Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

As a kid my parents put me in Boy Scouts. Guess what was a frequent occurrence? Sending pairs of kids out to go do tasks like collecting firewood. Every once in awhile kids would get "lost" (not know where they are but not actually far away or in any reasonable danger). This even happened to me more than once. But being lost and figuring it out was necessary to learn the skills of how to navigate. today I have a very good sense of direction and this is not common among my peers.

I think while this sounds like a good idea, it actually hinders the learning process. Struggling is necessary in the learning experience, but you just don't want too much struggle (there's a balance). I think if your kids are old enough that you're comfortable letting them navigate an area on their own, they are old enough to "fend for themselves" in this way. Just make sure they have your phone number and know the name of the hotel or some clear landmark (even in a foreign land you can often stumble about your confusion and say a landmark and people will be able to give you directions. Most of the time).

I think it is better for both the kids and parents. Kids need to learn independence, parents need to learn to trust their kids and that they can be independent (that is the goal after all, right?). I know it is hard as a parent but that is something that needs to be learned too, for the betterment of kids.



Boy scouts can afford to lose kids because there is a group of people who know the place very well and are trained to deal with such a situation. Which is I think not only common but expected.

A tracker can reproduce this experience without the help of an boy scout camp. It is just about how the tracker is used. It can be used for constant, intrusive monitoring, or it can be used for emergencies only. It is just a tool, it also doesn't have to be used 24/7.


> who know the place very well and are trained to deal with such a situation

This comment surprises me and I suggests to me that you were not in Boy Scouts (I even worked at a camp for several summers when I was 18/19). Tbh, most of the people in charge of groups are just figuring it out themselves (camps/OOTA/Varsity tend to be a bit better, but I mean camps are run by teenagers and people in their early 20's). The danger isn't actually that high, though it may appear that way to those with no experience.

IME I had more issues with adults than the scouts. As an example, I had several adults point an (unloaded![0]) shotgun in the direction of people, but never had a scout do this. Often because they wanted pictures...

Of course, if someone gets seriously lost, there are means to get help. But that's most likely the forestry service.

[0] We only load a single round and only when the person is ready to fire. So there is only one weapon loaded at any given time but weapons are __strictly__ treated as if loaded at all times. Weapons must also strictly be pointed down range (and not at the ground and not at the sky). Breaking these rules results in an immediate ejection from the range, and unfortunately has lead to troops being ejected because their leaders were (age requirements).


I'm curious why not pointing the weapon at the ground? (I've never been to a firing range so this might be a stupid question)


Shooting yourself in the foot isn't just a figure of speech.

Fwiw, you're not going to have this restriction at a standard range. Same with the rules of loading.


> It can be used for constant, intrusive monitoring, or it can be used for emergencies only.

When the child is very young, this is maybe (maybe) fine, but as the child gets older -- likely before their teen years -- there's really no difference between the two from the kid's perspective. They know that, regardless of their parents' stated intentions (the latter, hopefully), they are just a few taps away from knowing the kid is not quite exactly where they're supposed to be. It's stifling.

I frankly feel so lucky that I grew up when I did, in the 80s and 90s, when technology was just starting to get really cool, but not quite into this dystopian panopticon 1984 nightmare that we seem to be getting into today.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: