8 ms·

>How ever did anyone survive before I really, really hate this mindless, lazy line of argument in general. It gets tossed out with absolutely everything, from

by xoa 2y ago

>How ever did anyone survive before I really, really hate this mindless, lazy line of argument in general. It gets tossed out with absolutely everything, from the internet to vaccines to modern farming. The simple answer in many cases to "how did anyone survive before X" is "well, often they didn't". Life expectancies were in fact lower in the past. More people died, or were maimed, with no hope of treatment. Or sometimes it's "they did, but much less efficiently and we come to depend on each growth of the economy which at the foundation is literally about being able to do things more efficiently". Ease of communication, knowing what the weather is, all sorts of things mean less wasteful use of time and energy. Sometimes "they did, but perhaps less happily". A loved relative was in and accident, went to the hospital and you never got the chance to be involved when it mattered. And of course in some cases it's "new things have created downsides that create a need for other new things, the world has changed". Sometimes we can do something about that in the near term. Sometimes we cannot. Low effort responses like you made are discouraged on HN for good reason. Yeah, absolutely new negatives have come with the new positives and seeking to reduce the former matters. But productive discussion and activity tends to focus on specifics vs generalities. Reducing the benefits of real time communication devices to a binary "life/death" and then NOT grappling with modern trends in everything from natural disasters to school shootings to reduced bussing doesn't strike me as great Walter.

WalterBright 2y ago
I stand by my assertion. How many times in your 12 years in school was instant 24/7 communication for everyone in the school been of significant benefit, or would have been if they had it? It's zero in my case. Then look at the downsides, which are pervasive - inattention, disruption, distraction. If you still want it, put a landline phone in each classroom on the teacher's desk. The principal can also have a switch to turn it off in an emergency.
- xoa 2y ago
  >I stand by my assertion. How many times in your 12 years in school was instant 24/7 communication for everyone in the school been of significant benefit, or would have been if they had it? It's zero in my case. Yeah, there were no school shootings in my state in the 90s either. But since Columbine objective fact is there have been over 400 affecting almost 400k students [0], and the trend doesn't seem to be going down. Events like sudden wildfires going out of control in a real hurry are now also radically different then even 20 years ago. And yes, some of the scheduling and health features watches offer would have been very helpful to me in school thanks. The communication features of watches are pleasantly minimal and also almost necessarily public. They only work well 2-way with voice, which is not something one can do silently by definition and thus highly policeable in class. The information consumption capability is highly minimal. Watches also do not have cameras with all the associated issues. And it'd be possible to take the communication restrictions further with cellular restrictions in school and forcing everything through the school's firewall. >Then look at the downsides, which are pervasive - inattention, disruption, distraction. Out of genuine curiosity: can you show me some good studies on this with respect to watches, not phones? On the smart phone side yes, I've absolutely both seen studies and personally experienced the addictive and distracting aspects. But I have not seen anything like that with watches, and my personal experience is also that it's completely different in usage. I stand by my assertion: you threw out a form of argument that is lazy, shallow, and constantly misapplied. Even if in this specific case the balance of factors weighs against any smart devices at all (which I both extremely doubt and think will become extremely problematic for other reasons longer term), the form of argument "how did anyone survive before X" is so regularly bad faith, aggressively stupid, or both that it coming out instantly makes me more not less suspicious of whichever side the person stating it is supporting. ---- 0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/interactive/school-shootings-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/interactive/school-...
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    Why does a health monitor need to be in constant connection with the internet? If there's a problem, it can just beep at you. Yes, school shootings are a problem. But why does there need to be 30 cell phones in the classroom? The landline on the teacher's desk can be enough. Or even a button to turn off the jammer. For wildfire, call the principal who then hits the fire button. We had tornado drills in elementary school. No phones were required, it was a siren mounted on a pole. It worked fine. Who needs 1000 phones in the school?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >Yes, school shootings are a problem. But why does there need to be 30 cell phones in the classroom? The landline on the teacher's desk can be enough. Or even a button to turn off the jammer. A single landline isn't going to help 30 kids call their parents and say a final good-bye before the shooter kills them, while the town police force stands outside.
      - oldpersonintx 2y ago
        [dead]
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        That's a rare circumstance that is made to seem more common by very wide media coverage. And even in that sort of situation, it seems doubtful that it actually helps anybody either. Some parents will show up and get in the way of emergence responders. Most kids who call their parents will end up surviving anyway, and the phonecalls end up increasing the number of people who get PTSD from the whole thing. If a modest sized school of 500 kids has an above average shooting which kills 20, then you have 480+ parents getting a premature ""last call""; all would have been better off hearing about the incident after they already knew their kid was safe.
yawaramin 2y ago
> The simple answer in many cases to "how did anyone survive before X" is "well, often they didn't" I would recommend rethinking the assertion that most kids in schools are going to die without a cellphone.
AlbertCory 2y ago
A 300-word answer isn't 20x more intelligent than a 15-word one. I think Walter said all that needs to be said, and more economically than you did.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  Walter's comment could be applied exactly as well to an argument that there shouldn't be electricity in schools (after all, kids survived without electricity just fine for decades).
  - eimrine 2y ago
    The talk is about having a client for tiktok but with ability to phone - on your Math lesson. When the phone used to have no tiktok the situation is tolerable even if the phone rings occationally. Now the tiktok client successfully competes with teacher for kids' attention and some dumbheads are shouting - "Look, the tiktok client still can phone police/firefighters/parents! What else are you going to prohibit, maybe a paper?"
  - vkou 2y ago
    If 99.9% of what electricity was used for in a class for was a distraction, this might be a reasonable argument. It's not, though. But I'd wager that 99.9% of cellphone use during class is.
    - watwut 2y ago
      Then they needed to make THAT argument. They did not, argument was lazy "it did not existed in the past, so" thing.
      - AlbertCory 2y ago
        Maybe Walter thought you were smart enough to fill in the gaps and think for yourself. Guess he was wrong.
somenameforme 2y ago
To look at life expectancy, you need to normalize for the fact that numerous things have shifted dramatically in society. For instance smoking rates have completely plummeted relative to the past, to say nothing of the fact that up until the 90s you could generally smoke everywhere, even on airplanes! Then there have also been major changes in typical occupations, reductions in youth driving, and so on. Given that life expectancy increases have been coming at a snail's pace, and on occasion reversing, I suspect if one normalized for these sort of non-medical shifts in society, we'd see that life expectancy is most likely decreasing, likely due to things like widespread obesity, mental illness, and other ailments which modern gadgets are significantly contributing to.

by xoa 2y ago

WalterBright 2y ago

I stand by my assertion. How many times in your 12 years in school was instant 24/7 communication for everyone in the school been of significant benefit, or would have been if they had it? It's zero in my case. Then look at the downsides, which are pervasive - inattention, disruption, distraction. If you still want it, put a landline phone in each classroom on the teacher's desk. The principal can also have a switch to turn it off in an emergency.

xoa 2y ago
>I stand by my assertion. How many times in your 12 years in school was instant 24/7 communication for everyone in the school been of significant benefit, or would have been if they had it? It's zero in my case. Yeah, there were no school shootings in my state in the 90s either. But since Columbine objective fact is there have been over 400 affecting almost 400k students [0], and the trend doesn't seem to be going down. Events like sudden wildfires going out of control in a real hurry are now also radically different then even 20 years ago. And yes, some of the scheduling and health features watches offer would have been very helpful to me in school thanks. The communication features of watches are pleasantly minimal and also almost necessarily public. They only work well 2-way with voice, which is not something one can do silently by definition and thus highly policeable in class. The information consumption capability is highly minimal. Watches also do not have cameras with all the associated issues. And it'd be possible to take the communication restrictions further with cellular restrictions in school and forcing everything through the school's firewall. >Then look at the downsides, which are pervasive - inattention, disruption, distraction. Out of genuine curiosity: can you show me some good studies on this with respect to watches, not phones? On the smart phone side yes, I've absolutely both seen studies and personally experienced the addictive and distracting aspects. But I have not seen anything like that with watches, and my personal experience is also that it's completely different in usage. I stand by my assertion: you threw out a form of argument that is lazy, shallow, and constantly misapplied. Even if in this specific case the balance of factors weighs against any smart devices at all (which I both extremely doubt and think will become extremely problematic for other reasons longer term), the form of argument "how did anyone survive before X" is so regularly bad faith, aggressively stupid, or both that it coming out instantly makes me more not less suspicious of whichever side the person stating it is supporting. ---- 0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/interactive/school-shootings-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/interactive/school-...
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Why does a health monitor need to be in constant connection with the internet? If there's a problem, it can just beep at you. Yes, school shootings are a problem. But why does there need to be 30 cell phones in the classroom? The landline on the teacher's desk can be enough. Or even a button to turn off the jammer. For wildfire, call the principal who then hits the fire button. We had tornado drills in elementary school. No phones were required, it was a siren mounted on a pole. It worked fine. Who needs 1000 phones in the school?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >Yes, school shootings are a problem. But why does there need to be 30 cell phones in the classroom? The landline on the teacher's desk can be enough. Or even a button to turn off the jammer. A single landline isn't going to help 30 kids call their parents and say a final good-bye before the shooter kills them, while the town police force stands outside.
    - oldpersonintx 2y ago
      [dead]
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      That's a rare circumstance that is made to seem more common by very wide media coverage. And even in that sort of situation, it seems doubtful that it actually helps anybody either. Some parents will show up and get in the way of emergence responders. Most kids who call their parents will end up surviving anyway, and the phonecalls end up increasing the number of people who get PTSD from the whole thing. If a modest sized school of 500 kids has an above average shooting which kills 20, then you have 480+ parents getting a premature ""last call""; all would have been better off hearing about the incident after they already knew their kid was safe.

yawaramin 2y ago

> The simple answer in many cases to "how did anyone survive before X" is "well, often they didn't" I would recommend rethinking the assertion that most kids in schools are going to die without a cellphone.

AlbertCory 2y ago

A 300-word answer isn't 20x more intelligent than a 15-word one. I think Walter said all that needs to be said, and more economically than you did.

tsimionescu 2y ago
Walter's comment could be applied exactly as well to an argument that there shouldn't be electricity in schools (after all, kids survived without electricity just fine for decades).
- eimrine 2y ago
  The talk is about having a client for tiktok but with ability to phone - on your Math lesson. When the phone used to have no tiktok the situation is tolerable even if the phone rings occationally. Now the tiktok client successfully competes with teacher for kids' attention and some dumbheads are shouting - "Look, the tiktok client still can phone police/firefighters/parents! What else are you going to prohibit, maybe a paper?"
- vkou 2y ago
  If 99.9% of what electricity was used for in a class for was a distraction, this might be a reasonable argument. It's not, though. But I'd wager that 99.9% of cellphone use during class is.
  - watwut 2y ago
    Then they needed to make THAT argument. They did not, argument was lazy "it did not existed in the past, so" thing.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      Maybe Walter thought you were smart enough to fill in the gaps and think for yourself. Guess he was wrong.

somenameforme 2y ago

To look at life expectancy, you need to normalize for the fact that numerous things have shifted dramatically in society. For instance smoking rates have completely plummeted relative to the past, to say nothing of the fact that up until the 90s you could generally smoke everywhere, even on airplanes! Then there have also been major changes in typical occupations, reductions in youth driving, and so on. Given that life expectancy increases have been coming at a snail's pace, and on occasion reversing, I suspect if one normalized for these sort of non-medical shifts in society, we'd see that life expectancy is most likely decreasing, likely due to things like widespread obesity, mental illness, and other ailments which modern gadgets are significantly contributing to.