Assuming the income stays the same, I'd happily swap places. I suspect many people would.
There are 2 further points:
1. I'd say the ideal setting is for both parents to work and hire a sitter even though it might financially net the same (or affordably negative) as having one stay-at-home parent. Because a human needs community and diverse things to do, not just one thing over and over everyday for years. Both of the parents will be much happier.
2. When people say taking care of baby/toddler is difficult, it's almost always about not eating well and/or not sleep well. Eating would take an hour of spoon-feeding because the kid wouldn't eat by themselves. Kids wouldn't be able to sleep by themselves. You must focus on solving these 2 areas first. Once they are solved, it gets a lot easier to take care of a baby/toddler.
While stay at home parenting isn't, and shouldn't have to be, for everyone, it also isn't somehow a downgrade from being in the working world. If anything is doing something 'over and over', it's trudging to some job to push papers/keyboard keys around for 8+ hours.
granted our kids were easy, but kids don't need to sleep by themselves. see attachment parenting. we let the kids sleep in our bed which solved the sleeping problem and the feeding problem because the kids could get milk at night without my wife having to get up and be wide awake.
i can't speak for my wife's experience directly, but while she complained about other issues, lack of sleep was never her problem.
and the idea that work gives you more community than staying at home is nonsense. we always had family and friends around, and taking the babies to events or visit others is also a non issue.
about swapping places, i did. when our first was 1 year old, my wife started to work. i was always working from home, and i loved the idea if taking care of the kids at home, it's been something i wanted to do all my life, except when it actually happened i was lost. i didn't know what to do with the kids and things only got better for me when i started working part-time and we hired a maid. but this was my problem, it wasn't at all my wife's problem while she was at home. also, as the kids got older, things got easier, and i'd happily repeat the experience now that i am better prepared for it.
practically speaking the most annoying part of my wife working for both of us was breastmilk pumping. the benefits of going to work are not worth that hassle.
> kids don't need to sleep by themselves. see attachment parenting
I misused the word a bit.
I meant the kid had a hard time falling asleep. They would get cranky. They would take >30 minutes to fall asleep. They would get up and walk around wanting to play but they would be cranky because they were sleepy. Co-sleeping or not is independent of this.
unless the child doesn't like to be held then i believe co-sleeping does help here.
cuddling together, maybe reading a story provides an alternative to directly sleeping or playing, allowing the child to settle down until it falls asleep...
from my observation, a child not wanting to go to sleep is coming from the child needing to sleep alone.
Given that he has been running the company for many years and the valuation/profit/or whatever has gone up 100x times, I'd say the board is probably gonna be patient with the guy.
Imagine the guy made you $1.4 trillion dollars but lost $14 billions. Would you fire him?
After enough chances, yeah. Zuck probably has a few more big mistakes to go before the stock price is crushed and flat lines for awhile… in that environment a change of CEO would be needed.
But I'd like cameras in my neighborhood. Sure, there's a security risk but there's also a risk of not catching criminals due to lack of evidence. Tons of crimes aren't prosecuted due to the lack of evidence.
A security risk doesn't impact average people, and it can be handled more easily.
One of the main arguments against flock is their abysmal security, lack of transparency, and flagrant dishonesty. If they solved these problems then we can have a discussion about the cameras themselves. I personally would have less of a problem with them if the footage was locked down, encrypted and could only be accessed with a subpoena, but law enforcement really want dragnet surveillance, so that's unlikely to occur.
Tell me how you can set up an Android device and install apps that require Google Play services (like all the most popular and important apps) and not have Google syphone all your contacts details. I mean everything: name, date of birth, addresses, emails, websites, relationships,etc.
Answer: you cannot.
Any time you log into a Google account just to use the Play Store, Android will instantly starts syncing all your contacts and you can't prevent that. You can't even toggle airplane mode as a network connection is required to login. And you cannot configure Android not to sync all contacts data with new Google accounts by default.
I bet Google has syphoned the details of every single person on Earth (without their consent) and I have to trust them not to use that?
That is all nice and well, but Google is primarily an advertisement business. A huge corporation that gained enormous power that operates only to satisfy its own self interest. So that gives us non-Googlers more to think about than just that consideration to take into account.
It is an entirely realistic scenario which afaik data backs up that most people don't change their default privacy related settings which Google profits from, but in case of actually setting their provided privacy settings ON, they do work.
What do you mean by "better [...] at handling sensitive info"? As in, they are more technically competent, or they will treat your data more ethically?
I don't think these projects claim they've got better infrastructure for handling private data, just that they won't sell it to advertisers. I trust Google are experts at handling my data, I just don't want them to.
The comment is so out of touch. Even Chineses and Russians are disgusted by Iran's culture e.g. how they treat women and many others. Then, there's the saying "you know who Islam hates more than the jews and christians? other slightly different Islam groups."
And these countries are supposed to be Iran's closest allies due to having a common enemy.
Iran was/is Russian ally. Very prominent part of Russia is Chechnya. It is islamic and its leader is effectively Putins favorite pet. It is not as bad as Iran in treatment of women, but it is also not like Russia would care one bit about that.
Russians and Chineses and anyone really absolutely care about who they form alliances with.
Not sure where you get the idea that people don't care who they are friend with. They absolutely don't want to be friend whose culture is considered as disgusting.
They may form an alliance due to having a common enemy but in practice the alliance is just checking a box.
There are 2 further points:
1. I'd say the ideal setting is for both parents to work and hire a sitter even though it might financially net the same (or affordably negative) as having one stay-at-home parent. Because a human needs community and diverse things to do, not just one thing over and over everyday for years. Both of the parents will be much happier.
2. When people say taking care of baby/toddler is difficult, it's almost always about not eating well and/or not sleep well. Eating would take an hour of spoon-feeding because the kid wouldn't eat by themselves. Kids wouldn't be able to sleep by themselves. You must focus on solving these 2 areas first. Once they are solved, it gets a lot easier to take care of a baby/toddler.
reply