Hmm. I liked your other reply. I don't agree with you upon this one. I write: > It's sound that our children have us, adults, as role models, that they are ins

Hmm. I liked your other reply. I don't agree with you upon this one. I write: > It's sound that our children have us, adults, as role models, that they are inspired by us, by what we do, what we say, and by how we act. However, wiIt's sound that our children have us, adults, as role models, that they are inspired by us, by what we do, what we say, and by how we act. However, with regard to creativity and hacking, you don't have to spend much time building with lego, drawing, playing and discussing to realize that you won't match your seven-year-old in terms of getting things done, solving problems related to creative tasks.th regard to creativity and hacking, you don't have to spend much time building with lego, drawing, playing and discussing to realize that you won't match your seven-year-old in terms of getting things done, solving problems related to creative tasks. [...] > My general point is that sometimes we're so focused on producing (2) 'an incredibly good, and perhaps very time-consuming, piece of work that produces exactly what is needed' that we fail in (1) '[producing] what is needed, but not well' (and thus end up failing in general). In this respect, we should take inspiration from our seven-year-olds. But what you insinuate in your other reply may still be correct! Perhaps this usage makes the notion of a hack, hacker, hacking empty? I believe it's important to be able to say 'I am wrong'. And perhaps I am here. I have not decided what I think yet.