Moms often nurse past infancy, and once she's taken 18-24 months off work, it makes more sense for her to continue the pause.
On average, moms seem to derive more enjoyment from spending time with babies. I have some male friends who had almost zero desire to spend time with their babies/toddlers. I don't know many women who feel similarly (I'm sure there are some, just many fewer).
on the contrary, it makes less sense if you want women to get equal chance of a career at work. the likelihood of women staying at home reduces their chances at being promoted, causes them to get paid less, etc. the pay gap, which is supposed to disappear comes from this difference.
if you want to equalize this then you effectively need to force dads to stay at home for the same amount of time as moms, so that their careers are affected in the same way.[1]
of course this won't work without a massive change in culture. men have no interest in spending time with children because that's what they learned from their own parents.
i wanted to stay with my children, but when i did i hated it because i had no role model to draw on. i didn't know what to do with them.
my wife also wasn't very helpful with guidance.
interestingly this is worse in europe than it is in china. i see more men taking care of children in china. of course most of those are grandparents but at least they provide the needed role models. this correlates with more equality of women in the work place. (although it is still far from ideal)
[1]that then leaves the issue of childless people having a career advantage. if you want people to keep having children that advantage must be eliminated, hence making the case for child support for everyone. germany pays almost 300$ per child per month regardedless of income. and even that is not enough. stay at home parents should have their time count as worked for their pension, or they may need a full salary for example. i don't know what would really work here.
> men have no interest in spending time with children because that's what they learned from their own parents.
It sounds like this was the case for you, but it doesn't mean it is the case for other men. It isn't the case for the dads I know who didn't have an in being around their babies/toddlers. They simply did not have an interest.
> if you want to equalize this then you effectively need to force dads to stay at home for the same amount of time as moms, so that their careers are affected in the same way.
This is not possible in a country that values liberty. Even if you could somehow require parity between one parent and another (mom only gets as many weeks of leave as dad takes), you can't effect parity between one family and another. More families have SAHMs than SAHDs, which would disrupt any attempt at parity at a societal level.
Bottom line though, is that moms simply are more maternal than dads. We literally have a word for it, and it's related to being a mother. There is a reason, and it's not all/mostly cultural. It is one of the most genetically-imbued aspects of our beings as humans. Mothers are the predominant nurturers in humans, as in nearly all mammal/animal species.
You can fight against it, but biological reality will not easily be defeated.
It sounds like this was the case for you, but it doesn't mean it is the case for other men. It isn't the case for the dads I know who didn't have an in being around their babies/toddlers. They simply did not have an interest.
i don't understand how you see a contradiction here. you are observing that men have no interest in childcare, and i am explaining why.
it's a lack of role models.
unless your friends did have fathers who had in interest in child care but your friends had no interest despite that.
the problem with nurture vs nature is that it is difficult to prove one way or the other. beyond pregnancy and breastfeeding everything else can be learned. and it's difficult to prove that it isn't
According to your line of thinking, anything that results from nature can be attributed to nurture because "we can't prove 100% that it isn't nurture". This is a terrific example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Secondly, even your description of your own experience undermines your theory. You say you didn't know what to do with your kids, so you didn't want to spend as much time with them. That is different from what I said my dad-friends have expressed, which is lack of interest that is not related to not knowing what to do with them. They just don't have an interest in being with a baby/toddler. Their experience is not yours, but you try to twist it to fit your narrative.
In general, it makes sense to be open-minded about how others' internal states, perceptions, etc. When someone says they don't have the same reason for doing something that you do, maybe don't tell them that yes they do. This is good general practice, but it's especially important for personal and perceptual matters, where outsiders literally have no idea why someone is doing something.
According to your line of thinking, anything that results from nature can be attributed to nurture because "we can't prove 100% that it isn't nurture". This is a terrific example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
all correct. but the reverse is true too. you can't prove that any of it is nature.
both are beliefs. the reason why i side for nurture is because nature is used as an excuse to defend bad behavior or to discriminate. i have written about this before.
"men should not be teachers because they can not be trusted with our children" or "men should not be single parents because they don't have the capacity to care for children" or "he could not help raping her. her clothing provoked him, and he could not control himself"
the teacher comment was shared by someone in new zealand, the single parent one is common in germany and i believe in the US and many other place too. the last one has been used as a defense before. discrimination and excuses. fortunately much of that is no longer accepted. but only because we accept that nurture matters more than nature.
It is both subsidized and cheaper but that word sort of implies parents (and especially non-parents) may be worse off in the end, which I think is an unfortunate way of thinking about these subsidies.
Given the cost of health and life insurance, unemployment insurance, paid vacation (4-6 weeks generally), healthcare (I once paid $32 for 5 weeks hospital care), paid parental leave, childcare, school and university, I am confident this more than makes up for the higher taxes. I believe people are calmer when the risk of living is low. No broken leg or depression will set us back financially, and if we have a few too many kids they can all go to college even if we don't earn much. And both parents can work (70% at least) while their kids go to daycare. This is at least an extra 5 years of salary compared to supporting a stay-at-home parent.
It might not be charming to brag about all our advantages, but as a European I really want e.g. Americans to know that there is another way. Life doesn't have to be about chasing money until you can afford to live.
What is the use case for bundling next.js with the web game? Just the layout of the page surrounding the game canvas? It just seems unnecessary, that's all. Traditionally, software development in general and game development in particular has tried to avoid unnecessary overhead if it doesn't provide enough value to the finished product.
It's obvious why he didn't write the game in x86 assembly. It's also obvious why he didn't burn the game to CD-ROM and ship it to toy stores in big box format. Instead he developed it for the web, saving money and shortening the iteration time. The same question could be asked about next.js and especially about taking the time to develop Bun rather than just scrapping next.js for his game and going about his day. It's excellent for him that he did go this route of course, but in my opinion it was a strange path towards building this product.
Why would he stress about a theoretical inefficiency that has very little effect on the finished product or development process? Especially one that could be rectified in a weekend if needed? The game industry is usually pretty practical about what it focuses on from a performance perspective with good reason. They don’t build games like they’re demosceners min-maxing numbers for fun, and there’s a reason for that.
I also wonder how many people who sing the praises of an HTML file with a script tag hosted by Nginx or whatever have ever built a significant website that way. There’s a lot of frustrating things about the modern JS landscape, but I promise you the end results were not better nor was it easier back before bundlers and React.
I'm probably going to finally give podman a try, but apart from the security advantages of daemonless, I pretty much have all these features solved on my Docker hosts already. For home/lab workloads I define one docker compose project in a directory, using local path mounts for directories. Then I manually define a systemd service per docker compose project, which just runs "docker compose up -d <dir>" on start, and the opposite on stop. The hundreds of containers I run at home have higher uptime than the thousands of containers in the orchestration platform I run at work has.
Does the "podman generate kube" command just define pods, or does it support other K8s components such as services and ingresses?
He most certainly wants to make more money, but at this point I bet he first and foremost wants his company to survive long enough to join the big five arena, which doesn't seem likely.
He knows that OpenAI's has a first-mover advantage and that it won't last forever. They will spend everything they earn on salaries and Microsoft's cloud. As their competitors catch up, OpenAI's biggest asset will be Altman's reputation as international AI guru unless someone challenges that.
> OpenAI's biggest asset will be Altman's reputation as international AI guru unless someone challenges that.
Let’s nip that in the bud and challenge it right here. Altman has no credentials in the AI space other than as an executive. There’s no evidence to support the idea that he’s a “guru”. He dropped out of a CS program to found a social networking app.
It’s a bad idea to confuse successful executives with people that have real technical expertise in some discipline.
I don't think it's relevant to debate if anime or other forms of media is objectively better. But as someone who has never understood anime, I view mainstream western TV series as filled with hours of cleverly written dialogue and long story arches, whereas the little anime I've watched seems to mostly be overly dramatic colorful action scenes with intense screamed dialogue and strange bodily noises. Should we maybe assume that we are both a bit ignorant of the preferences of others?
Let's rather assume that you're the kind of person who debates a thing by first saying that it's not relevant to debate, then putting forward a pretty out-of-context comparison, and finally concluding that I should feel bad about myself. That kind of story arc does seem to correlate with finding mainstream Western TV worthwhile; there's something structurally similar to the funny way your thought went.
I feel the same. It's a distinct part of nerd culture.
In the '70s, if you were into computers you were most likely also a fan of Star Trek. I remember an anecdote from the 1990s when an entire dial-up ISP was troubleshooting its modem pools because there were zero people connected and they assumed there was an outage. The outage happened to occur exactly while that week's episode of X-Files was airing in their time zone. Just as the credits rolled, all modems suddenly lit up as people connected to IRC and Usenet to chat about the episode. In ~1994 close to 100% of residential internet users also happened to follow X-Files on linear television. There was essentially a 1:1 overlap between computer nerds and sci-fi nerds.
Today's analog seems to be that almost all nerds love anime and Andy Weir books and some of us feel a bit alienated by that.
> Today's analog seems to be that almost all nerds love anime and Andy Weir books and some of us feel a bit alienated by that.
Especially because (from my observation) modern "nerds" who enjoy anime seem to relish at bringing it (and various sex-related things) up at inappropriate times and are generally emotionally immature.
It's quite refreshing seeing that other people have similar lines of thinking and that I'm not alone in feeling somewhat alienated.
I think I'd push back and say that nerd culture is no longer really a single thing. Back in the star trek days, the nerd "community" was small enough that star trek could be a defining quality shared by the majority. Now the nerd community has grown, and there are too many people to have defining parts of the culture that are loved by the majority.
Eg if the nerd community had $x$ people in the star trek days, now there are more than $x$ nerds who like anime and more than $x$ nerds who dislike it. And the total size is much bigger than both.
American consumer debt is also a different beast in the US because households tend to counter inflation and higher prices by shifting over their monthly spending to credit cards. Most Europeans use credit only for certain goods and mostly pay the full amount off every month. This creates an elasticity in the US, where inflation leads to higher prices which slowly leads to higher household debt, which makes recessions more grave when they do appear. Europeans are instead quicker to move to cheaper stores and start buying cheaper goods in bulk.
reply