Crypto for kids
sustrik.github.io
sustrik.github.io
"SMUGGLER: Do you like booze?
CITIZEN: Sure I do. And who are you?
SMUGGLER: I'm the person who will sell you some booze.
CITIZEN: What about cigarettes?
SMUGGLERS: Sure thing. Cheap Ukrainian variety for $1 a pack. Also Slovenian Mariboro brand."
So don't be the that guy. Kids are a lot tougher than what the current helicopter parent trend would have you believe. Would you forbid your kids from reading something like Tintin too? There's no shortage of "glorification" of alcohol there - Captain Haddock's alcoholism is a recurring theme.
Kids are smarter than we give them credit for. I think maybe we need to just give them the space to figure shit out on their own.
Even if it was a real factual representation it might encourage the kid to pick up or repeat unhealthy attitudes. My (european) childhood experience was definitely like that at times, race being the major topic about which slurs were innocently propagated by kids who didn't know any better...
>It is true that some of the characters speak coarsely. That is because people speak coarsely in real life. Especially soldiers and hardworking men speak coarsely, and even our most sheltered children know that. And we all know, too, that those words really don’t damage children much. They didn’t damage us when we were young. It was evil deeds and lying that hurt us.
Wait, who is this? Can they verify this claim? What does "much" mean anyway? Why damage children at all by choice?
So no, the onus of evidence is on people claiming that rough language hurts children in some way. (Note we're not talking about abusive language here.)
> but, I don't think this is really what people want their kids reading […]
This is actually the initial claim, and the Vonneguts quote was a response to this claim.
Parents used not to care about what their children hear or read, until society told them it's bad parenting.
> don't damage children much
Not every statement should require extended proofs. It's probably the case that you can't think of any children being hurt by coarse language, nor of having heard of any reporting of this. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.htm...
Or the George Sand letter: http://ciphermysteries.com/2010/05/16/george-sands-cryptogra...
I definitely grew up along the characters though :)
That is a clever reference.
That was the year I read Shōgun, which is basically your run-of-the-mill adult fiction novel. The content was never a concern, despite making the objections raised here look trivial in comparison.
Frankly, I'm not sure there's any age at which mere references to alcohol are age-inappropriate, but if there is, it must be quite young.
But if i had kids i'd not blinding them with a PC view of the world.
Kids or not, these are fun little stories even for adult non-cryptographers.
I guess there's an argument to be made against promoting/normalising activities that cause obesity, but I'd say current societal norms are set up to demonise smoking a lot more strongly.
How is this relevant? Why is it important to be aware of that fact?
Does this mean that the author is specifically well qualified for writing such a book? Does this imply he has deep knowledge about cryptography, or that he is trained to explain things suitable for children?
Maybe it's just me, but to me this sounds as strange as assuming that a good actor is automatically also a good politician.
I think the decryption function or method is the key to answering the question. Am I missing something else?
My guess is that it would be a nice read for adults too.