
Show HN: Made this with my daughter to help kids ages 2 to 4 learn logic - ech085
https://countable.github.io/cats-of-jasnah/
======
tom_mellior
I think the digits should be arranged 0 to 9, not 1 to 9 followed by 0.
Because 0 is less than 1.

Also, when the correct answer is revealed, it would be great to somehow
highlight the cats that are actually described by the formula. Yes, this is
hard for 0.

Also, the animations feel too fast to me. I find they make the whole thing
stressful, somehow.

ALSO, when a wrong answer is given, the question disappears! That's terrible
UX.

EDIT: I should add that I think the idea is great! But some details of the
implementation could be improved.

~~~
mosseater
I disagree with the number arrangement bit. I'd imagine kids are learning to
use the keyboard whilst using a computer's browse. 0 placement is on point
with what's in front of them.

~~~
robbrown451
That's an interesting point. I still prefer zero on the right (and remember,
they'll see them laid out that way in lots of other contexts, such as
preschool worksheets).

I was going to suggest they add a feature to make it accept numbers entered
via the the keyboard, but I figured I should check first if they've already
done so. They did. :)

~~~
sturadnidge
Sure, but you wouldn't teach them the alphabet starting with 'q'.

The list on the index page starts with 0, if nothing else it would be more
consistent to start the counting section with 0 as well (FWIW I agree with the
OP, I'm teaching my toddler to count starting with 0).

~~~
robbrown451
Wait I'm confused. You are teaching them to count the first item as "zero"? So
if there are 3 apples, you have them say "zero, one, two"?

(FYI, I wasn't defending the zero on the right decision, I would prefer zero
on the left)

~~~
hanniabu
> So if there are 3 apples, you have them say "zero, one, two"?

Well yes, except they'd count to three still because they're starting on 0 and
increase that with each apple.

------
ilteris
So many responses from people who are not target audience. Here is one from me
so you can compare.

I just played this with my daughter who is 4 year old. She have found the
first 4 levels easy. She was having a little bit trouble with level 5 negation
and conjunction but we had to take a break since we were running for a date.

She didn't have any problem with zero being on the right.

She didn't have any problem with linguistics compherension so far.

She was able to differentiate colors and animating cats from the rest and it
was perfect.

She is familiar with digital buttons so she was able to press them but even
with her tiny fingers sometimes pressing 4 instead of 5 etc. (We played on
mobile)

I direct the game for her. (Start, go up levels when she was bored)

Overall thank you for this because she is going to have a gifted and talented
"test" next week and this looked very similar to that and she was active and
entertained choosing the answers so I can see this could be a good segway I to
it.

~~~
ObsoleteNerd
Seconding this. My daughter spent half hour playing this and absolutely loved
it. Got up to level 5 and was doing OK but that's where she started to make a
few mistakes. I agree with all your points.

~~~
hanniabu
I'm not the target audience, but when doing the counting one I kept getting
asked the same amount a few times in a row.

Did this happen with your children? Did they have an issue with that?

Personally I think that the same question shouldn't be asked multiple times
consecutively. The most I had it happen was 4 times in a row but every other
time except for twice times I had 2 in a row.

~~~
ObsoleteNerd
Nope, can't say I noticed that. We maybe had once or twice where the answer
was the same as the last question, but in those cases the question was
different.

The only weighting issue I really noticed was that once you got to level 5 and
higher, the number of questions who had zero as an answer started to get
disproportionately high. Not constant zeroes, but noticeably more than any
other answers.

------
Arnavion
Nice. The source is also very readable so I imagine it would also be useful to
teach an older child about programming.

I hit a bug though - level 7 generated a "how many cats are spinning" question
whose answer is 10, but there's no "10" button and trying to type "1" "0"
fails at the first "1". But I see `cats_for_level` allows there to be `level +
5` cats, so is there some way to input an answer greater than 9?

Also, is it not confusing to have cats that are "also" ducks, rather than have
a different kind of cat? Like cats with different-colored noses or have their
mouth open. (In that puzzle 5 of the spinning cats are cats and the other 5
are ducks. But the dev console log does say it wants 10, not 5.)

~~~
joegahona
The ducks-as-cats part threw me too. Either they are ducks or they are cats
dressed as ducks. "How many ducks are cats" doesn't make sense.

------
stakhanov
So, I am older than 4 and have a PhD in a logic-related field. BUT. I have to
admit that I had trouble answering some of those questions. For example: "How
many blue cats are not bouncing" when there are no blue cats on the screen.
The game seems to assume that the right answer is zero, but I'm not sure I
concur. There is a presupposition there about blue cats being in existence and
if there are none on screen, the result is that, regarding blue cats, we don't
have the required information to answer it. Better phrase it "How many cats
are there on screen that are blue and bouncing?".

~~~
SkyPuncher
While I understand your argument, I think there's value in the ambiguity.

1\. Clarifying ambiguity and extrapolating are important logic skills.

2\. "How many blue cats are not bouncing" is how people actually talk.

~~~
Ancient
I concur.

~~~
stakhanov
It's not ambiguous at all. The statement is perfectly clear. The statement is
a contingency, i.e. a statement that is neither valid nor unsatisfiable.
(Proof-theoretically: neither p nor not-p is provable. Model-theoretically:
some assignment of truth values to p will make it true but not all of them).

It would be a far more valuable lesson to teach children that talking about
something doesn't will it into existence so that you can start making
meaningful statements about it, like how many of them there were.

It's like tampering with witness testimony: "Witness: Somebody stole my
handbag. Police: Do you remember anything about him? Can you describe him?"
All of a sudden the witness remembers that the suspect was male, not female,
when the witness may not have seen such a thing at all.

...or like a show I recently saw on History Channel about the zombie
apocalypse. Harvard Professor on TV: "Well, scientifically speaking, there is
nothing to suggest that a zombie apocalypse would be a scenario we will likely
ever be facing. But if there were such a thing as a zombie apocalypse then one
of the most important things would be hygiene, so as to minimize the risk of
infection, which is a fascinating topic that I have published about quite
extensively." Reporter: "Oh, really? Tell me more about the hygiene
precautions that we need to use in the event of a zombie apocalypse." Harvard
professor: Spends the next 10 minutes of screentime talking about zombie
hygiene. Dumb idiot in front of TV: "Honey! Come down here! They're talking
about the zombie apocalypse on TV! They have a professor from Harvard and
everything!" All of a sudden: The zombie apocalypse is a thing.

Conversely: The fact that you can't _see_ something doesn't mean it doesn't
exist... (like atoms)! "How many blue cats are there? -> zero." Might sound
okay, but "How many atoms are there? -> zero" is quite wrong, since the cats
are presumably composed of more than zero atoms but we can't really count them
etc etc

So when these kinds of presupposition violations come up, then you should
teach your little daughter to go "Huh? What the? I can't answer that!" Because
"Huh? What the? I can't answer that!" is actually the right answer!

~~~
popnroll
What about "none" instead of zero?

~~~
stakhanov
...doesn't help either.

The problem is that when you ask "How many blue cats are bouncing?" you are
stating that blue cats are in existence. So there'd have to be some, not none.
There'd have to be a number strictly greater than zero. So zero/none can't be
the answer, or you're somehow breaking the rules of the game of logic, or how
the computer game is set up.

If, however, you say "How many cats are blue and bouncing?" then the
presupposition would only extend so far as to state that cats are in
existence, which is reflected on-screen. In that case, it may well be the case
that there are zero/no cats that are blue and bouncing.

Let me crossindex something I linked in the other thread:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Existential_import](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Existential_import)

When Aristotle describes his logic (All men are mortal...) he never fathoms
the possibility that one of these sets that he talks about could be empty.
(Empty sets, in that sense, don't belong in the realm of science, as far as he
is concerned, but in the realm of fiction and so forth).

So, to get back to the original post: If I were doing this for a 2-4 year old,
then zero is a can of worms I would try to avoid opening altogether. Or I
would make sure that the presupposition-part of any question that is asked is
in line with the evidence on screen.

If, instead of following Aristotle, you follow the embedding of the syllogism
into modern predicate calculus and modern predicate calculus into
propositional logic, then you end up with outcomes that will be mindbogglingly
counter-intuitive to a 4 year old (but to any person, really).

Example: "All flying horses are three-legged." would become a true statement.

Since there are no flying horses, this is always an empty set. Ex falso
quodlibet. Therefore always true. A valid statement.

~~~
tmerr
I might be corrupted by programming because it doesn't bother me when I hear a
vacuously true claim like "All flying horses are three-legged". My mental
model corresponds to Python's definition of "all":

    
    
        def all(xs, predicate):
            for x in xs:
                if not predicate(x):
                    return False
            return True
    

Similarly,

    
    
        def any(xs, predicate):
            for x in xs:
                if predicate(x):
                    return True
            return False
    

You say "Ex falso quodlibet" which makes it sound like you believe such a
system leads to contradictions, but this would come down to the choice of
rewrite rules.

Example: a rewrite rule from "NOT all(xs, predicate)" to "any(xs, NOT
predicate)" would lead to contradictions. Reasoning:

    
    
        A. all({}, predicate) is true by def of all
        B. any({}, NOT predicate) is false by def of any
        C. NOT all({}, predicate} is false follows from A
        D. applying the rewrite rule to C, any({}, NOT predicate) is true, which contradicts B.
    

However, in first-order-logic, that same rewrite rule is fine since sets
always contain elements. It doesn't seem like to much work to go from Python-
esque any and all to ∀ and ∃. For example "all(xs, predicate)" could be
rewritten to: "¬P ∨ (∀ xs. predicate)" where P is a new proposition variable
for whether xs contains elements. This relies on the semantics including
short-circuiting evaluation (which may be cheating, I don't know).

Or maybe the above is what you already meant when you said "following the
embeding..."?

~~~
stakhanov
...that's what I mean when I say that computer scientists have been trained to
think about certain aspects of logic in a way that doesn't come natural to
people and leads to conclusions that almost anybody finds counterintuitive who
isn't a computer scientist (like "All flying horses are three-legged").

...it comes down to how you represent natural language quantifiers in logic.

The semantics of "All men are mortal." is that "all" is the quantifier, which
takes two higher-order arguments. Using x as the variable that is quantified
over, the first argument would have to be a predicate of x and is called the
restrictor. The second argument also has to be a predicate of x and is called
the body. So "all" is the quantifier. "man" is the restrictor. "mortal" is the
body.

Following that notation we would write "All men are mortal" as

    
    
        all_x { man(x) } { mortal(x) }
    

Now the question is how to represent this natural language quantifier in
first-order logic. Most computer scientists would think

    
    
        ∀x { man(x) -> mortal(x) }
    

But this is NOT the way Aristotle thought about it, and not the way most human
beings naturally think about it. The natural way to think about it is

    
    
        ∃x { man(x) } ∧ ∀x { man(x) -> mortal(x) }
    

The first part of the statement is what's called "existential import". (cf
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Existential_import](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Existential_import))

When I say "ex falso quodlibet" I mean this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion)

Moving over to the example about flying horses:

    
    
        all_x { fly(x) ∧ horse(x) } { three-legged(x) }
    

Without existential import the statement would mean.

    
    
        ∀x { ( fly(x) ∧ horse(x) ) -> three-legged(x) }
    

Now let's evaluate that within a logical theory that contains some common
sense:

    
    
        ∀x horse(x) -> ¬fly(x)
    

The statement would then become provable. That's unnatural. No "normal" person
who hasn't been taught through formal education to think in a particular way
about implication would say "Oh yes, all flying horses are three-legged, that
sounds perfectly reasonable."

Now WITH existential import, the statement would have to mean

    
    
        ∃x { fly(x) ∧ horse(x) } ∧ ∀x { ( fly(x) ∧ horse(x) ) -> three-legged(x) }
    

So now, using the same piece of common sense, the statement is no longer
provable, but it's negation is (the statement is unsatisfiable). That's how a
"normal" person thinks. A normal person would respond by saying "Hang on!
There is no such thing as a flying horse! Therefore you are talking utter
nonsense."

Going back to the original post: "How many blue cats are bouncing?" means

    
    
        howmany_x { blue(x) ∧ cat(x) } { bouncing(x) }
    

Which statement contradicts a state of the universe / game-screen, wherein
there are no blue cats, if you interpret the statement by using existential
import.

My suggestion was to rephrase as "How many cats are blue and bouncing?" which
means

    
    
        howmany_x { cat(x) } { blue(x) ∧ bouncing(x) }
    

So now instead of "blue cat" being the restrictor and "bouncing" being the
body, you would have "cat" as the restrictor and "blue and bouncing" as the
body.

This would be better, because now you can use existential import the way
"normal people" do, and still get to the desired result "zero" instead of the
result "I can't answer that question". You avoid making a presupposition that
contradicts the known state of the universe.

~~~
ech085
OP here, thanks for the thoughtful discussion :)

I'll think about this some more and see if some design decisions can improve
the game with regards to "existential import". Thanks for introducing that
concept by the way.

My feeling about this when developing the game with my daughter was that when
playing a game, you are taking part in a game universe. If there were a
reference to flying horses, the inference would instead be "there must be
flying horses in this game". The generative gameplay which is creating cats
with random attributes also suggests that blue, bouncing cats are likely to
exist but just aren't pictured on the screen presently.

In early education (even undergraduate education) it's common to present a
simplified model that in some cases contradicts other models, and developing
the cognitive machinery to explore and understand the model one working
within, its limits, and how it relates to other models may be more valuable
than comparing which models better align with objective (or, academic) truth.

At least, this is the thought process I went through with some of the trade-
offs about deciding what answer was most correct from the lens of various
formalisms (in my limited exposure to those) versus what answer leads to the
richest learning in the age-group.

------
avip
Nice website. I like it. Please don't use it with your kids (of 2 to 4!!).
There are more than enough actual objects scuttered in your house.

~~~
stuartc842
agreed.

this tool seems to optimize _practicing_ logic more than _enjoying_ logic.

i think kids will find greater success in life with logic if they're taught to
enjoy it before they're taught to master it.

why do i think this?

my dad wrote a "computer game" in 4th Dimension in the late 80s that was just
randomized arithmetic problems. i had to get a certain score before i could
play outside etc. i got really good at answering his program's stupid
questions. i also learned to resent him for it and have negative associations
w arithmetic to this day.

i also quickly lost my "skills" and am bad at arithmetic now.

it was a nice idea but please don't repeat his mistake.

~~~
robbrown451
This might be true if the idea of this app was something you were supposed to
put your kid in front of for a few hours a day.

To me it is just one thing, one of many, many things a kid will encounter,
that help them understand concepts. It's not that different from the typical
ad hoc "games" I play with my daughter, often while in the car. From "I spy
with my little eye" to "what's the opposite of X" to "I'm thinking of a movie
where there is a...." to "how many points on a star? how many wheels on a
bicycle?" and so on.

I'm not sure what sort of "enjoying logic" you are expecting from a 2-4 year
old. Solving little puzzles actually seems pretty enjoyable to them, from my
experience. This is not to suggest that it should come at the expense of more
"natural" ways of learning logical concepts.

------
chrisbennet
Cool.

Back in the ‘80’s there was a game called “Rocky’s Boots” that taught logic to
kids.

[https://www.myabandonware.com/game/rockys-boots-
cp](https://www.myabandonware.com/game/rockys-boots-cp)

~~~
ech085
Nice! Logic gates no less. We will have to spin up dosbox and try it out if
possible.

~~~
paleotrope
You can play it on the web.

[https://archive.org/details/Rockys_Boots_1982_Learning_Compa...](https://archive.org/details/Rockys_Boots_1982_Learning_Company)

------
overlordalex
I was not prepared for the text-to-speech blaring out at maximum volume
without warning. I was further not prepared for "mute site" in chrome having
no effect. Does anyone have any advice for blocking this behaviour on a global
level?

Just a warning for future explorers

~~~
mobilemidget
heh :) only read this after trying while my notebook was muted. Quickly closed
the tab before I accidentally unmute and wake the lil one

Will be trying the counting part with kid next morning.

I assume its random() based, did get a lot of 3 cats, specially in a row.
Never 0 cats or more than 5. I would remove the answer buttons for 6 to 0, or
a button to hide those maybe?

~~~
gvx
Higher levels have more cats, try the arrow at the top right of the page to go
up a level.

------
maxk42
I noticed you don't have an eleven button:
[https://imgur.com/a/TK7Td2J](https://imgur.com/a/TK7Td2J)

To be clear: I tried each number 0 - 9 to make sure none are correct. This
question cannot be answered and blocks further progress.

~~~
djmips
You want them to turn it up to eleven?

------
abraae
I've found with two of my kids that they were really into paper-based logic
puzzles using logic gates.

I draw up a heap of multi-input AND and OR gates, and some inverters, then
wire them together in more or less random ways. Then put 0 or 1 on all of the
inputs, and get the kids to work out what some given output will be.

The good things I've found are:

\- This seems easily within reach of my kids from age 5 or so, probably many
could start even younger

\- all they need to get going is the concept of AND, OR and NOT, easily
graspable

\- It's quite positive for their self-esteem, since what they're doing looks
(especially to their seniors) insanely complex, but logic is really not that
hard

\- It's paper-based, no screentime, pin them up on their wall when they're
done

\- It's super quick to set up each "puzzle", and you don't even need to spend
any time setting up some complicated trick answer, or even really testing your
puzzle. Any old random logic circuits are great fun for them to step through
and come up with the outputs.

\- you can step it up to more complex things - e.g. change up some of the
inputs once they've got their first outputs, chuck in some flipflops etc.

~~~
BenoitP
You might be interested in [http://nandgame.com/](http://nandgame.com/) . It's
sort of like the game they are already playing, and teaches them about CPU
architecture.

~~~
abraae
That looks very interesting. Thanks!

------
mflyingget
First of all, awesome amd thank you. Now one comment. Is it possible to (only
after selecting the correct answer) to highlight the cats that are in the
correct condition? This might help with visual reassurance of the correct
answer. Cheers

------
gus_massa
Nice project. Some ideas:

When you click a number or press a key, the number should be highlighted for a
short time.

In some other games, after a wrong try the number disappear and in other games
the number gets semitransparent and disabled. It makes the later tries easier,
but my small daughter learned to bruteforce the tests :) .

Sad cats when you get a wrong answer? Perhaps it's a bad idea.

Super happy cats when you get the right answer?

What about a mixed level, where you get some samples of the last two levels?
(The last levels are not so easy.)

What about dogs? I like dogs. :)

------
freediver
Great job, played all levels with my 4 year old and enjoyed. This can easily
be an ipad app. Also my browser is lacking a tip button as this would have
been a $5 tip easily.

~~~
ObsoleteNerd
Couldn't agree more. I'd tip for this or buy it. My girl just spent a solid
half hour playing it and got really into it.

------
thecolorblue
This is great. I love the concept. There is just enough UI to play. The 'cat-
ducks' makes it fun.

If I could add something, I would make getting an answer right a little more
rewarding. A correct answer graphic, or a correct answer counter.

I realize this is probably a proof of concept for a minimum viable game and
standard game mechanics did not make the cut.

I will test it out on my 3 year old tomorrow.

------
rahimnathwani
This looks great. Will definitely try it with my son.

The first part is about 'counting', or maybe recognising a count without
counting (I didn't count the cats 1-2-3, because I can instantly recognise 3
of something).

If you're interested in exploring this further, the book How to Teach your
Baby Math, by Glenn Doman, recommends teaching babies/toddlers numbers by
showing them cards with dots on them, one at a time, whilst saying aloud the
number of dots.

Instead of making your own cards and using your own voice, you can run this
web app and use your smartphone and thumb.

[https://dots.twilam.com/](https://dots.twilam.com/)

The initial screen is blank. Tap anywhere on the screen to show some dots and
hear the number. After about a second, the screen will again be blank, ready
for you to tap again.

------
rio517
I never get more than five cats. Also it is Unclear how a kid wild get to the
end of answering the same question set. Also, I kept getting the same number
of cats in a row. It feels like something is wrong to get the exact same
question.

~~~
enjoyyourlife
Try the higher levels

------
halma
I made a [fork]([https://github.com/ahalma/cats-of-
jasnah](https://github.com/ahalma/cats-of-jasnah)) that allows for some
internationalization. Now you can play the game in Dutch or Spanish as well
(or extend it for your own mother tongue).

You can set the language via an URL parameter:

[https://ahalma.github.io/cats-of-
jasnah/index.html?lang=es](https://ahalma.github.io/cats-of-
jasnah/index.html?lang=es)

------
skinnyasianboi
That's very cool! I like that the whole project is packed into one html file
and that you made it together with your daughter. I'm also working on an open
source logic/math game for ~8+(depending on the mini game). If parents on HN
are interested in trying it out with their children, please do it and give me
feedback [https://braincup.app/](https://braincup.app/)

------
turtlebits
Controversial opinion, but I don't think kids ages 2 to 4 should be having
screen time, let alone an activity that is better presented with real objects.

~~~
colechristensen
Why?

Many people have these "screen time" opinions. I'm not saying I disagree, but
why do you think zero screen time is the correct amount?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
2 to 4 is still early in the development of physical attributes, focus, hand
eye coordination, balance and what have you. Zero _intentional and structured_
screen time seems entirely appropriate. Let them develop a physical world and
interact with it before encouraging screen addicted couch potato. That will
come despite best efforts later...

~~~
jeswin
Do you have studies to prove that zero screen time is beneficial? I have a two
year old who has learnt plenty from his screen time - between 15m to 30m per
day.

~~~
leetrout
Anecdata - my kid is the same. She’s 22 months and can sing all the usual
songs and names her shapes and colors aloud with the videos. It’s impressive
and she can count like crazy from all of it (and out of order so it’s not
_just_ rote memorization in order).

We do push it at times when we are traveling or she’s sick where she will get
2-4 hours of iPad and videos along with her books. She will also pick a book
over the iPad almost every time the choice is available so I am not worried
(yet).

------
emehrkay
I think this onEnd callback is what allows you to spam the button and nothing
changes on screen [https://github.com/countable/cats-of-
jasnah/blob/master/inde...](https://github.com/countable/cats-of-
jasnah/blob/master/index.html#L428)

This is cool though. I never thought to build something to help teach my son
anything

------
rc_mob
1\. This is awesome

2\. How can i turn it into an app for ipad use

~~~
chrismatheson
Open it in a web browser on an iPad? :)

------
tlarkworthy
Can ur kids read numbers?

~~~
jecxjo
My two year old can read numbers up to 10. It takes a little while to go from
the symbol to the amount but generally speaking she can do it. It's typically
around 2 where you can start to learn letters and numbers and basic counting.

~~~
tlarkworthy
My twin 4 year olds could play the game no problem, but they cannot read
numbers well so they just counted from the left. Turns out they knew 1-3
already, picked up 0 fast as it was the odd one out. I have not pushed numbers
very much, they know more of the alphabet. I am not sure whether I should
teach them numbers, I kind of think letting school do that might be better,
but your comment has made me think a bit more.

------
volfied
Just played it with my 3 year old, and he had a real hard time with the "how
many cats are ducks" kind of question... Cats can't be ducks after all!

But he really enjoyed it otherwise, thank you for this, and thank you for
making it open source!

------
shmerl
Reminds me Lewis Carrol's The Game of Logic:
[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4763/4763-h/4763-h.htm](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4763/4763-h/4763-h.htm)

------
hluska
My three year old says the cats are cutie pies. That’s very high praise...:)

Nice work!

------
leetrout
Played the counting levels with my 22 month old who can count to 20. The only
thing I would suggest from our experience is the cats “dressed up as ducks”
was confusing for her.

------
rancor
This is a really good concept, definitely going to use it with the kiddo. On a
laptop screen, the buttons could be bigger, hard to hit them with little
fingers.

------
jasonsamoa
This is amazing. Would love to see more simplified foundational education
games such as this geared towards any audience and from all domains.

------
fiatjaf
You don't want kids of that age to learn logic. You want them to learn
imagination.

------
darepublic
My three year old tried it and is enjoying these, thank you OP!

------
terrycody
How many cats are here?

God please its 10, where is my 10,10, 100000,.

no no1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!sw

its 10!!!

tajsfueygfwfpawhfahfghf

------
LeonB
Thank you for this. My daughter really enjoyed it!

------
cairo_x
Keep getting asked to count 10 cats at levels 5 and up.

------
ropiwqefjnpoa
The robot voice is the deal breaker for me. That can't be good for a
developing mind. Combine this with voice mimicking technology that was posted
a few weeks ago.

------
varunmohapatra
how many cats are not red and are not ducks? Such kids, much wow!

------
seymores
Thank you!

------
paggle
Kids of 2 to 4 shouldn’t be using screens.

~~~
rebuilder
Why is that? Is a coloring game on a tablet damaging? Is a coloring book not?

~~~
robbrown451
Personally I don't like anything with colors, since I see the world in black
and white.

(I'm kidding of course, I agree with your point)

