People don't like the government telling them how to live their lives. They especially don't like the government telling them how to parent. And they extra especially don't like the government going behind their backs and telling their kids that their parents don't know how to parent.
The wording is "stop vaccine outreach to kids" not "stop vaccine outreach to parents"
I am not up on niche keyboard lingo and assumed this was advertising a keyboard where 40% of the keys were mechanical.
Really was wondering what advantage that would have since mechanical keyboard people seem very opinionated about the inferiority of all other key styles.
I get wrist pain typing on normal keyboards, but I've found my main issue is negative wrist angle. I have been using those silicone roll up keyboards [1] for almost two decades now.
At first we got one because our keyboard broke and it was all they had at the Radio Shack in our small town. Then I grew to like it because it is nearly silent to type on. And as I've gotten older, I've found that I don't get wrist pain when using it, unlike every other keyboard I've tried.
I know people go on about the greatness of split ergonomic keyboards, but if you are like me and those just don't really do it for you, I'd suggest giving one of these a try. They are sort of love it or hate it, with a heavy skew towards hate it though.
Now that I have kids, I think back every now and again to when I was in high school and my math teacher's wife miscarried fairly far along into the pregnancy. Looking back, I'm sure that was absolutely devastating for him, but as a class I don't think we gave it a second thought.
I feel bad about that. Kids just have no concept of how big a loss that is. Hopefully the staff was more sympathetic about it.
> the choice to not have children meant giving up much of heterosexual sex.
A bit personal maybe, but my wife has never been on birth control, we don't use protection, and have never had an "oops" baby. We had kids when we wanted kids, and haven't had kids when we didn't want kids.
That's great for you, but as a societal discussion, that's about as useful as a story of how someone prayed and their mom's cancer went away.
You're taking a risk, in the context of a committed relationship where you've already had kids (so the stakes are lower than for a lot of people). So far that risk has worked out for you. That doesn't mean that is the right risk for everyone. It also doesn't mean that what you're doing is reliable for everyone. And it certainly doesn't mean that you're somehow more intelligent or competent than the people for whom similar methods of family planning have failed.
> it certainly doesn't mean that you're somehow more intelligent or competent than the people for whom similar methods of family planning have failed.
I personally think it is a sign of modern hubris to assume that effective family planning didn't exist prior to 1960s and the advent of birth control.
All forms of family planning can fail. I don't think that's contentious.
Personally, the bigger issue I see among my peers is inability to conceive at all. They squandered their fertile years and are now going to enormous expense to start a family.
> I personally think it is a sign of modern hubris to assume that effective family planning didn't exist prior to 1960s and the advent of birth control.
Effective toward what end?
Having kids when and only when you want them? Sure. "Only have sex when you want a kid" has always been an option.
Having kids when and only when you want them, and fulfilling your biological urges? Not so much.
I'm glad for you that your family planning worked for you and fulfilled your needs, but if you're going to extrapolate your experience to literally all humans throughout history, you aren't really in a position to be talking about other people's hubris.
> Having kids when and only when you want them? Sure. "Only have sex when you want a kid" has always been an option.
> Having kids when and only when you want them, and fulfilling your biological urges? Not so much.
Unsure if you're being obstinate or ignorant, but we've been married a decade and I assure you we have had sex several orders of magnitude more than the three times we conceived.
Baby = Egg + sperm. Keep those two apart and no baby. Not exactly rocket science.
Of course, I assumed that you had sex many times more than you conceived. Keep in mind, I wasn't the other person who commented.
If pulling out, having sex while not ovulating, or whatever you did, is satisfying for you, great! I applaud your satisfaction.
However, as I said not everyone is satisfied by that kind of sex. To say that the limitations imposed by a lack of birth control don't exist, or aren't important, fails to capture the depth, breadth, and variety of human sexuality.
Perhaps in the future you could avoid leading with things such as:
> that's about as useful as a story of how someone prayed and their mom's cancer went away.
All I did was comment and say, "Hey, we did this and it worked for us" and you replied with the equivalent of "Go fuck yourself, I don't want to hear it"
Of course modern birth control opens many doors, I don't think that was ever in question. It's a highly personal choice and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
> All I did was comment and say, "Hey, we did this and it worked for us" and you replied with the equivalent of "Go fuck yourself, I don't want to hear it"
No, that's absolutely not all you did. You said:
> A bit personal maybe, but my wife has never been on birth control, we don't use protection, and have never had an "oops" baby. We had kids when we wanted kids, and haven't had kids when we didn't want kids.
> It's really just... not that hard...
Do you see the part where you went from "Hey, we did this and it worked for us" to "Therefore everyone else for whom this doesn't work is stupid/incompetent?"
And then you doubled down by accusing everyone who doesn't think what you do of ignorance and hubris:
> I personally think it is a sign of modern hubris to assume that effective family planning didn't exist prior to 1960s and the advent of birth control.
So if you'd like to admit you crossed the line and adjust what you said to, "Hey, we did this and it worked for us", great, that's a much more reasonable thing to say than what you actually said. But everyone reading this exchange can see that's not what you actually originally said.
And I was entirely justified in comparing what you actually said to faith healing, because at a societal level teaching people non-contraceptive means of birth control has historically been about as useful as faith healing.
I'm emphasizing at a societal level because you left that out when you quoted me. Please at the very least when you quote me, quote full sentences: you're only quoting me out of context to try to twist what I said.
You don't get to rewrite history so you can play the victim here.
> I personally think it is a sign of modern hubris to assume that effective family planning didn't exist prior to 1960s and the advent of birth control.
If I am misinterpreting what you said, the problem is your communication skills, not my interpretation.
When someone says, "You're wrong", perhaps you should consider that you were wrong.
If you don't want to admit that what you said was wrong like an adult, fine. But if you're going to continue to try to paint me as if I'm bullying you, you can't be surprised if I step in to defend myself.
In your other comment, you wrote in a kinda magic-wishful-thinking way "you can only get pregnant if you really want kids". That is a contradiction to baby = egg + sperm.
If a woman has sex without some kind of fertility awareness, she gets pregnant. If she knows when she ovulates and avoids sex during that time and 5 days prior, she might not get pregnant.
Thing is: female libido is highest when the fertility in a cycle is the highest. So biologically speaking, women have to actively fight their hormones if they want to avoid pregnancy.
> In your other comment, you wrote in a kinda magic-wishful-thinking way "you can only get pregnant if you really want kids".
I really think you are all just intentionally misunderstanding me.
I am not saying "You can only get pregnant if you want to get pregnant"
I am saying "A couple in a committed relationship can fairly easily and reliably avoid having kids without the use of contraceptives if they don't want them."
I get messages from recruiters based on technologies I haven't used in a decade (Android primarily). It's all generic enough that I assume the people have no specific interest in me, they are just casting a super wide net and may not even want to interview me if I responded.
I get messages from recruiters based on the very last thing I'm doing, even if I just started doing it in the last 6 months. I got the impression recruiters rarely read the LinkedIn profiles.
I assume that either most of the people decline right off the bat, or they have a very low cost of processing candidates, because that surely doesn't seem to be a very precise way to look for the right people.
I'm not even that old, but a pattern I noticed when I've interviewed in the past couple years is that maybe I'm applying for the wrong jobs because my would-be peers ask questions that seem irrelevant and seem confused that I don't have answers ready for "what frameworks do you use? Which languages do you like? etc.", but then I get in an interview with someone who would be above me and we have a great chat about architecture and design and things that are actually relevant.
I'm here to build a house, I want to talk about the architecture of structural design of it. I don't care what brand air nailer you guys use.
My company has a kind of cultural disease where everyone aspires to be an architecture astronaut, people with an ounce of talent or ambition learn to treat code as beneath them, consequently we get beautiful design docs and a garbage codebase. For that reason I would fail any candidate who displayed this attitude. I expect senior candidates to raise the bar on quality and craftsmanship in implementation, and I’ve met plenty who do. YMMV.
I don’t think being a framework partisan is a particularly good sign, but at least it shows you have some experience and reflection and taste with regard to the tensions involved in making things that run.
I'm also an old fogey. When anyone says claims they or their title is "software architect", it usually means they're full of shit. The best "software architects" I've ever known typically call themselves programmers.
> The best "software architects" I've ever known typically call themselves programmers.
Or "hackers", but then you gotta resort to "ageism" in order to discern if they're actually a real old-school hacker or a modern wannabe hacker "script kiddie". ;)
I'm one of four engineers at my company. I don't have the luxury of offloading my job to someone else. Also I really feel like you're projecting attitudes that I (at least didn't mean to) portray. I design the dog food, and then I make the dog food.
I have the exact same experience. Many would-be peers simply don't get it when I have very little interest in the type of framework or language they use. They take it as a sign that I cannot contribute to the team readily even though they acknowledge I have more experience.
We've been using a Raspberry Pi400 (the computer in a keyboard model) as a media center pc for a little over 6 months now. It plays amazon and netflix videos fine, handles the netflix browsing UI pretty well, but has been rather painful for selecting shows on Amazon for a few months now. Not sure what they changed because it worked great when we first got it.
I'm not sure whether it was the best choice or not, but we figured we'd fall back to a regular pc if we needed to, and so far we haven't been bothered enough to do that.
The wording is "stop vaccine outreach to kids" not "stop vaccine outreach to parents"
This really doesn't seem that surprising to me.