What if the options at hand aren't as crystal clear as the textbook cases that tend to be cited in discussions and books, and the illusion of rationality is just that? What if debate skill is not strictly rational, or even informational, but includes an emotional component plus time pressure?

I suspect that what we consider to be "irrational" approaches, such as asserting our own authority, are in fact survival skills that reflect the limitations of rational debate.

<comment><USER28> _> but includes an emotional component plus time pressure?_

You don't even need those things. Intelligence and practice will suffice, even for "purely rational arguments".

Defending Truth makes debates easier to win, but isn't a necessary or sufficient condition.

<comment><USER26> Maybe motivation is a factor too. Debate and negotiation are not games that I anticipate enjoying, whereas spending intelligence and practice on becoming a better musician motivates me. ;-)

Also, I suspect that Truth isn't always easy to discern, especially in a world where we're immersed in tradeoffs and complex systems.

<comment><USER29> _> Debate and negotiation are not games that I anticipate enjoying_

Yes and I think that's because they entail criticism, which is used to _attack_ ideas and people we don't like. Whereas creating something worthwhile is about discovering or perceiving something already inside the mind that we _do_ like (and therefore cannot seriously attempt to criticize). Building a family is an attempt to create something worthwhile.

<comment><USER26> I'm reminded of a saying: "It takes a carpenter to build a shed, but a jackass can knock it down."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I dedicate this comment to future parents. You'll come across many a BS, and it'll hit you in a very sensitive period of life - when many of your established defence mechanisms would enter a general CCD state. And some of it is actually true! _But how can we tell the difference_? Surely there's a simple bluestick test for that? Yes, there is!

1\. Does it offer something concrete? Does it give examples? Does it include _recipes_ how to handle situations? _Can you tell if your own parents followed that "way" or not_? Parenting BS/fluff tend to appear in the form of a "philosophy". If you say something very specific, people may actually try it, and find out it does not work for them.

2\. Ask your parents. They are 20++ yoe ahead of you on this one.

<comment><USER31> > 2\. Ask your parents. They are 20++ yoe ahead of you on this one.

And they might still not be very good at it. There's a catch-22 here, in that if your parents were good at parenting, you've probably grown up into a well- adjusted adult whose natural instincts are to be a good parent yourself. Whereas if your parents were bad at parenting, you've probably grown up to be a normal messed-up member of society whose instincts can't be relied on. Parenting advice is most useful for those people, and they can't rely on their parent's evaluation of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> "Obedience and rules are bad."

Yeah, okay, um...I really really really don't want to have to be around these families in a public space then. There's nothing more obnoxious than trying to raise my own munchkins to be well behaved while hipster spawn are being disrespectful, selfish, and loud as hell with their parents cheering them on (at the library, movie theater, grocery store, playground, etc).

<comment><USER33> Being loud on playground is officially ok.

<comment><USER34> I'd be worried about a kid being quiet on the playground. Those are the ones up to something mischievous lol

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The article makes many good points but (as many others have noted) it really misses the mark on rules and obedience. Rules and obedience are an essential abstraction to allow larger organisations of people to function and interoperate. The rules aren't always the best for each individual at every time, but overall they help things run smoothly. There is always some kind of consequence for not following them.

To understand (and eventually change) a system you always starts with a high level acceptance of the 'rules' and drill down from there. Why shouldn't children also be taught to operate on that basis?

Say they want to question the 'rule' about having 3 meals a day. That's fine, drill down into why and maybe change it. Maybe bed-time is unfair, perhaps the 8yo doesn't want to go to bed at the same time as the 5yo. It should be ok to challenge these things to an extent, but at the end of the day someone needs to make things run smoothly for everyone, and that's the parents' job. Rules (with an expectation of obedience) are how they do that.

<comment><USER36> I agree with you. My grandma used to say, "children are as complicated as people, only more so."

But rules and obedience _are_ an essential abstraction. With my own young kids, I try to let them challenge the rules and chart their own course as much as I can, but if you go with no rules at all I think you are almost as likely to end up with a bad result as if you parented through _only_ rules and obedience.

When confronted (as all parents inevitably are from time to time) with blanket ideas for "how to raise children" I find it helpful to swap out "children" for "employees" and then "farm animals" and see how the advice sounds from those two additional perspectives.

Children are kind of a middle ground between those (as well as being many other things).

There's very little science to parenting, unfortunately. It's mostly intuition and magic.

<comment><USER37> > There's very little science to parenting, unfortunately. It's mostly > intuition and magic.

This made my day, and I'll be repeating it to others - thanks :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Everything is wonderful when the kids are not in chaos mode. When you are with children and they are behaving it is easy to take them seriously. But find yourself in a situation that you don't even know how everything started and kids are just going nuts, then all the rules change.

At the end of the day you want to get them to go to non-chaos mode before you can apply any technique. What worked for me is creating a pattern very early on:

"I'm gonna count to 3 and we will do X" I've said that a thousand times since very early childhood. Now, before I even finish the sentence, the kids get in position and wait for "three!" After that we have a normal adult conversation, sometimes I even use words (like someone mentioned in the comments) that they have no hope of understanding. But they know that whatever they say they will be taken seriously.

So far it has worked for me with both my niece and nephew and I hope that they never find out that I have no backup plan if they don't stop on three.

In other words, you need create a pattern that leads to quiet mode before you can take the kids seriously.

</comment><comment><USER39> _> Punishing doesn't help with learning._

The point of punishing isn't to help with learning, it's to restore the emotional connection between parent and child by stopping the parent from hating the child. As Jordan Peterson put it: 'Don't let your kids do anything that makes you dislike them'. (He said this because he knows that people who dislike others work against them whether they realise it or not.)

The arguments against punishments tend to focus on severity, particularly if physical violence is involved. But the stronger the existing connection between parent and child, the milder the punishment need be. If it is strong even a frown might suffice.

<comment><USER40> > The point of punishing isn't to help with learning, it's to restore the > emotional connection between parent and child by stopping the parent from > hating the child.

Maybe I'm misreading you, but any resentment a parent builds towards their child is a symptom of their own lack of emotional development; punishment is absolutely not an outlet for making parents feel more in control so they can avoid resenting their children.

There is deliberate behavior modification, which creates an obvious consequence as a hack around the inability to comprehend more subtle ones, but doesn't involve any emotional exchange. Then there is emotional abuse that makes the abuser feel in control (guilting, shaming, yelling, etc).

Anything you don't like that comes out of a person, went into that person, either genetically or environmentally. The only way to help them stop doing that is to help them build a better platform to work from.

<comment><USER39> Have you read my reply to pysc? I don't think you can 'get out of the game' of punishment. The fact is that you _will_ punish people you are in close relationship to whether you like it or not. Even a frown or silence can be punishment and these sorts of things are not always under voluntary control.

I agree that the development of the parent is the key to reducing this. But note that development and learning themselves require _peace_ and keeping the peace is a function of authority, both in families and in wider society. (This is not to be confused with authority in knowledge, which is irrational.)

<comment><USER40> Yes, I saw that before commenting. I never advocated for the abolition of punishment.

What I take issue with at several levels is the use of punishment as a means of avoiding the development of parental resentment against kids, which is what it sounded like you were describing in the quote I pulled. My mistake if that's not what you were describing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I think an important part of 'rules' is that the child learns that a rule is reasonable and fair. So for every rule the parent should be able to explain the 'why'.

That said, rules are very important, not only to give the child an orientation at which it can measure its own actions but also because they can introduce some kind of objectivity into parenting (from the perspective of the child).

So rules should always be communicated to the child before they are enforced. Punishing a child for breaking a rule it never heard of before is not fair.

Btw. sometimes it can be a good idea to let the child define rules to let it find out how well it can follow its own rules ;-)

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm a fan of Popper, but I'm skeptical this person has spent a lot time parenting, especially with difficult children. There are emotionally fragile adults and it would be 'anti-rational' to assume that at least some of them didn't start out that way. I wish him good luck though.

</comment><comment><USER43> I can attest to this; as a child nothing irked me more than when I perceived adults to not taking me seriously. I always told myself that as I grew older I'd take children seriously and treat them as an adult

</comment><comment><USER44> The nonsensical overestimation of children shown in this thread leads directly to travesties like this judge arguing that toddlers are capable of representing themselves in immigration court. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national- security/can-a...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national- security/can-a-3-year-old-represent-herself-in-immigration-court-this-judge- thinks- so/2016/03/03/5be59a32-db25-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html?utm_term=.5aca5438c0da)

<comment><USER19> I would tend to agree. Somewhere else in the thread someone recounted a conversation with a 24 month old far more advanced than any two year old I've met could manage. I think it would be pretty lucid even for my 3yo. That's not to say the conversation couldn't have happened, but the advice seems somewhat miscalibrated if that is taken to be typical.

My question: for all this talk of rationalism, where is the research to show this approach yields better outcomes than any other?

<comment><USER17> Unfortunately psychological interventional research on humans who cannot consent is quite forbidden.

(But we do that all the time actually.)

What do you do with failed experiments? How do you estimate outcomes and whether techniques were applied correctly?

<comment><USER44> That's not actually true, parents can consent on behalf of minors. Why would this present any more trouble in dealing with failed experiments than other psychological experiments?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Why do we rationalize with Children and punish teenagers? We must build trust with our children. Research has shown that this is the key, especially for children of abuse.

To me (Father of Five, two biological and three foster) this is 100% flipped upside down and isn't well researched nor universal.

My foster kids had horrible environment growing up and every kind of abuse. Their mother murdered 8 blocks from our house by a baseball bat to her head while the children were in my home. Children raised from abuse would actually be harmed by this.

Children need to learn 100% but not through non-developmentally appropriate techniques. Kids learn through play doing in a safe and purposeful manner. This is neither purposeful nor safe. They need to know that they must use gentle hands and bodies, be respectful to each other and pick up after themselves.

If it doesn't work for abused or special needs children it isn't universal. This is what good research looks like for parenting. [https://child.tcu.edu/about- us/research/#sthash.6ctKjxoi.dpb...](https://child.tcu.edu/about- us/research/#sthash.6ctKjxoi.dpbs)

1) We have children ask and not tell what they want

2) Parenting is hard and demanding and we invest in it

3) Kids will look at you when you are speaking with them (FOr building up relationship)

4) Redirect bad behavior by having the child redo in the correct behavior. Not yelling or demanding. Scripting

5) Socialize interaction with competent adult and ability to play properly with other children.

[https://youtu.be/XGqwz8L6JBo?t=8m6s](https://youtu.be/XGqwz8L6JBo?t=8m6s)

[https://youtu.be/XGqwz8L6JBo?t=8m6s](https://youtu.be/XGqwz8L6JBo?t=8m6s)

<comment><USER46> You speak about universality, but then say this:

> 3) Kids will look at you when you are speaking with them (FOr building up > relationship)

Autistic people sometimes have trouble making eye contact when you're speaking.

Some black people are taught that direct eye contact in some situations is a display of defiance, and is to be avoided.

<comment><USER45> Having worked with autistic children for several years it is actually apart of their treatment plan for them to learn to look at people in their eyes. [https://www.autismspeaks.org/blog/2015/07/17/why-it-so- hard-...](https://www.autismspeaks.org/blog/2015/07/17/why-it-so-hard-someone- autism-make-eye-contact)

<comment><USER46> And recent research tells us that approach might be cruel and pointless.

[http://dart.ed.ac.uk/app-eye-contact/](http://dart.ed.ac.uk/app-eye-contact/)

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-03378-5](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-03378-5)

The fact you quote Autism Speaks is telling - it's hated by many autistic people precisely because it pushes this "cure for autism" bullshit.

<comment><USER45> The research is clear it helps children. The controversy is, is it worth it. 99% of the time it is worth it.

> The fact you quote Autism Speaks is telling

Yes vaccines DON'T cause Autism. You say it does then your also into other pseudo-science and controversies. The science is clear vaccines don't cause autism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> > Parenting generally goes pretty smoothly when you and your child agree.

CHILD. Singular. If you have more than a couple children you know how different it is. Someplace there's a comedian that has a bit about how having one or two kids is like comparing the Coast Guard to the Navy Seals. It's VERY different having a CHILD than having several CHILDREN.

<comment><USER48> We have three. If for any reason we have to care for only one for a stretch of time, it's like having _no_ kids. Man, it's so much easier. Three kids is, no joke, like 10x as hard as one.

Each one also makes housing way harder (=more expensive, fewer options), especially after the first one. And transportation. And, and, and.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I hear a lot about kids being kids, and adults being "childish." By the time I was ten, I could read Michael Crichton and Frank Herbert, and although I wasn't a mathematical wiz, I did have an innate understanding of the scientific method.

I'm of the mind that children have a precocial learning intelligence similar in rank and power to the adult mind--that is, the moment a child is born, they begin to absorb and construct knowledge about the world, with the only difference to the adult mind being that adults have more context for their "world theory"\--and that it's the duty of the public to acknowledge and foster this.

When I consider that some people talk to children with "baby talk," I wonder how many people have been hurt by `keeping parrots with chickens` ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrot#Intelligence_and_learni...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrot#Intelligence_and_learning)) so to speak. It's a controversial theory that might garner criticism, but that may be a failing--children can hear voices in the womb before they're born, talking to them in infancy as if they can't understand their mother's language is, at first, disrespectful, and later, possibly inhibits their development.

</comment><comment><USER50> Garbage like this is what happens when people reason from first principles without any reference to what they are actually trying to do. It's a parenting philosophy composed by someone who has never met a child (and has no interest in meeting one).

Coming up next: "How to build houses", by someone who has never built one and has no interest in building one.

</comment><comment><USER51> > Most approaches to parenting start with some beliefs about how to treat > children first

Like believing they respond to reason? Hell, even _adults_ aren't rational beings. We're totally ruled by our emotions and beliefs, and it is incredibly hard to persuade someone using reason.

<comment><USER52> Why are you assuming reasonableness increases with age? Isn't it possible children start out reasonable and get unreason baked into them through their experiences?

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I have not found enough evidence to change from being a strong wall of no to my children. They know I'll keep talking with them through their big emotions and that I love them but I don't negotiate with terrorists. 5 and 8, they are thriving.

</comment><comment><USER54> I do have children. And I did raise them following Taking Children Seriously to the best of my ability. If I had it to do over I'd only learn TCS better and follow it better, not in the other direction. It was liberating to me to find that it was possible to raise children without using rules or punishment/reward. My children are grown now and are wonderful people. So if anyone here is thinking TCS can't work out well with real children, I'm here to tell you it can. This is a small sample size but it's more than zero.

<comment><USER55> hey RebeccaBV, glad to hear about your positive experience with TCS!

there is an active online community which discusses TCS and other related ideas at the Fallible Ideas discussion group. you can learn more about important philosophical ideas like TCS and get help applying them to your life! [http://fallibleideas.com/discussion- info](http://fallibleideas.com/discussion-info)

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Some people complain about kids making nonsense. But kids get exposed to a LOT of nonsense.

Think about it: You are trying to make sense out of the world and people keep making gibberish sounds, hiding for no reason, showing you anthropomorphized animals and objects, telling you stories that have absolutely no point, having you play with stupid pianos that make random sounds...

Then, after they have built a model of the world containing all these nonsense, a lot of time then has to be spent having them unlearning that nonsense through discipline.

However, what if they don't get exposed to the nonsense in the first place? Or get exposed to it in a more structured way? I mean entertainment doesn't have to be nonsensical. You can learn about animals, architecture, vehicles, even simple math... instead of dumb trains with faces and teletubbies making gibberish sounds.

Btw, I am not trying to say the production of that material has no merit. I can have a lot of merit, and can be incredibly creative, it's just it could be better focused.

<comment><USER57> Kids are not entertained by cartoons because they are forced upon them. Kids are often attracted to, and entertained by cartoons and other stories.

Why exactly I don't know, but they also make up their own imaginary characters sometimes.

In any case, they don't simply have this stuff forced upon them (in general).

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> As a kid, I had so many questions about physics and when I asked my mother about it she gave some dumbed down reply and when I inquired further she said that I would learn that later, it was really frustrating.

If I ever have kids, the one thing that I want to do right is answering their questions appropriately, I would have loved my mom to say something like "because electrons attract protons, no one really knows why, there are people who dedicate their lives to trying to know why that attraction exists, they are called physicists. That attraction is one of four fundamental forces that we know of, the other three are gravity, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force". Even if I understood less than half of what she said, I would have known that there are people who also wanted to know what I wanted know, and would feel fascinated by that.

</comment><comment><USER59> Seems exhausting for a parent, but beneficial for certain careers. Dunno if it would significantly improve their thinking a decade later.

</comment><comment><USER60> Child here! 14 years old, in middle school.

If anyone has questions, I'd be happy to answer.

</comment><comment><USER61> Anon makes a judgement about TCS. He does not use reason to interact with his child.

TCS is about using reason. He does not take his child seriously.

</comment><comment><USER62> Beginners follow the rules. Intermediates bend the rules. Masters create the rules.

</comment><comment><USER63> Kids acting like kids is basically why we invented religion. You can't actually always take a kid seriously. But you can always threaten them with god.

It works, apparently.

</comment><comment><USER64> a lotta you are really convinced that being nasty is akin to being reasonable and practically minded.

</comment><comment><USER65> This page credits David Deutsch with first writing about this philosophy of parenting. It's more-or-less the style of parenting I was subjected to. I didn't know until now that he had written about parenting, but he's the author of one of my favorite works of nonfiction, The Beginning of Infinity. I plan to take this approach to parenting with my own children. That is to say, I'm _very_ supportive of it.

HOWEVER: there's a major philosophical failing of TCS, which is that you can't objectively justify claims about what you should and shouldn't do (aka normative claims). If you tell your child "don't hit other kids," they can disagree, which will force you to justify your original statement with a more general normative principle. Eventually you'll be forced to appeal to the foundational principles of morality, something like "it's bad to be in certain mental states like pain, good to be in other states, like joy" and "what matters is which of those mental states the average person on earth is, not which state you, personally, are in." These are one possible version of the sacred principles of morality, and they are probably _not justifiable_. There are attempts to justify them, such as Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape, but Harris relies (implicitly) on hard to grasp claims like the nonexistence of self, which you're not going to be able to explain to a seven year old unless they're exceptionally introspectively mature.

Sacred principles can just as well be called unquestionable principles. They don't have a justification, but our way of life relies on their acceptance. Society will not tolerate threats to their sanctity, so if you let your child question them, society will punish your child. If you say "don't hit other kids" and your child says (after a chain of justifications) "it doesn't matter if other kids feel pain, what matters is that I feel good when I hurt them," you're not going to be able to rationally argue against that. The most honest response is the ad baculum "if you say things like that when you're an adult, someone might just murder you, so you ought never to do things that you can only justify in that kind of way unless you want to be murdered." But that's not really teaching your child morality; they might someday find themselves in a situation where they don't need to worry about violent reprisal for questioning sacred values, say if they become a powerful dictator. Are you committed enough to morality to want them to be moral even if they don't have to be? _Should_ you be? If yes, then you can't take your children seriously when they question sacred principles. How, then, do you respond when they say "all that matters is that I feel good when I hurt other kids?" You could say "You're wrong. Why? Because I said so." Or you could just punish them. But if they're used to always being taken seriously, they're going to notice that something's fishy.

Fortunately, there's a good chance your child won't ever question sacred principles. I was taken quite seriously as a child, but I justified the sacred principles to myself in ways that only began to crumble when I was 17, so my parents never encountered the dilemma I just described. By the time my old justifications ceased to work I was already adept at being a moral person, and I was ready to understand the lessons of Crime and Punishment, which warns against violating the sacred principles of your society despite acknowledging them to be unfounded, and I was ready to understand the more sophisticated justifications of the sacred principles.

But other children could be more likely to question sacred principles. I wasn't naturally inclined to cruelty. I didn't want to hurt other kids. When I did hurt others, I didn't need to learn _why_ not to, I just needed to learn _how_ not to. Not all kids are like that (not a moral judgment) some will need to by told why they shouldn't be cruel, and you can't do that while taking them entirely seriously.

</comment><comment><USER66> My dad says the biggest mistake most people make when raising kids is treating them like people.

<comment><USER67> What should they be treated like?

<comment><USER68> Like kids, d'oh!</comment></comment></comment>


Self-confidence is common thread - <AUTHOR> http://www.mercurynews.com/businessheadlines/ci_9301295?nclick_check=1

<comment><USER2> That link doesn't work for me, here's another link to the same article: <http://www.dailynews.com/technology/ci_9301295></comment>


Plenty Of Fish Advertising on NYTimes - <AUTHOR> http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CK3JlZy9lpTfehDYBRhaMggBRywxSK6i2g

<comment><USER2> Their ad implies "quality", but I don't see it on their site.

Charging for a service pre-screens your members to a certain extent, while PoF doesn't.

</comment><comment><USER3> PoF is ad supported right? as is nytimes. so this implies pof gets a higher ror from their advertisers than does nytimes?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Saw this PoF ad on NYTimes..thought it was kind of interesting.</comment>


Uber advisor outlines what the company should do next - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/uber-advisor-outlines-what-the-company-should-do-next-commentary.html <comment><USER2> Don't need to do new things. And self-driving cars are dumb-ass. Does Target need to do something else? Starbucks? Just be a taxi company!</comment>


Fukushima: What happened - and what needs to be done - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13017282

<comment><USER2> That article is from April 10.

Since then the severity rating of the Fukushima nuclear crisis has been raised to 7, the highest rating, according to: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia- pacific-13045341>

<comment><USER3> That rise is slightly confusing though: the current situation hasn't become worse, it's that the initial situation has been recategorised.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. For some reason (I believe early news reports explaining the rating) I thought the impact of the disaster was more relevant than the radiation magnitude - i.e. the disaster level was somewhat correlated to casualties and the impact on the environment.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Javascript is a Joy - <AUTHOR> http://allenc.com/2012/02/why-javascript-is-a-joy/

<comment><USER2> I'm happy for the person who wrote this because they've found a nice impedance match between themselves and Javascript. But I could have written almost the same article and substituted Google Go for Javascript (with some modifications).

The reality of much programming is that once you've got your set of tools, and a good familiarity with a language which helps you solve problems you're happy. You're happy because you're getting stuff done in a manner that you find elegant, or easy.

For example, I really like Go because it's C-like, with an OO paradigm that I'm comfortable with, lightweight 'processes', and neat communication. Also, builds and tests really, really fast. But you probably don't learn much more from me saying that other than "John likes Google Go because he's comfortable with it".

<comment><USER3> Well, given that I've seen 7-15 minute build times for 180,000 lines of code in a popular JVM language ... what I wouldn't give for Go-like build / test iteration times in that language.

I think there's some value in your list of things that you like about Go. It gives others an idea of what they might be missing out on. (And for me with my work on Open Dylan, it gives me a nice target to aim for.)

<comment><USER4> Out of interest, is there any technical reason you'd _want_ a JVM application with 180,000 lines of code?

<comment><USER5> Is there any technical reason why you would NOT?

The JVM is a proven and stable platform, with nice tooling and exceptional support. It's also polyglot.

And 180,000 LOC is not that much --it depends on the requirements. Perhaps you are thinking "I can do all that in 1/10 the size in language X", but chances are you are wrong.

It's not about doing the same thing in the turing-complete sense, it's about doing the same thing in the real world sense.

You might achieve the same functionality with less code. But can you achieve the same interoperability with other systems the company uses with that other language? Could you utilize the 20-something already existing dev team of JVM coders? Could you have the same support from the vendor? The same toolkits? The same performance characteristics? Etc etc...

<comment><USER4> As a disclaimer, I wasn't intending to bait anyone. I'm genuinely interested if there are any reasons for writing a 100k+ LOC application, rather than dividing the functionality up between smaller applications and libraries.

Operating systems like the Linux kernel are usually over 100k LOC, but Linus has made some compelling arguments about why you'd want a monolithic architecture in an operating system you want to be reasonably performant.

But that argument doesn't appear to apply to server systems running under the JVM. Building an application out of small, interchangeable, independent components seems rather more sensible than one large monolithic architecture. My current hypothesis is that any server application over, say, 10K LOC is badly designed.

I'm therefore quite interested in anyone who maintains or develops very large server systems, and if they could perhaps offer any reasoning why systems that large are the best solution.

Admittedly this is a little off-topic, though :)

<comment><USER6> Well-designed large apps actually are divided up into smaller components - there'd be no way to maintain them otherwise. However, it doesn't help as much as you'd think. If it's a layered architecture, sometimes adding new feature means you have to modify code in every layer. And dividing code up into libraries doesn't help build times when you need to modify a base library that everything uses.

If you have trouble imagining this, pretend that every dependency you use is actually part of your code base, and sometimes you have to modify them because they're not completely baked. If you have non-trivial functionality, you are certainly using way more than 100k LOC.

<comment><USER4> I'm afraid I still can't imagine a large system that could not conceivably be divided into small, independent components.

You mention dependencies that are "not completely baked", but isn't that just another way of saying "bad design"?

<comment><USER5> _I'm afraid I still can't imagine a large system that could not conceivably be divided into small, independent components._

Well, examine some large systems then, and see whether you can fare better.

Depends on what you describe as independent components. The 200LOC thing is probably also comprised of independent components. As in NGINX that somebody mentions elsewhere. That doesn't mean those independent components don't have to work together and a change in one doesn't affect the other.

Consider a plugin host and a plugin. They are independent, alright, but the plugin takes advantage of certain things the host offers. If you change the host in those areas, you'll have to change the plugins too. Components only provide independency until the place where they meet each other, i.e. the "joins". (Even in a functional language, a pure function only provides independency until the point you call it --there you _have_ to adhere to its interface).

<comment><USER4> _Well, examine some large systems then, and see whether you can fare better._

Examining very large codebases takes time, so this is easier said than done! I _have_ worked with several large projects, but all of them would have been better factored out into smaller services.

 _Components only provide independency until the place where they meet each other, i.e. the "joins"._

I don't think that's true. Two components can share the same contract, but still not be dependent on one another.

For example, the Unix applications "wc" and "grep" have no dependency on one another, but they can be piped together because they share the same STDIN/STDOUT interface.

Similarly, the functions "+" and "*" can be used together because they have compatible type signatures, but this does not mean they are not independent.

<comment><USER6> You have the dependency graph wrong. There's a script that uses both wc and grep and it depends on both of them. At the lowest level they are just streams of characters, but that doesn't mean anything. If you change the output format of wc or grep in any significant way then you will break every script that depends on them. Which is impossible, and that's why Unix commmands don't change. (Unless it's a new flag or something like that.)

In a well-designed system where the interfaces between components isn't actually public, you _can_ change the API by finding all the usages and fixing them. And frequently you have to do so because the API is not a frozen standard - it's still being worked on.

<comment><USER4> You _can_ change the API, but _why_ would you?

There are some functions that never change their functionality. The expression "1 + 1" will always equal "2". The functionality of "+" might be expanded, for instance to cover complex numbers, but it will never be incompatible with previous versions.

So if the API of "+" is not expected to change, why do you expect the API of other components to change? Why assume that an API of a service has to be mutable?

I'd argue that an API can be immutable if the component is _simple_ , by which I mean a component that only attempts to do one thing. The function "+" is simple, because it does only one thing: add numbers together. Because it is simple, the API doesn't have to change.

If your API of each individual component is frozen, this means they can be considered to be independent. You might have components that use other components, but if their APIs are frozen, unchangeable, then you might as well consider them as entirely separate applications.

In my opinion, a web service of 100K+ LOC indicates that the interfaces between components are not frozen, that the components are not _simple_ , and to me this just seems like bad design.

<comment><USER6> Well sure, and if we wrote programs that have no bugs then we'd never have to debug them. Your position is seriously naive.

Getting an API right the first time is hard. For example, most languages get date libraries wrong the first time (for example, see Java and Python), even with a lot of design effort up front. And most library designers are not that good, especially when they're only part-time library designers whose main concern is writing an app.

<comment><USER4> Who said anything about bugs?

Getting an API right _is_ hard, but if your API is simple, then _by definition_ there are fewer things that can be changed, and that means there's less need to refactor.

I'd rather create 3 simple APIs and throw away the two that didn't work well, than create 1 complex API that needs to be constantly refactored. Small, immutable, simple components are preferable over large, mutable, complex components.

Saying I am "seriously naive" implies I don't have experience with designing components in this way, but it is precisely because of my experience that I advocate this position in the first place. The APIs I've had to change and refactor have been complex; the APIs I have not had to have been simple. Over the past few years, I have been slowly moving away from complex APIs, and there has been a dramatic decline in the amount of refactoring work I've done.

This is not to say that it's _easy_ to create simple APIs, but good design is never easy, and I don't think it's naive to say that if you want good design, you need good designers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I spent the weekend playing with ClojureScript One, and this line really stood out for me:

"Moreover, JS is really fast to write and test. Write – save – refresh[2]; it's an absurdly fast dev cycle that lets me iterate on questionable portions of the code much faster than any environment I've worked in."

With ClojureScript and Emacs, this cycle is replaced with "write - C-x C-e" (For the unfamiliar, Ctrl-x Ctrl-e sends the Lisp form immediately before the cursor to the compiler, and sends the resulting JavaScript to the browser for execution. It lets you evaluate bits of code directly from your editing buffer. It's the classic Lisp and Emacs set up and it's fantastic.)

Is there no browser-connected REPL for regular-ole JavaScript? I don't know the details of the ClojureScript implementation, but I would imagine you could hack it up to use plain JS. I'm sure I sound like a smug Lisp weenie, but actually I'm just hoping that this does exist in case I ever have to use regular JS.

 _edit_ I found something call mozrepl but this seems specific to Firefox. <https://github.com/bard/mozrepl/wiki/Emacs-integration>

<comment><USER8> I have been hacking on ClojureScript recently as well (spent the weekend playing with ClojureScript One also!), but I am not an Emacs user (I use Vim). Can you explain the part about sending JavaScript to the browser without refresh from a normal repl (lein repl)? I see this advertised by ClojureScript but not an explanation as to how it works (probably assuming experienced lispers). My method for working has been save, ctrl+tab to browser, ctrl+f5 to refresh.

<comment><USER7> Honestly, this can actually be a PITA to set up for vanilla ClojureScript apps because the order of steps is very important, and one of the rad things about ClojureScript One for beginners (myself included) is that it's seems much easier to get working, so if you're not an Emacs user to begin with, I would clone ClojureScript One and follow along to try it out. There are some nice scripts and Clojure code meant for dev-time that come with it that smooth out the edges a bit.

But in general, you have to set up your inferior-lisp-program in Emacs with the shell script desribed here: [https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/wiki/Emacs-%26-infe...](https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/wiki/Emacs-%26-inferior- lisp-mode) (for ClojureScript One, it suffices to use "lein repl" as your inf- lisp.)

Then you need to (:require [clojure.browser.repl :as repl) in your ns, and run (repl/repl "<http://localhost:9000> ") (there's a space here to prevent HN from swallowing the close-quote, but it shouldn't be there) at the beginning of your ClojureScript app.

Start the REPL in Emacs (M-x inferior-lisp RET, ie press Alt-x, type "inferior-lisp", hit return) and then open the browser and point it at your app. Test it by typing (js/alert) in Emacs. Then, when you're in a ClojureScript buffer (or any Lisp buffer, I think) C-x C-e will send the form before the point to the REPL, which is actually connected to the browser.

I'll leave setting it up for Vim as an exercise for the reader (kidding, kind of, I just don't have any idea if any one has worked on this yet, although there are Vim modes for regular Clojure, so maybe)

<comment><USER7> Oops, this is wrong: (repl/repl "<http://localhost:9000> ") Should be (repl/connect "<http://localhost:9000/repl> ")

I also kind of misread MatthewPhillips post and thought he was looking for Emacs instructions. For sending code to the browser from a normal REPL, (started with `lein repl`) I think a good place to start is these two files from Cljs One:

[https://github.com/brentonashworth/one/blob/master/src/app/c...](https://github.com/brentonashworth/one/blob/master/src/app/clj/one/sample/repl.clj)

[https://github.com/brentonashworth/one/blob/master/src/lib/c...](https://github.com/brentonashworth/one/blob/master/src/lib/clj/one/tools.clj)

Together they should help in setting this up for a vanilla Cljs project, or require them in your fork of Cljs One and start a REPL.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Moreover, JS is really fast to write and test. Write – save – refresh[2]; it's an absurdly fast dev cycle that lets me iterate on questionable portions of the code much faster than any environment I've worked in."

That is just full of crap. What he forgets to mention is that you have to fix a good deal of the bugs at runtime(spending time in debugger), that would otherwise be picked up by a compiler and also figuring out the workarounds on the shitty toolchain.

"We now send hundreds of kb's of minified Javascript to the client, and we expect all of it to run smoothly."

Again, these are inherent deficiencies of the toolchain, where you have to compress the textual code, instead of using byte-code.

And on top of that we have Coffee Script, LESS, SASS, Jade and God knows what to try to compensate for the amount of legacy, instead of just rebuild proper framework from the start, right and for all.

<comment><USER10> _And on top of that we have Coffee Script, LESS, SASS, Jade and God knows what to try to compensate for the amount of legacy, instead of just rebuild proper framework from the start, right and for all._

But it's not just a case of rebuilding a proper framework, the "internet" is just too big to scrap everything that is already there... we'd end up with this real mixture of technologies floating around, browsers become more bloated to support both set of technologies, we end up with those "Best Viewed in..." gif's all over the place again AND we would never be able to fully move onto that tech set for a long long time... how long before HTML5/CSS3 become the defacto standard for _every_ new project you work on? I'm currently working on a site which needs to work with Javascript off AND support IE6 (both of which just sucks balls).

I am a bit biased. I love working with JavaScript (I am a C# developer btw) and I have loved seeing it evolve, how much it can do, how well it can do it and how GOOD javascript code makes it very easy and straight forward to work with... on the flip side of that I have seen far too many rubbish scripts from non-programmers!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> "So in a strange way, I'm happy that the messy Javascript I sometimes write tend to not last long. By nature, front-end code has a short shelf life: pages are redesigned, A/B tested and overhauled in short succession, and my painstakingly elegant carousel implementation may not have a place in the new design."

And this is why I'm scared of writing anything in node.js.

Just getting modules to work in node seemed less intuitive than C includes. Despite all the hype it felt like a step backwards, and a tool to be used only when its strengths (events/streaming) really demanded it.

I am happy to not be a front-end developer in most of my work :)

<comment><USER12> _Just getting modules to work in node seemed less intuitive than C includes. Despite all the hype it felt like a step backwards, and a tool to be used only when its strengths (events/streaming) really demanded it._

Node modules are actually well thought out. They resolve circular dependency, and all code inside a module is confined to that namespace.

Whatever tool you take - if you start comparing with another tool that you already use, it's going to be strange and less intuitive. It's almost human nature to gravitate towards familiar things. If that's your own goal, then it's fine. But - to discount something just because it's not familiar to the way you do things is not exactly fair.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Moreover, JS is really fast to write and test. Write – save – refresh; it's > an absurdly fast dev cycle that lets me iterate on questionable portions of > the code much faster than any environment I've worked in.

I'm planning on looking into headless testing to eliminate the whole icky business of switching to the browser and hitting refresh. I find this much more of a drag than rerunning server side tests in a terminal.

<comment><USER8> I am interested in this as well. However I need cross-browser headless testing and I'm not aware of any current solution that gives you this.

<comment><USER14> Cross browser headless testing is kind of a misnomer. You want automated cross browser testing. There are a couple of options:

1\. Use Google's jsTestDriver (<https://github.com/larrymyers/ichabod>)

2\. Roll your own (My take on a solution: <https://github.com/larrymyers/ichabod> Node.js + selenium)

<comment><USER15> Almost impossible to setup non-headless with Continuous Integration. Any solution with that?

By the way, I used to work using GWT and the way we test it is via using MVP pattern + JUnit for any logic code. Works well 99% minus the cross-browser UI bug (but then if we started testing the actual UI code then we're testing GWT itself).

<comment><USER14> A CI system just needs to be able to ingest the test results (usually as junit xml formatted text). You can easily do with with jsTestDriver or Selenium as your bridge from the running browser instances to the CI server.

<comment><USER15> I'm currently using Bamboo (Atlassian) running in AWS. Everything is done in AWS.

Let me try to digest and understand what you're saying:

\- CI system can be made to work with jsTestDriver/Selenium as long as _somehow_ there is an input file to the build system (i.e.: JUnit XML formatted text).

That's true.

My next question is: I'd like to run everything (the unit-tests) in the same machine _without_ having to deploy and run the back-end as well. I'd like to mock the back-end communication with the UI so I can write unit-tests. Is there a way to do that with the current available JS test framework?

My next question is: if I'm running all of my CI in AWS, without an extra machine _with_ a monitor attach to it, can I still run jsTestDriver/Selenium?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This really only applies if you do 'web scripting', applying some dynamic stuff or AJAX speedups to web pages. Once you start building an actual application (say, Gmail sized), the lack of modules, types, versioning, etc. really starts to hurt. Yes, you can implement all of this with either javsacript libraries or server side tools, but that way you lose a lot of the advantages he mentions.

<comment><USER9> I second every word you say. Modularity in particular is a significant downside of the toolchain.

<comment><USER17> I really, really, really want to like JavaScript but I can't. It's just dreadful and bitter.

That being said, I hope some meta layer can make it work better while still offering robust debuggability in all browsers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> As a side note, does anyone have any good examples of Javascript being used as a scripting language? I keep meaning to learn Javascript, but I don't do any web programming, and it always seems like I'd have to learn a lot of DOM and other browser-specific callouts to do anything with it.

I keep thinking that Javascript would work okay for things that I'd normally try Lua for (or Guile, if I'm feeling ornery), but I've never seen anyone actually doing it. The existing implementations all seem very heavy-weight.

<comment><USER12> Node.js is increasingly being used for a lot of network level stuff. See this talk by James Haliday:

[http://www.nodejs-news.com/NodeConf/browserling-on- Building-...](http://www.nodejs-news.com/NodeConf/browserling-on-Building- Federated-Architecture-hacktheplanet/)

<comment><USER18> One of these days, I'll try out node.js. Of course, since I can't help but be tragically attracted to crazy duct tape and baling wire solutions, I'd probably try to run either Amber Smalltalk or ClojureScript on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> A lot of his points seem more to do with his like of and familiarity with the environment, rather than praise of the language. I too enjoy mucking around in node but sometimes get frustrated with the many workarounds one needs to juggle to get simple things done. There's some inspiring (and fun) things going on in the language though which keeps it exciting.

</comment><comment><USER20> I misread the title as "Why Javascript is a Toy" and I thought to myself, "Oh no. Here we go again."

<comment><USER21> I read the whole article and every comment up until yours, and I only just now realized it didn't say 'toy'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> One of the greatest strengths of the language when used for client-side code is that it largely enforces open source by virtue of the architecture. There's a lot of minified and obfuscated code out there, but even that can be deconstructed, and the amount of clear and well-documented code out there pretty much ensures that you can find tips to solve any problem you have, if not an open source library to handle it for you. Add the network effect from all the people using the language, and the resulting wealth of discussions widely available on its every aspect, and it's difficult to beat.

</comment><comment><USER23> Not even 1 line of JavaScript code?

</comment><comment><USER24> Is there an equivalent for name-dropping that would describe this kind of article? It seems to be clever and up to date but it is in fact empty and condescending. Removed the string of buzzwords, what you get is personal opinions of very slim interest.

<comment> steve-howard I don't think we should attack the writer for writing up his opinion and posting it on the Internet. That's what blogging is if you're not some great thinker like pg or Joel Spolsky. Somebody here thought it was worth discussing, no less.</comment></comment>


Who Does Skype Let Spy? - <AUTHOR> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/01/who_does_skype.html <comment><USER2> Do not expect any privacy by using any commercial communication platform or solution.

Consider yourself entering fullbody see-through scanner every time you conveniently send email, chat or do video call with Skype.

For total privacy use Tor-based communications channels, such as tormail.org (instead of any other email provider) and similar Tor-based solutions. The price for better privacy is usually less convenience and slower speeds.

<comment><USER3> I completely agree with you except for one thing. Tor isn't necessarily for privacy. It has more to do with anonymity by taking steps so people can't see who you are. By using Tormail there is still a chance that you can leak information about yourself and your contacts. Same goes for logging in to sites that carry your personal information.

If someone wants privacy then I would suggest using gpg/openpgp encryption for email/documents/etc., make sure https everywhere plugin is installed on your browser, noscript, adblock, etc. I suppose you get the same type of protection using the Tor Browser, also.

The problem is encryption. For the average user it's a bit a pain to understand and use. Then again, I'm sure if people want it enough they will learn.

<comment><USER4> Encryption is hard enough for developers and IT people to understand.

You have , for example websites that say "your data is protected by 256 bit encryption!". What does that even mean? Is just encrypted in transit? Is it only stored in an encrypted form on the other end? What is the key and who has to know it?

There is also a pretty big disadvantage to using good crypto, mainly if you lose/forget the key (or password used to derive it) you are completely fucked.

<comment><USER5> It's not that you have to understand the details of the math of encryption or write your own library, you need to understand the processes required to use it. It's easier figure how to use GPG/PGP than use Mercurial or git.

And almost all users, and most IT folks and developers are too lazy to follow processes. Plus management and shareholders don't want to invest the time and money for training or implementation.

<comment><USER3> I guess what we're seeing is basically, when it comes straight down to it: We are all pretty damn lazy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Please encrypt your communications whenever it's possible. Not because you have something to hide, but because there are many entities handling our private data that do not necessarily have their interests aligned with our personal privacy (probably an understatement).

For text messaging (Android only) I use the excellent 'TextSecure' app, which is an open source drop-in replacement for the standard messaging app on your phone. You can read more about it at <http://www.whispersystems.org/>

The aforementioned Whisper Systems also has an app called 'RedPhone' for secure voice, but I have yet to try it. If anyone uses it, I would be very glad to hear your opinion.

<comment><USER7> I use Redphone almost everyday. They now have global coverage except for most of the Middle East and some parts of Eastern Europe. The Egyptian server apparently doesn't relay so well either last I heard on the mailing list.

Works as advertised in China which is great success for businesses worried about their blackberries or iphones being exploited by industrial espionage.

Another bonus is moxie is considering moving everything over to voip so you won't even need a cell contract (since google voice numbers don't work worldwide). Move around the city like a ninja using wifi

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's also possible for skype to run arbitrary stuff on your system at any time, by design, from Skype HQ: <http://www.kyrus-tech.com/go-skype-go/>

during that incident it was excellent, because Skype admins told complaining users that they were infected with malware.

<comment><USER9> They've also been very happy to give data away even without warrants, about some Wikileaks supporters:

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/11/09/skype_gav...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/11/09/skype_gave_data_on_a_teen_wikileaks_supporter_to_a_private_company_without.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Several game publishers I have worked for have banned Skype and made it a fireable offense to use it. And that's just games...

<comment><USER11> Heh, several of my clients, most of whom have more sensitive data than a game company would have, mandate the use of Skype for IM. It really is a good IM platform, with the ability to edit/remove last message sent, easily build chats/conferences, the "send file" functionality actually works, and of course, it's simple to launch into a voice or video call right from the client. It's a shame that no other IM protocol even comes close to that.

On the other hand, Skype does keep logs of all your conversations on their servers, seemingly indefinitely. There's no easy crypto drop-in like OTR that I know of, and there's no easily evident way to delete those logs. I refuse to use it for non-mandated chats for these reasons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon are all US companies. Who do they let spy?

Concerns about Microsoft are not unique to Microsoft. They are just a popular vessel for the internet's unease.

<comment><USER13> In their defense, Google does try to be as transparent about these legal obligations as possible: <http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/>

<comment><USER14> Google do in the context of law enforcement.

Very little information on the security services (e.g. NSA).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Microsoft doesn't exactly have a good reputation to begin with in this field.

Some years ago it was common that your messages through Live Messenger (and Windows Messenger when it was still called so) got censored in real time. In one case any message containing the string "download.php" never reached the receiver and another time the same was true if your message contained a link to the piratebay or simply the phrase "live messenger". I can't remember any more concrete examples but there were many times you could easily figure out the pattern.

<comment><USER16> citation desired? I'm curious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I hate to be "that guy" and I hope this isn't unbearably naive, but why doesn't free software seem to even be mentioned in this discussion?

<comment><USER18> It is, although you have to read between the lines (and perhaps know a bit of Schneier's previous writings): when Schneier talks about locked down devices, it's helpful to know that previously he has talked about open source as necessary for good security (<http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-9909.html>), therefore locked down systems where you can't get the source (or run your own software) cannot be fully vetted for trustworthiness. This applies on two counts: if you cannot get source, you have to have faith in the competence of those providing the software, as well as trust that the motives of those offering it are in your best interest. With open source software, you don't have to make either one of these (dangerous) assumptions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I do not understand where was this noise over security when Skype was under another American company, the Ebay?

<comment><USER20> It's because Microsoft has centralised Skype's network. Previously node discovery and other services where essentially Peer-to-peer and thus more difficult to monitor.

See: [http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/skype- replaces-p2p-s...](http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/skype- replaces-p2p-supernodes-with-linux-boxes-hosted-by-microsoft/)

<comment><USER21> They've also recently declared Skype to be the replacement for Messenger.

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/09/windows_live_messeng...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/09/windows_live_messenger_skype/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> FTA: _"That's security in today's world. We have no choice but to trust Microsoft. Microsoft has reasons to be trustworthy, but they also have reasons to betray our trust in favor of other interests. And all we can do is ask them nicely to tell us first."_

Schneier's opinion on security is generally held in high regard, however, in this instance, his fallacious reasoning is somewhat surprising.

IOW, it's highly unlikely that _'trusting Microsoft'_ , is the only option we have.

</comment><comment><USER23> Are there any encrypted alternatives to Skype?

<comment><USER24> Would it be possible to dll inject skype and automatically encrypt all text / video between you and another person running the same injected dll?

I imagine that's against TOS or something though. I've just always wondered if it was possible.

<comment><USER14> I'm sure it is possible, but keeping it from breaking with every release is going to be tricky.

Plus one of Skype's benefits is that it works on "everything" (Windows, Linux, Mac, Android, iOS, etc); so your solution is only as good as the platforms you can tag.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I put together a more detailed comment on this:

[http://mikegerwitz.com/thoughts/2013/01/Re-Who-Does-Skype- Le...](http://mikegerwitz.com/thoughts/2013/01/Re-Who-Does-Skype-Let-Spy.html)

</comment><comment><USER25> The NSA, of course.

</comment><comment><USER26> The sound of silence is really an admission of guilt.

</comment><comment><USER27> Don't forget ZRTP, and solutions like zfone.

</comment><comment><USER28> "You can't stop the signal" -- Mr. Universe

</comment><comment><USER29> _We have no choice but to trust Microsoft. Microsoft has reasons to be trustworthy, but they also have reasons to betray our trust in favor of other interests._

Interests are US Federal laws not to mention other countries. When the FBI knocks with a warrant or whatever is needed, Microsoft (Google, or Apple, or FB, or Twitter, or AT&T...) can't do much. Do not trust them for super- sensitive info: if you're gossiping about your in laws, maybe it's safe...drug dealing, assassinations and Al Qaeda stuff probably not so much.

<comment><USER30> >> if you're gossiping about your in laws, maybe it's safe...drug dealing, assassinations and Al Qaeda stuff probably not so much.

There are more kinds of private conversations than frivolous and evil.

>> Do not trust them for super-sensitive info

Yes, that's the takeaway. We need an easier end-to-end encrypted VOIP method, so you don't have to trust the pipes you're using.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> so let's say i want to drop skype , what soft can i use which has instant messaging and video communication ?</comment>


Comparing SPUR [Microsoft Research VM] to PyPy - <AUTHOR> http://morepypy.blogspot.com/2010/07/comparing-spur-to-pypy.html

<comment><USER2> SPUR is built on the earlier Bartok compiler, built for the Singularity project, which provides a lot of the awesome optimizations, e.g. guard implication/strengthening. MSR has been working on some really cool projects; would be nice to see them rolled into the main product line.

</comment><comment><USER3> Reading about these efforts leaves me very excited about the possible performance improvements of dynamic language in the next few years. It reminds me of Dynamo (<http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/dynamo/dynamo-1.html>).

Please, someone bring me back down to earth before I start reading papers again instead of studying for my exams...

<comment><USER4> _Please, someone bring me back down to earth before I start reading papers again instead of studying for my exams..._

by all means, read more papers ;) study just enough to get a decent grade on your exams. if you're into reading academic papers and find them enriching, they can be a far more rewarding experience than studying for exams (and they might actually indirectly help you with future exams, heh)

<comment><USER5> Probably not future exams but you learn more, exam study is really about going over the same stuff you have already been over to ensure you remember it down to the minute details. Usually very uninspiring, unless of course you haven't touched the course before exam time then it can be interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Meh. LuaJIT seems to be where the JIT innovation really is.

<comment><USER4> do you wanna post a link or blog post to show us what you mean? i'm not familiar with LuaJIT vs. python/js JITs

<comment><USER7> [http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all...](http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all)

<comment><USER8> At least add LuaJIT to the chart

[http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming- lang...](http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-languages- are- fastest.php?luajit=on&v8=on&lua=on&tracemonkey=on&pypy=on&jruby=on&python3=on&python=on&perl=on&yarv=on&php=on&ironpy=on&ruby=on&calc=chart)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What3Words – Give Precise coordinates anywhere in the world in 3 words - <AUTHOR> http://what3words.com/ <comment><USER2> This has been posted about a dozen times in the past year. Approximately once a month. It almost seems like they have been spaced out this way on purpose.

</comment><comment><USER3> To get on a meter scale we need about eight digits per lat / long, say nine digits in total. We can get nine digits by multiplying three three digit numbers. So we only need the top 1000 common words. Neat.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Really cool video explaining the concept here - [https://vimeo.com/112227335](https://vimeo.com/112227335)

</comment><comment><USER4> Really wish they didn't do plural of words...</comment>


Open In MacVim Button for Finder - <AUTHOR> http://oscardelben.com/open-in-macvim

<comment><USER2> I use DTerm for this sort of thing. I wrote a blog post on my DTerm workflow over at <http://iterative.ly/dterm-the-macs-missing-command-line></comment>


Microsoft Browser Swarm - <AUTHOR> http://www.browserswarm.com/?=1

<comment><USER2> So if I understand this right, this is a cloud-based for-sale version of Testswarm run primarily on IE instances, but with no Operating system information?

I like the idea of using a cloud-based version of testswarm, but without the OS information per browser instance, particularly for IE, its not even worthwhile for that.

</comment><comment><USER3> This seems abjectly broken? jQuery and co. comes up as not working in a single browser (well looks there's a chance it might work in IE6-8 but I wouldn't take their word on it;)

</comment><comment><USER4> The title is misleading. This is an appendto.com product sitting on top of Sauce Labs tooling. It just so happens that the IE team did some collaboration along the way.</comment>


Headhunting firm denies blame for Yahoo CEO mess - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57433133-93/headhunting-firm-denies-blame-for-yahoo-ceo-mess-says-report/ <comment><USER2> This is getting silly. As if someone else fabricating this type of thing absolves him of the responsibility of saying "Hey, we should issue a press release. Someone made a mistake."</comment>


The Surgeon Who Removed His Own Appendix - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/antarctica-1961-a-soviet-surgeon-has-to-remove-his-own-appendix/72445/ <comment><USER2> Some discussion from when this was posted just over a year ago:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1053148>

Includes several references to equally incredible/bizarre feats.

</comment><comment><USER3> An advertisement on AU TV featured a layman (not a surgeon) who attempted his own appendectomy. He didn't complete it himself (rushed to hospital) but an interview clip with a surgeon said he had performed other operations before, and "his technique was pretty good". I really enjoyed hearing his appreciation. I have no idea if this is online somewhere, but it was an ad. for medical insurance.

</comment><comment><USER4> Personally I find shaving in the mirror challenging :-)

<comment><USER5> now imagine the same in antarctica, when drunk, without a sharp blade (no electric razor ofc) and no light :) add extreme pain that can drop you unconscious at any moment... some serious preparation would be needed, hard to imagine what he must have been going through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not that this isn't amazing, but is it really toughness and bravery to do what's necessary to save your own life?

<comment><USER7> "Not that this isn't amazing, but is it really toughness and bravery to do what's necessary to save your own life?"

Yes.</comment></comment>


America's Skills Challenge: Millennials and the Future - <AUTHOR> http://www.ets.org/s/research/30079/overview.html <comment><USER2> Millennials are often treated as a foreign entity, some entitled byproduct of the information age, but in reality you're talking about two decades of people whose views are going to vary as wildly as generations that came before them.

At the end of the day good organizational culture is good organizational culture, regardless of the year someone was born.</comment>