I've reflected a lot on this, as a parent. I can't quite get behind the "no computer screen" thing, because a bit part of me wants to get my kids into unix, pyt

I've reflected a lot on this, as a parent. I can't quite get behind the "no computer screen" thing, because a bit part of me wants to get my kids into unix, python, and interesting electronics projects from an early age. Another part of me sees this as a potentially endless loop of gummy bear videos (and, to paraphrase "war of the roses", "by the time this is all over, an argument about gummy bear videos will seem like one of your lighter moments"). I've come to a general, porous, leaky set of guidelines. The closer you are to black text on a white background (or white text on a black background), you're more likely it is you're doing something interesting. That could mean reading a novel or analyzing data with python or R or unix on the command line or in a relatively lightweight IDE. If lots of distractingly flashy colors and sounds are going on around you, then odds are you're getting sucked into the screen vortex, even if you aren't actually looking at a screen. And like I said, porous. There are, indisputably, phenomenal comic books (ok, graphic novels) with great depth. Videos and movies can have tremendous artistic value. Those flashy images on a screen could be watching Citizen Kane. That black and white text could be 101 fart jokes. What the hell do I know. But overall, I feel like the equation holds, sort of. If you're looking at symbols on a background, odds are this isn't the wrong kind of screen time, and it could be very intellectually enriching.