It might be that I have a Phd in Physics and a long term interest in foundations, but I feel like these books are not very good. Often they emphasize the superficial analogies which physicists use rather than the substantial qualities of the theories.

For example, emphasizing spacetime curvature is, in my opinion, kind of a weird way to talk about the actual substance of general relativity (universal coupling of gravity, futility of trying to describe the world with any fixed four dimensional coordinate system). His quantum mechanics book has similar problems. When I try to explain physics to my young child I always try to get at the essence of the ideas, not the superficial pictures.

At first I saw that this was downvoted and assumed maybe it was a different Chris Ferrie, but from the looks of the blog it's the same person.[0]

Maybe other people thought this didn't add much to the discussion, but I found it interesting.

[0] I am Chris Ferrie, father of four and happy husband. My day job is academic research where I follow my curiosity through the world of quantum physics. My passion for communicating science has led from the most esoteric topics of mathematical physics to more recently writing children’s books.[1]

[1] https://www.csferrie.com/about

It is for sure the same Chris Ferrie, it's even in the foreword of the paper:

Yet in all that time I never thought to write, much less did I actually write, a pithy book called “What You Shouldn't Know About Quantum Computers.” My colleague Chris Ferrie did. He's the same guy who coauthored the surprise bestseller “Quantum Computing for Babies.” Now he's back, with something for those babies to read when they're slightly older.

I enjoy his kids' books and read almost all of them to my kids. They aren't "perfect" (whatever that means for a kids' book), but my kids love them and they start to wrap their brains around otherwise inaccessible topics for their age.