> I am certain they never intended to inspire a 12 year-old kid to find a better life.
i can't speak for everyone, but as one of the people writing tutorials and faqs and helping people learn to do things with free software during the period miller is talking about, that is absolutely what i intended to do. and, from the number of people i knew who were excited to work on olpc, conectar igualdad, and huayra linux, i think it was actually a pretty common motivation
as a kid on bbses, fidonet, and the internet, i benefited to an unimaginable degree from other people's generosity in sharing their learning and their inventions (which is what software is). how could i not want to do the same?
The author seems about a decade younger than me and "raised" isn't the word I would use for myself, but I doubt I would have made it if not for the friends I made and the things I learned that way.
The thing about pulling yourself up out of a bad situation is that you learn to be usually very deliberate in how you talk about it and what you talk about. People who've never really known anything but stability in their lives tend to make a lot of assumptions they're not equipped to recognize, so it's usually just better not to create the opportunity.
If you feel you've noticed an odd ellipticality in accounts like these, the vague sense of something going unsaid, it's this. If that's all you've noticed, better not to pry.
It came up on HN recently, about how work is a place where it can be best to leave some things unsaid, because it invites assumptions about your character and capabilities that might not be true, or positive.
That isn't even unreasonable as a cultural norm, although it is that those who most firmly enforce it also cherish silly habits like saying "bring your whole self to work."
The expectation of not oversharing needs to be met by a commitment of not over-asking, but I suppose that's really too much to expect in an age so degraded that all the obligations across lines of social class are understood to run in only one direction.
I once heard, in a different century, that the "modal restaurant script" differed between the US and the UK in that in the former, the waitstaff asks the diners a bunch of (to a cultural outsider) overly prying questions, while in the latter, the diners ask them of the waitstaff. Still true? Never was?
I think the central takeaway of this essay is dead wrong, you should aim for the exact opposite. The fewer labels or identities you have yourself, the more strongly you hold on to them and the more fragile your personality. If the only thing you identify yourself by is your job and that gets taken away from you in a downturn, never to return, what's left? A lot of people who are in that situation and don't have other selves to identify with struggle strongly. On the other hand, people who identify with more facets of what makes them them have a lot of options to fall back on. You're not only your job, but you're also a parent, a child, an athlete, a hobbyist, etc. Even if you stop being one of those things, you keep being all the rest, and that gives fortitude and resilience.
If your self-image includes the structure of the world around you, or the behavior of people other than yourself, you'll run into problems.
I enjoy working with computers. I happen to work at a particular company doing computer things. Only one of those is an innate "what makes me, me" thing. Even if computers didn't exist, I'd still probably tend to gravitate towards things that are fun for the same sorts of reasons.
Any quasi-public forum it's probably best to leave controversial and nuanced opinions on things unsaid especially under your real name. (But even under a supposedly anonymous handle, it's probably worth asking if you really need to post this.)
People with different life experiences should just be quietly written off due to the faulty assumptions they might make out of ignorance.
> If you feel you've noticed an odd ellipticality in accounts like these, the vague sense of something going unsaid, it's this. If that's all you've noticed, better not to pry.
In what context? Work acquaintances chatting over coffee at the office? Parasocial public discussions on the internet? Intentionally public discussions? Friends talking all night over drinks?
You give the impression here of having taken something I said quite personally. I hope I may be forgiven for not yet really understanding what or why.
The account under discussion is attributed public speech on the Internet. In other contexts, other conventions apply.
If you're asking for a recommendation, it would be twofold. First, if a question seems like it might be taken as nosy, try to find a way to reframe it, or don't ask it at all. Second, when someone seems to persistently misunderstand something you're saying or asking in a more personal than professional context, consider that they may be intentionally deflecting a question or subject which they consider inappropriate to address in that setting.
I faced nothing like the hardships the author did, but I'm nonetheless deeply indebted to people who took a young Linux nerd with an upbringing that was "no fun" under their wing and ignited a lifelong passion that became a very interesting career and a very interesting life.
So I'd like to add my gratitude to that of the OP to the wonderful mentors I've had over the years. I don't see eye-to-eye with all of them in 2024, but that in no way diminishes the tremendous debt of gratitude.
This is the kind of debt that's paid forward: when and where I can I try to pass some of this treasure along to younger hackers.
Thank you for a moving personal story @jimmyhmiller.
I can’t say that I did. I’d blame “being raised on the internet” as a consistent contributor to a lot of negatives in my life. Certainly, I picked up a lot of the rage from people in the IRC circles I ran with, and like a parrot exhibited it in my personal life. Beyond that, the general degradation of IRL social skills.
I can say my life took a significant upturn once I extricated myself from that community.
I’d say the thing is that the internet is filled with a lot of negative places, filled with people who literally can’t operate IRL. If as a kid you’re sucked into them, it can be detrimental.
We are going to see a lot of children (and adults) raised by chatbots. Asking them for advice, confiding in them where real people don't seem safe, etc. Through the looking glass! Still, definitely better than asking Reddit for relationship advice
Of course nothing on the internet is new, it just assumes a default culture and philosophy which is less prominent in real life. It would be interesting to pin early internet to a particular demographic. Is it 90s stem graduate students primarily in the US? Middle class engineers?
Nor did I say that it was. You've assumed an equation between "not just one demographic" and "the general population" where none exists.
There are histories in my bookshelf downstairs that I can recommend here. If I don't happen by before the edit window closes on this comment, I'll mention some titles in a reply.
I grew up in a rural part of the United States. First got online in 1996 when I was 8 years old. The best thing that the Internet gave me was a way to talk to strangers from around the world and make friends with people who I would have never had a chance to interact with in person. In my 20s, it lead to real life friendships with people I had met online, which is really cool. I have used Couch Surfing to make friends in places I was traveling through. Lived in Australia for a while with a group of friends I met online.
20 years later, some of my closest friends are those I met in 97 in a MUD. I have other friends, of course, but it's notable that friendships have endured entirely online for twenty years.
Some of those friends I've talked to every day, or every few days, for decades, but I've only seen once or twice IRL.
It's fascinating how someone can feel like they've been "raised by the internet," almost as if it’s a parent in this digital age. I'm curious to learn more about how that experience shapes a person!
The internet is important in my formative year, taught me a lot, including how to program. You could say that my intellect is formed by the internet firehose.
I would like to say that my experience is largely positive, but it's hard to say that without the internet, I would actually be more capable. There are many things that the internet does well, but building young adults able to deftly navigate the real world is not one of them.
That said, the internet once again is now a source of information on how to be a responsible adults. However, there's no doubt that the internet is also a source of toxic information without good judgement and ruthless filtering.
It's said in the same way as how the environment you grow up in shapes who you become, the internet being (one of) your primary environment(s) due to escapism or just amount of time spent in it.
Kinda like me modulo the internet, I relied on Debian Sarge docs at 17-18, self taught. The DVD and the accompanying book/magazine was more than enough to deeping your knowledge.
Also, no project it's pointless. A Gopher/Gemini client in JimTCL with a basic cli interface a la cgo/gplaces? Go for it. A simple IRC client with a simple thread in the backgroup looking up for PING messages from the server ? The same. It wont be a killer application, but it wll be fun and you will learn a lot.
To be fair this viewpoint should be included as well talking about being raised by the internet. People can have so very different experiences with the computers.
My kids get a fair share of unsupervised tablet time.
And they seem to know 10x of what I did at their same age.
My son is 9, watching endless Geometry Dash tutorials, and making his own levels. He loves it, and he loves to show me his work.
Tablet time will become an extension of your home life.
If you have good discussions - encouraging curiosity, fostering creativity, challenging their approach "Why did you design it this way?" - the kid and the algorithms will follow that lead.
Some kids were, some kids weren't. I don't know how I ended up hacking with Linux and programming, while many others spent their time watching series and playing Nintendo. Not to say it is somehow a bad thing.
This is not being raised by the internet. Being raised by the internet is getting all your mores and morals from the internet. Learning how to do everything you know through YouTube videos. Learning appropriate responses to situations through forums etc. A lot of us are raised by the internet.
The writer of the article was poor when young but at some point got internet working on an old computer and suddenly they would have access to learn a lot about information technology, thanks to mostly freely shared info. What I wonder... would they have reached out back then not just for computer info but also for psychological support and a way out of poverty, would that have worked? And why didn't they?
It sounds like computers were an outlet away from the hardship - something the author could sink into. I didn't get the sense he was in practical problem solving mode, but more coping and survival mode. Lucky him that this particular form of coping led to greener pastures.
He seemed indeed in survival mode. It's indeed unfortunate that in such situations, people, especially minors, cannot find to reach out for a practical solution for, for example, cheap food (leftovers in shops?) or good advice in such situation.
Here in the Netherlands we have the Kindertelefoon (Children’s Telephone), a free hotline for children to call and talk about anything. [1] I never called when I was young, but I think it’s great that such an initiative exists.
Even for adults, there are such initiatives, such as the Luisterlijn [2] and MIND Korrelatie [3].
Have you noticed it's only in our cities you seem to really hear about the homeless poor? It isn't the correlate of overall population distribution that it might intuitively look like.
> What I wonder... would they have reached out back then not just for computer info but also for psychological support and a way out of poverty, would that have worked?
Joining someone in their hobbies is a much much smaller ask than having that same someone listen to (and maybe advise about) your problems, or having them provide career coaching / direct financial support.
One is "lets have fun together", the other is "please stranger, do me this huge favor".
> And why didn't they?
Knowing who to ask might be a bit much to ask of a kid. Even aside from asking for unreciprocated favors being generally not a thing most people do easily (or look on favorably).
while it might have been theoretically possible.. it's not obvious to me that a kid growing up poor would know of that possibility, or know how to find that information.
Sometimes it's a matter of luck, like how he had met someone that knew about linux.
I hope you are aware of your immense luck in life if you think a kid in a situation like this has agency of any kind, let alone access to resources to help them “escape poverty” as a minor.
You know why no-questions asked, free lunch programs for everyone are so hugely important for kids suffering from food scarcity? Often it’s because their shitty parents won’t even sign forms to get them free lunch.
Please educate yourself in what actual suffering looks like in this world.
Biweekly I work freely at an initiative in our city to help deliver food to the needy. I believe i know what poverty looks like. I'm not sure what this has to do with my question, probably it was ill formed, for which i apologize.
From how you all use the language, I suspect you and your critical interlocutors are speaking across the Atlantic to one another. Poverty in Europe looks a lot different from poverty in the US. It is not wise to assume much at all about one from the other.
You also failed in reading the article to notice that the author plainly did derive considerable psychological support from improving his skill. This was not explicitly stated but was trivially implicit, which I think not only for me may add to the sense you more pattern-matched on the article than read it.
For myself, I'm much more unfavorably impressed with your failure to notice the kid plainly was solving his own problems with computers and in life, and deriving from that success a stronger sense of personal agency which helped him approach the larger tasks that faced him.
It seems to me only a view of poverty which is paternalistic unto contempt could fail to attend this process which was explicitly described in the article, but then I am an American, and would not wish to risk commenting on a culture I don't understand well enough to form opinions about.
Like i wrote, the question was probably ill formed, but it is a question, not an opinion nonetheless.
I am a bit touched that it seemed like i did not read or understand the article, in fact i read the article in its entirety, as one of the first to comment, even to my surprise for such a compelling story. I understood he was getting support and feeling strengthened by his learning on the internet. I feel my questions seem to be taken as rhetorical. I feel it is still unanswered, even no hints towards how or why, only that 'i should not ask such questions'. I guess American culture is very different from European (can it even be seen as having a culture as a whole, there is so much diversity)... and hence my question not being appreciated?
Your reading comprehension is being interrogated because, in speaking of the article as though it did not say several of the things it says, you make such questions seem necessary.
You are being told that the question you asked is "not even wrong": it is without meaning and so not meaningfully answerable, because it could only be asked at all from such a fundamental ignorance of the American situation around poverty that to attempt to even explain the misapprehension would require more the scope of an undergraduate course than an HN comment.
I would not usually be so blunt, but in this case meeting an apparent need for directness seems worth the risk of a rude impression. If you need it put still more plainly, though, I'm afraid I cannot help you.
> You also failed in reading the article to notice that the author plainly did derive considerable psychological support from improving his skill. This was not explicitly stated but was trivially implicit
There's a difference between happening to find psychological support in something, vs asking for it directly. I assumed the comment you're trashing was asking about why they didn't do the second and only the first.
> For myself, I'm much more unfavorably impressed with your failure to notice the kid plainly was solving his own problems with computers and in life, and deriving from that success a stronger sense of personal agency which helped him approach the larger tasks that faced him.
So what you're saying is that it's a great personal failing to wonder why he relied on this happenstance rather than looking for those things directly.
> It seems to me only a view of poverty which is paternalistic unto contempt could fail to attend this process which was explicitly described in the article, but then I am an American, and would not wish to risk commenting on a culture I don't understand well enough to form opinions about.
You are showing utter contempt for someone who understood a described situation differently due to what you assert must me incurable ignorance borne of living in a society not your own. This seems rather different from refusing to comment on other cultures that you claim to not understand.
I live in a wealthy area in the US, we have many food banks and social support services, and still there are huge numbers of kids suffering from food scarcity. It always comes back to the parents. Even delivering food requires said parents to give a shit, which they don’t —- whether out of pride or sociopathic disdain.
My state is one a handful that provides free lunches and morning snacks to all kids, regardless of parent incomes. It’s essential for these children.
You are still conflating your experience volunteering with full knowledge of the problem.
I don't have full knowledge of the problem. Hence the questions. It's a pitty i only get answers in the sense of "you don't know what you are talking/questioning about".
Your entire comment is strange and snarky but this stuck out:
> You know why no-questions asked, free lunch programs for everyone are so hugely important for kids suffering from food scarcity? Often it’s because their shitty parents won’t even sign forms to get them free lunch.
So its no questions asked but "shitty parents" still have to sign forms? Most states with reduced/free lunch programs have income thresholds. Regardless, if you let your kid eat that crap, you're a "shitty parent", because its literally choked full of sodium and fake ingredients. If I lived in one of those states, I'd be asking for my lunch voucher in cash to go towards real food.
Indeed. People tend to reflexively assume that income thresholds are a good idea because it prevents people who don't need the program from benefitting, but you've got to think about the cost to the kids whose parents won't do that particular piece of paperwork. Just give kids food if they say they need it. You'll also save money on bureaucracy.
This is a separate question from the quality of the food. I will note that if you give out cash instead of vouchers you are giving the kid something that others can and will take away from them.
I think what they meant was that if there are eligibility requirements and such, paperwork is required and some parents won't do it. So no questions asked solves that problem. That's how I parsed it, at least.
> I am certain they never intended to inspire a 12 year-old kid to find a better life.
i can't speak for everyone, but as one of the people writing tutorials and faqs and helping people learn to do things with free software during the period miller is talking about, that is absolutely what i intended to do. and, from the number of people i knew who were excited to work on olpc, conectar igualdad, and huayra linux, i think it was actually a pretty common motivation
as a kid on bbses, fidonet, and the internet, i benefited to an unimaginable degree from other people's generosity in sharing their learning and their inventions (which is what software is). how could i not want to do the same?
The author seems about a decade younger than me and "raised" isn't the word I would use for myself, but I doubt I would have made it if not for the friends I made and the things I learned that way.
The thing about pulling yourself up out of a bad situation is that you learn to be usually very deliberate in how you talk about it and what you talk about. People who've never really known anything but stability in their lives tend to make a lot of assumptions they're not equipped to recognize, so it's usually just better not to create the opportunity.
If you feel you've noticed an odd ellipticality in accounts like these, the vague sense of something going unsaid, it's this. If that's all you've noticed, better not to pry.
Well said, something I had not yet put to words.
It came up on HN recently, about how work is a place where it can be best to leave some things unsaid, because it invites assumptions about your character and capabilities that might not be true, or positive.
That isn't even unreasonable as a cultural norm, although it is that those who most firmly enforce it also cherish silly habits like saying "bring your whole self to work."
The expectation of not oversharing needs to be met by a commitment of not over-asking, but I suppose that's really too much to expect in an age so degraded that all the obligations across lines of social class are understood to run in only one direction.
I once heard, in a different century, that the "modal restaurant script" differed between the US and the UK in that in the former, the waitstaff asks the diners a bunch of (to a cultural outsider) overly prying questions, while in the latter, the diners ask them of the waitstaff. Still true? Never was?
> The expectation of not oversharing needs to be met by a commitment of not over-asking,
Nosy people are a fact of life, and their existence shouldn't invalidate norms against over-sharing in inappropriate contexts.
I haven't sought to argue either should override the other, but indeed exactly that both should exist in more balance than has lately been evident.
Keep your identity small. https://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
(Not saying I agree or disagree with the essay but it seemed topical)
I think the central takeaway of this essay is dead wrong, you should aim for the exact opposite. The fewer labels or identities you have yourself, the more strongly you hold on to them and the more fragile your personality. If the only thing you identify yourself by is your job and that gets taken away from you in a downturn, never to return, what's left? A lot of people who are in that situation and don't have other selves to identify with struggle strongly. On the other hand, people who identify with more facets of what makes them them have a lot of options to fall back on. You're not only your job, but you're also a parent, a child, an athlete, a hobbyist, etc. Even if you stop being one of those things, you keep being all the rest, and that gives fortitude and resilience.
If your self-image includes the structure of the world around you, or the behavior of people other than yourself, you'll run into problems.
I enjoy working with computers. I happen to work at a particular company doing computer things. Only one of those is an innate "what makes me, me" thing. Even if computers didn't exist, I'd still probably tend to gravitate towards things that are fun for the same sorts of reasons.
In this connection it seems fit to note that "I am someone who found ways to overcome the problems that I faced" is also a statement of identity.
Any quasi-public forum it's probably best to leave controversial and nuanced opinions on things unsaid especially under your real name. (But even under a supposedly anonymous handle, it's probably worth asking if you really need to post this.)
People with different life experiences should just be quietly written off due to the faulty assumptions they might make out of ignorance.
> If you feel you've noticed an odd ellipticality in accounts like these, the vague sense of something going unsaid, it's this. If that's all you've noticed, better not to pry.
In what context? Work acquaintances chatting over coffee at the office? Parasocial public discussions on the internet? Intentionally public discussions? Friends talking all night over drinks?
You give the impression here of having taken something I said quite personally. I hope I may be forgiven for not yet really understanding what or why.
The account under discussion is attributed public speech on the Internet. In other contexts, other conventions apply.
If you're asking for a recommendation, it would be twofold. First, if a question seems like it might be taken as nosy, try to find a way to reframe it, or don't ask it at all. Second, when someone seems to persistently misunderstand something you're saying or asking in a more personal than professional context, consider that they may be intentionally deflecting a question or subject which they consider inappropriate to address in that setting.
I faced nothing like the hardships the author did, but I'm nonetheless deeply indebted to people who took a young Linux nerd with an upbringing that was "no fun" under their wing and ignited a lifelong passion that became a very interesting career and a very interesting life.
So I'd like to add my gratitude to that of the OP to the wonderful mentors I've had over the years. I don't see eye-to-eye with all of them in 2024, but that in no way diminishes the tremendous debt of gratitude.
This is the kind of debt that's paid forward: when and where I can I try to pass some of this treasure along to younger hackers.
Thank you for a moving personal story @jimmyhmiller.
I’m glad this author had an endearing experience.
I can’t say that I did. I’d blame “being raised on the internet” as a consistent contributor to a lot of negatives in my life. Certainly, I picked up a lot of the rage from people in the IRC circles I ran with, and like a parrot exhibited it in my personal life. Beyond that, the general degradation of IRL social skills.
I can say my life took a significant upturn once I extricated myself from that community.
I’d say the thing is that the internet is filled with a lot of negative places, filled with people who literally can’t operate IRL. If as a kid you’re sucked into them, it can be detrimental.
We are going to see a lot of children (and adults) raised by chatbots. Asking them for advice, confiding in them where real people don't seem safe, etc. Through the looking glass! Still, definitely better than asking Reddit for relationship advice
Red flags galore. You should divorce immediately. Not the asshole.
I do fear, in the long term, what happens to those chat logs?
Surely they will be used for training later on, and being anonymous doesn't always work out.
Will the viewer be more AI bots? Human employees? Law enforcement? A dump on 4chan?
Of course nothing on the internet is new, it just assumes a default culture and philosophy which is less prominent in real life. It would be interesting to pin early internet to a particular demographic. Is it 90s stem graduate students primarily in the US? Middle class engineers?
I would instead say, as many have, that the entire wonder of the young Internet was that it couldn't be tied to just one demographic.
I just don’t think that’s true. The sampling of early internet users and writers is not the general population.
Nor did I say that it was. You've assumed an equation between "not just one demographic" and "the general population" where none exists.
There are histories in my bookshelf downstairs that I can recommend here. If I don't happen by before the edit window closes on this comment, I'll mention some titles in a reply.
And with this black and white thinking you won’t find any trends or patterns anywhere in real life.
To rephrase the question, who was influential on the internet? What biases and ideals were on the internet due to those selection effects.
ndiswrapper was a big learning moment for me as well
I grew up in a rural part of the United States. First got online in 1996 when I was 8 years old. The best thing that the Internet gave me was a way to talk to strangers from around the world and make friends with people who I would have never had a chance to interact with in person. In my 20s, it lead to real life friendships with people I had met online, which is really cool. I have used Couch Surfing to make friends in places I was traveling through. Lived in Australia for a while with a group of friends I met online.
20 years later, some of my closest friends are those I met in 97 in a MUD. I have other friends, of course, but it's notable that friendships have endured entirely online for twenty years.
Some of those friends I've talked to every day, or every few days, for decades, but I've only seen once or twice IRL.
Online friendships can be more durable than in-person ones. They aren't affected by physical changes and moves.
Yeah, they kind of start in the worst failure mode a friendship can have.
It's fascinating how someone can feel like they've been "raised by the internet," almost as if it’s a parent in this digital age. I'm curious to learn more about how that experience shapes a person!
The internet is important in my formative year, taught me a lot, including how to program. You could say that my intellect is formed by the internet firehose.
I would like to say that my experience is largely positive, but it's hard to say that without the internet, I would actually be more capable. There are many things that the internet does well, but building young adults able to deftly navigate the real world is not one of them.
That said, the internet once again is now a source of information on how to be a responsible adults. However, there's no doubt that the internet is also a source of toxic information without good judgement and ruthless filtering.
It's said in the same way as how the environment you grow up in shapes who you become, the internet being (one of) your primary environment(s) due to escapism or just amount of time spent in it.
Wild guess, Alabama?
Kinda like me modulo the internet, I relied on Debian Sarge docs at 17-18, self taught. The DVD and the accompanying book/magazine was more than enough to deeping your knowledge.
Also, no project it's pointless. A Gopher/Gemini client in JimTCL with a basic cli interface a la cgo/gplaces? Go for it. A simple IRC client with a simple thread in the backgroup looking up for PING messages from the server ? The same. It wont be a killer application, but it wll be fun and you will learn a lot.
And now it is even worse. Kids left for hours in front of a TV or tablet watching 30 different versions of baby shark.
To be fair this viewpoint should be included as well talking about being raised by the internet. People can have so very different experiences with the computers.
My kids get a fair share of unsupervised tablet time.
And they seem to know 10x of what I did at their same age.
My son is 9, watching endless Geometry Dash tutorials, and making his own levels. He loves it, and he loves to show me his work.
Tablet time will become an extension of your home life.
If you have good discussions - encouraging curiosity, fostering creativity, challenging their approach "Why did you design it this way?" - the kid and the algorithms will follow that lead.
Back in the 80s kids were left for hours in front of a TV watching cartoons. I suspect this was the case even earlier that that too.
Some kids were, some kids weren't. I don't know how I ended up hacking with Linux and programming, while many others spent their time watching series and playing Nintendo. Not to say it is somehow a bad thing.
80s cartoons were better than regular YouTube on autoplay. Which is a Russian roulette of inappropiate content.
YouTube Kids is better in this respect, but more recent.
Hey, it seems that we helped! B^>
This is not being raised by the internet. Being raised by the internet is getting all your mores and morals from the internet. Learning how to do everything you know through YouTube videos. Learning appropriate responses to situations through forums etc. A lot of us are raised by the internet.
The writer of the article was poor when young but at some point got internet working on an old computer and suddenly they would have access to learn a lot about information technology, thanks to mostly freely shared info. What I wonder... would they have reached out back then not just for computer info but also for psychological support and a way out of poverty, would that have worked? And why didn't they?
It sounds like computers were an outlet away from the hardship - something the author could sink into. I didn't get the sense he was in practical problem solving mode, but more coping and survival mode. Lucky him that this particular form of coping led to greener pastures.
He seemed indeed in survival mode. It's indeed unfortunate that in such situations, people, especially minors, cannot find to reach out for a practical solution for, for example, cheap food (leftovers in shops?) or good advice in such situation.
Here in the Netherlands we have the Kindertelefoon (Children’s Telephone), a free hotline for children to call and talk about anything. [1] I never called when I was young, but I think it’s great that such an initiative exists.
Even for adults, there are such initiatives, such as the Luisterlijn [2] and MIND Korrelatie [3].
[1] https://www.kindertelefoon.nl/
[2] https://www.deluisterlijn.nl/
[3] https://mindkorrelatie.nl/
I really can't imagine these kind of initiatives not to exist on the other side of the ocean. From all i read here, i must assume so though.
There is nothing remotely similar.
Have you noticed it's only in our cities you seem to really hear about the homeless poor? It isn't the correlate of overall population distribution that it might intuitively look like.
> What I wonder... would they have reached out back then not just for computer info but also for psychological support and a way out of poverty, would that have worked?
Joining someone in their hobbies is a much much smaller ask than having that same someone listen to (and maybe advise about) your problems, or having them provide career coaching / direct financial support.
One is "lets have fun together", the other is "please stranger, do me this huge favor".
> And why didn't they?
Knowing who to ask might be a bit much to ask of a kid. Even aside from asking for unreciprocated favors being generally not a thing most people do easily (or look on favorably).
while it might have been theoretically possible.. it's not obvious to me that a kid growing up poor would know of that possibility, or know how to find that information.
Sometimes it's a matter of luck, like how he had met someone that knew about linux.
I hope you are aware of your immense luck in life if you think a kid in a situation like this has agency of any kind, let alone access to resources to help them “escape poverty” as a minor.
You know why no-questions asked, free lunch programs for everyone are so hugely important for kids suffering from food scarcity? Often it’s because their shitty parents won’t even sign forms to get them free lunch.
Please educate yourself in what actual suffering looks like in this world.
Biweekly I work freely at an initiative in our city to help deliver food to the needy. I believe i know what poverty looks like. I'm not sure what this has to do with my question, probably it was ill formed, for which i apologize.
From how you all use the language, I suspect you and your critical interlocutors are speaking across the Atlantic to one another. Poverty in Europe looks a lot different from poverty in the US. It is not wise to assume much at all about one from the other.
You also failed in reading the article to notice that the author plainly did derive considerable psychological support from improving his skill. This was not explicitly stated but was trivially implicit, which I think not only for me may add to the sense you more pattern-matched on the article than read it.
For myself, I'm much more unfavorably impressed with your failure to notice the kid plainly was solving his own problems with computers and in life, and deriving from that success a stronger sense of personal agency which helped him approach the larger tasks that faced him.
It seems to me only a view of poverty which is paternalistic unto contempt could fail to attend this process which was explicitly described in the article, but then I am an American, and would not wish to risk commenting on a culture I don't understand well enough to form opinions about.
Like i wrote, the question was probably ill formed, but it is a question, not an opinion nonetheless.
I am a bit touched that it seemed like i did not read or understand the article, in fact i read the article in its entirety, as one of the first to comment, even to my surprise for such a compelling story. I understood he was getting support and feeling strengthened by his learning on the internet. I feel my questions seem to be taken as rhetorical. I feel it is still unanswered, even no hints towards how or why, only that 'i should not ask such questions'. I guess American culture is very different from European (can it even be seen as having a culture as a whole, there is so much diversity)... and hence my question not being appreciated?
Your reading comprehension is being interrogated because, in speaking of the article as though it did not say several of the things it says, you make such questions seem necessary.
You are being told that the question you asked is "not even wrong": it is without meaning and so not meaningfully answerable, because it could only be asked at all from such a fundamental ignorance of the American situation around poverty that to attempt to even explain the misapprehension would require more the scope of an undergraduate course than an HN comment.
I would not usually be so blunt, but in this case meeting an apparent need for directness seems worth the risk of a rude impression. If you need it put still more plainly, though, I'm afraid I cannot help you.
> in speaking of the article as though it did not say several of the things it says, you make such questions seem necessary.
What specifically does it say that is being ignored? That the author happened to find things he hadn't gone looking for directly?
> fundamental ignorance of the American situation around poverty
Are you claiming that terrible parents are uniquely American, in a way that is incapable of being explained to outsiders?
Thanks
> You also failed in reading the article to notice that the author plainly did derive considerable psychological support from improving his skill. This was not explicitly stated but was trivially implicit
There's a difference between happening to find psychological support in something, vs asking for it directly. I assumed the comment you're trashing was asking about why they didn't do the second and only the first.
> For myself, I'm much more unfavorably impressed with your failure to notice the kid plainly was solving his own problems with computers and in life, and deriving from that success a stronger sense of personal agency which helped him approach the larger tasks that faced him.
So what you're saying is that it's a great personal failing to wonder why he relied on this happenstance rather than looking for those things directly.
> It seems to me only a view of poverty which is paternalistic unto contempt could fail to attend this process which was explicitly described in the article, but then I am an American, and would not wish to risk commenting on a culture I don't understand well enough to form opinions about.
You are showing utter contempt for someone who understood a described situation differently due to what you assert must me incurable ignorance borne of living in a society not your own. This seems rather different from refusing to comment on other cultures that you claim to not understand.
In fact this is the gist of what i wanted to reply, but i feel we were cross-talking anyways...
You demonstrate very well the same incharity with which you intend to argue I've read and spoken.
I live in a wealthy area in the US, we have many food banks and social support services, and still there are huge numbers of kids suffering from food scarcity. It always comes back to the parents. Even delivering food requires said parents to give a shit, which they don’t —- whether out of pride or sociopathic disdain.
My state is one a handful that provides free lunches and morning snacks to all kids, regardless of parent incomes. It’s essential for these children.
You are still conflating your experience volunteering with full knowledge of the problem.
I don't have full knowledge of the problem. Hence the questions. It's a pitty i only get answers in the sense of "you don't know what you are talking/questioning about".
Your entire comment is strange and snarky but this stuck out:
> You know why no-questions asked, free lunch programs for everyone are so hugely important for kids suffering from food scarcity? Often it’s because their shitty parents won’t even sign forms to get them free lunch.
So its no questions asked but "shitty parents" still have to sign forms? Most states with reduced/free lunch programs have income thresholds. Regardless, if you let your kid eat that crap, you're a "shitty parent", because its literally choked full of sodium and fake ingredients. If I lived in one of those states, I'd be asking for my lunch voucher in cash to go towards real food.
Indeed. People tend to reflexively assume that income thresholds are a good idea because it prevents people who don't need the program from benefitting, but you've got to think about the cost to the kids whose parents won't do that particular piece of paperwork. Just give kids food if they say they need it. You'll also save money on bureaucracy.
This is a separate question from the quality of the food. I will note that if you give out cash instead of vouchers you are giving the kid something that others can and will take away from them.
I think what they meant was that if there are eligibility requirements and such, paperwork is required and some parents won't do it. So no questions asked solves that problem. That's how I parsed it, at least.