It's going through a major transition at the moment (http://shapesmith.net/2013/03/06/ProgressUpdate.html), and not necessarily kid-friendly, but it's open source so someone could create a kid-friendly interface
I pledged for pretty much the same reasons, even though I'm not overly keen on a sword fighting console game. Perhaps you're right and that there's just not enough interest.
I get & agree with some of the arguments in favour of surrounding yourself with other innovators. In the same way that the Pixar building is designed to foster these interactions.
But if you surround yourself with hackers all the time, there is the risk of losing track of the problems outside your circle. You need to talk to your customers. In the same way that people who work at Pixar go home to their kids and discover what their customers want.
Each Chez JJ captain screens for the best mix at the house, and none of us are developers by trade. We are designers, scientists, teachers, and entrepreneurs. Each of us has many ties within the tech industry and also without, and we sometimes purposefully accept non-technical residents for balance.
We really do care about creating an atmosphere which facilitates growth and innovation best, and we've put a lot of thought into the community we're helping to build.
'Anyone who [...] uses critical judgment and appropriate tools to make evidence-based decisions'
Except for the experimentation part, that could describe a lawyer. Which begs the question,
Where does it go wrong?
Why do people from an evidence-based career become embroiled in the kind of back[stabbing/scratching] politics that seems to be the norm today? And how can it be fixed?
Experimentation is mandatory to conduct Science. You need to be able to form theories or hypotheses from data or observation, and then conduct a controlled experiment to validate your point. There can be no science without validation and repeatability.
They have a twitter bot that responds to everyone who tweets about the issue - "we are investigating these reports and will provide more information as soon as we can.'
The world is not a zero-sum game - you don't necessarily give corporations more power if you reduce the size of government. That power could be distributed to citizens. And removing the ability of corporations to influence laws can make them less powerful, not more.
The power could be distributed to citizens? And then, yeah, they'd need some kind of organization - an organization made of, by, and for them, for example - to exercise it for them. Now if only such an organization could be created! Perhaps we could hold a convention to define its basic operating principles?
What happened to "No taxation without representation"?
This would skew the government even more towards rewarding the rich - increasing the size of the government-as-a-service market is a step in the wrong direction.
What if the total contribution was capped? You could even add that he first $50 of everyone's taxes would be appropriated as that person chooses (Lessig's proposal).
The price of everything is an illusion according to the Subjective Theory of Value [1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value