I've been using decibels as a scale for log-odds for a while when reporting results. It works pretty well, since the relevant part of the scale is wide, unlike using nepers, which I had never heard of until I started noodling around with this.
Like, how many decibels of evidence does this observation provide for this hypothesis? That seems potentially pretty workable, as long as you can ensure conditional independence.
Yes. For like a simple naive Bayes, you can say we start at 0, a user vote is worth +3, a merchant vote is +5, we decay by 0.1 every month, publish if we hit +13 (95%), un-publish at +10 (90%), etc. etc.
It's the same math as logits, but the scale's a bit nicer.
Yes, but the message from Shopify leadership is "it's part of your job to mess around with this stuff and see what works". Not "use AI at all costs".
The general feeling I'm getting is that using this AI stuff is important, but it's a learned skill, and we want as many people as possible to get familiar enough with it to have actual opinions.
That's one reading, and if that happens to be the correct reading then I agree it's unobjectionable. To me, though, making it part of a performance review process makes it closer to the "use AI at all costs" requirement than a request for devs to mess around with new technologies.
There was a 1-5 Likert scale self-rating on "leveraging AI" and a free-text box. I rambled about using claude code to help summarize my daily notes, cursor for implementation, using the chatgpt ui for broad questions (what happened to internal project X, how do I configure airflow again, etc.), then experiments with the find-the-right-table-for-you SQL generator. That seemed like about the level folks were going for.
There are some people who are really into it. The sql-generator's great for PMs; ops are experimenting with moderation triage. I personally have mixed feelings, but I'll futz with it on company time (and api $) to see if I can get it to do something useful. It'll mess up tensor alignment, but I can fix that.
So, yes, it was in the performance review. No, it wasn't a big deal. Yes, it seems to me like a reasonable nudge to get over the activation energy of learning to use the thing.
It's internal. But it's basically hooking up SQL code generation to the docs and schema of most of the tables in the data warehouse. I don't know the details, but probably also some extra stuff in the prompt to give a bit of context. It started as a few-days hack that then got momentum.
I don't really get where people with kids found these 6.5 hrs / wk to spend on friendships, or even the quoted current averages of 4 hrs / wk.
On a workday, there isn't much time. I roll out of bed at 6:30, get the kids up and fed breakfast and out the door. I finally get actually working at 8:30-9:30, depending on if I exercise or not. Stop work in the 5:30-6 range, switch into making dinner, getting kids to eat dinner, policing screen time and homework. Then bedtimes and such, following up on the zillion school emails, PTA newsletters, scheduling. If I have 45 min of downtime, typically in the 10-11pm range, if I'm lucky.
On weekends, there's all the deferred housework, like cleaning and laundry. Kids have swim and sports. Visits to grandparents, from grandparents. Every now and then we have someone over for a games afternoon, or someone is visiting from out of town, but I really doubt that adds up to 4 hr / wk.
One technique that I think needs to come back into fashion, which was familiar to us Gen Xers, is to drag your kids along when socializing for you. Instead of prioritizing their play dates and sitting in the corner on our phones, we should be bringing the kids to our friend's house and they can wander around and be bored while we sit and talk as friends.
The problem we have as a parenting culture is that we're not comfortable ignoring our kids. We need to teach kids that ignoring them is not the same as not caring for them. In fact, they need to feel the sensation of not being the most important thing for once. It's better to get some attention from a happy parent than all of the attention of a sad parent.
Throughout her teenage years, my wife's father would drag her along to his bowling trainings and matches. A smokey dingy bowling alley with drunk middle aged men may not seem the best place to take a young teenage girl, but there were no issues.
If anything the opposite - the other men respected her more, because they knew she was her father's daughter. They would also have fatherly protective instincts towards her.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. I generally hated being dragged to the friends houses of my parents. It was just needlessly boring.
On the contrary, it sometimes was okay if that friend had children. I think the issue in the modern day however, is that less people are having children, so there simply isn't the opportunity. For example, I'm the only person in my friend group who has children.
that's different. in my home i can disappear into my room and keep myself busy there. when at another place i have to behave, i can't go run around and explore (unless they have a garden and kids are allowed to go outside)
as a parent i would not drag my kids to a place unless there are other kids or i know there is something interesting for them.
but right on topic, the solution is to not live alone with your kids. we are in a multifamily compound where other families have children too, and there is no problem for some of the adults to go out while others stay back and make sure the kids are safe. (they are not providing entertainment but someone is always around should something happen).
this of course is only possible because i did connect to the neighbors. or rather, they connected to us. i always wanted to live in a place like that, but finding this one was pure serendipity. we weren't actually looking. it just happened that the neighbors turned out that way.
Just a 'temporary boredom as a child is/was pretty normal' datapoint, I remember sometimes falling asleep at the table in the restaurant out of sheer boredom while the adults finished chatting. I don't harbour any resentment for that, and I completely understand that they needed to hang out once in a while.
yes, but i needs to be boredom in an environment/situation where they can do something about it. being forced to sit still and be quiet in a foreign house while the adults have fun is not it.
I mean, as much as the modern world wants to convince you to revolve your life around making your kid comfortable at every moment of the day, this is actually a super important life skill and you need your kid to develop it.
I mean, that's probably a different dynamic. I didn't have to interact with the adults in that scenario, I could just be alone in my room.
To be fair, I think I was just a shy child/teenager. I didn't really feel comfortable talking, it's more I'd just sit and listen. In the back of my mind, all I really wanted to do was watch TV or playing videos, and often what would happen is I would just sit in front of their TV.
That's not to say that their friends weren't interesting people. It's just more, as a child I didn't really feel like I could directly interact.
That’s true, I regularly remember going to pubs, friends houses and sporting events that I was far to young to be at, but was just there because my parents where doing a thing.
My mum used to do this - I loved going to various places because either there were kids there to play with OR they had something that I found interesting. For example, one of the places had a 12-inch very detailed sculpture of a prawn which I found very intriguing. Some of the places had lots of books which I loved to raid. And there were always snacks.
Yeah I used to hang out with my friends while their kids were around, it was fun to get to know their kids honestly, and if we were lucky we could get the kids to bed and then have a drink on the porch before calling it a night.
I have 2 young kids, run a widely used open source project and a startup, eat dinner with my kids 6/7 nights a week and do this. Here’s some ways how:
My best friend comes over once a weekend and we watch the TV that my wife doesn’t want to.
I participate in a sport (powerlifting) where I’ve made friends and there’s room to socialise while exercising.
I chose to move back to my home town and also go to college there.
I go to metal gigs with friends when the kids are asleep.
I’m happily married, my wife is training for a marathon and sees friends too.
We pay for a cleaner.
Don’t know that this is 6.5 hours in person with friends every week but I’d say it’s at least a couple of hours each.
It’s doable, it just might require not doing some stuff you already do and enjoy. There’s a bunch of stuff I did pre-kids that I don’t any more and would like to find time for again one day.
You just said all the things that you do while raising kids. What is it that you are doing differently that allows you to do all those things? Is it simply just a matter of hiring a cleaner?
Because otherwise, as the father of a 1 and 5 year old, I completely agree with OP and find your story unbelievable. Like OP I work/exercise/do chores from 6 am to 10 pm. I'm on HN right now only because it's Saturday and I'm relaxing.
I have kids in similar ages and I also find time with friends. Even on some weekdays.
> Like OP I work/exercise/do chores from 6 am to 10 pm.
I hear this a lot, but let’s be honest: You don’t need to exercise and do chores every single day for the entire time outside of work, do you? Would it be the end of the world if you met up with a friend one night instead of going to the gym? Could you invite a friend to the gym?
The house doesn’t need to be spotlessly cleaned every night. If you’re cooking dinner, switch to recipes that are easy to prepare and then double them so you can have leftovers.
It’s easy to get caught up in the whirlwind of doing things constantly until they expand and fill all of your time. Becoming more efficient and flexible about the things I did outside of work opened up a lot of free time.
For me, I have to go to the gym. Its my only me thing. Taking someone to the gym sounds excruciating. For me the gym is all about disconnecting from everything requiring higher order thinking. Just loud music and heavy weights. Without that time I feel things would go very badly indeed.
The only time I really just spontaneously smile is during the walk from my car to the front door of the gym.
You’re on HN because it’s Saturday and you’re relaxing.
I’m in an Uber to go see some gym friends because my kids are in the bath and almost ready for bed. Another night this week: I’ll do the same for my wife.
Zero judgment here, genuinely, but: I keep hearing people say my life is impossible and it doesn’t seem like it.
I think so much of this is mentality, which as a word really undersells the problem but I can't think of a better one. You and the other commenters are probably about equally busy, but you are able to see your various tasks and obligations as opportunities to invite your friends in or otherwise socialize. They see them as blockers where nothing else and especially not socializing can happen.
As a childless person with far more "free time" than either of you, I've fallen into the same trap. I build it up in my head that I'm "just too busy" and during my downtime I'm "too tired," but the reality is often that I've just lost the habit and fail to perceive the opportunities.
None of this is meant to undersell the problem. I don't think human beings evolved for this pervasive, isolated busyness, and I think a lot of societal dysfunction cascades from it. I think it has real, negative effects on our biology and psychology, and no one should be shamed for succumbing to those effects. But at the same time I don't think the situation is hopeless and I admire and aspire to your initiative and creativity, and I think the rest of us can get there too.
Young kids are a different story but that doesn’t last forever. My kids are older, 13 and 15, and there’s a lot more time for personal interests and friends. Also, as kids get older you begin to have mutual interests. I’m watching/helping my 15 year old play an Indiana Jones game on his ps5 while typing this and have no desire to do anything else.
Y'all sound like the people in an infomercial that can't pour juice without spilling it everywhere or they get egg in ridiculous places when they try to crack it. With dishwashers, instapots, roombas, microwaves, and so on modern life just isn't that hard. Or, more accurately, it's mostly as hard as you make it.
You’re working too much and/or misorganized at home. Happens to many people. Unless you’re a single parent you can make a plan this weekend to at least alternate the days when someone has to do chores nonstop after work. I have kids those same ages.
I'm similar to the person you are directly applying to. I also have a 5 and 3yo.
Unlike the first OP, I don't get involved with the PTA and we don't really email with the school at all. I don't understand the emailing constantly with school thing, but to each their own and I'm sure there's a valid reason for those that do.
We, like the person you're replying to, also pay for a cleaner, but that's for deep cleaning and only happens once every two weeks. I've somehow settled into a routine that has me doing basic cleaning right after dinner.
My wife and I share chores and swap out tasks evenly. This allows one of us to clean and have some "me" time while the other bathes the kids/does bedtime, before we meet together and hang out for a bit in the evening before bed. Sometimes during the week we'll have a friend over during this time. Our weekend hours are limited in the evenings, because I have to get up early for work, but we make it work.
On the weekends, we are good about balancing our fun time. Grandparents come over and watch the kids as we go out together, or, just for one example, my wife will handle dinner/bedtime (or breakfast, if I go to something dance-musicy that runs late) while I go out to a show. I'll do likewise for her if she wants to go out with friends.
Also on the weekends, we often meet up during the day with friends of ours who also have kids. We get to hang out with our friends while our kids play together.
Additionally, my work has a gym and my work schedule is earlier than most - 6 to 3PM. I work out before and after work, and then go pick my kiddos up, make dinner and play with them after cleaning. I also chose a job that insisted they prioritize family and work/life balance and I leaned into that, and they leaned back! No notifications hit my phone after 4PM and in the four years I've worked here, I have never had to work a weekend nor been pressured to do any work outside of when I'm at the office.
My wife is also super nice about letting me go on 3-4 day backpacking trips multiple times through the summer.
We prioritized finding some time for us for our own sanity, and kinda naturally settled into this schedule. It might not work for everyone, and I feel very fortunate to have space for us.
Edit: Don't get it twisted, though... I'm tired. I can't get a full 8 hours of sleep on a regular basis, closer to 7, sometimes a bit less. The daytimes are also constant in order to ensure we get time at the end. It's hard.
Edit 2: We also prioritized ensuring our kids were great sleepers from day one. They go down for bed anywhere between 7 and 8, and don't wake up until ~7AM. We're also very lucky in that they've never really come into our bedrooms in the middle of the night and stay in their beds until we get them in the mornings. I don't know how we got fortunate there, but /shrug.
> My wife and I share chores and swap out tasks evenly.
Having some give and take between parents makes such a big difference.
I think every time I’ve talked to friends who are new parents who complain about not having any free time ever, they eventually reveal some excessive rigidity in how they share the parenting load. Some parents try to have both parents involved in everything all the time. Some parents refuse to let the other parent handle a task like bedtime. Some parents let their kids get demanding about which parent does a task and they never push back on it. And of course some couples have one lazy parent who just doesn’t do the thing, leaving it to fall to the other parent.
There’s often a lightbulb moment when parents realize that there can be flexibility and trading back and forth between parents.
I once coached a young guy who was struggling at his job because his ~9 month old still wasn’t sleeping well. After some questions he revealed that both he and his wife were getting up with the baby every time and staying up together.
It took some convincing to break him of the notion that every interaction with the baby required two parents. Once they started staggering their sleep schedules and taking shifts during the night everything improved.
Depending on where you live this is pretty affordable for even an average midwestern senior dev salary. Especially in a two income household. As in cut out daily Starbucks level affordable.
It’s the first “luxury” I pay for when able to right after air conditioning, and I did it even when I was single with a roommate.
Costs where I live are $200 or so twice a month to have my entire place cleaned top to bottom and I live in an above average sized house.
It’s not nothing, but it’s affordable enough to prioritize. The best thing you can buy with money is time, and I’ve found this is one of the largest RoI possible in terms of dollars per hours given back.
Others will prioritize different spending but overall I find it a better return than even taking a vacation.
5k/year is serious money. It’s affordable the way most things are affordable making it a priority over other things. IMO it’s low on the dollars per hour saved to use a regular cleaning service, where it’s worth it is you want a clean home and just don’t keep it up.
However, there’s significant diminishing returns on weekly or biweekly cleaning service vs monthly or by monthly. Especially if you can use a robotic vacuum and have decent air filtration.
Also, one of the major upsides of cleaning is to reduce dust, pollen, etc in the air. So things don’t get dirty as quickly and it matters less when they are dirty.
I don’t pay for a cleaner and still have plenty of time for friends.
I think people overestimate how much time a cleaner saves. It’s helpful if you can afford it but IMO it’s not the life-changing improvement that you hear about on Reddit and other places. Someone who comes once per week to spend an hour or two cleaning could give an hour or two back (usually not 1:1 because they clean deeper than you would yourself most times to show that a good job was done). It’s not going to make the difference between having tons of time to spend with your friends if your scheduled is already packed though. That is, unless you plan to pay for a daily cleaner which is a different level of expense.
I have a 3x/week housekeeper and it means I practically don't clean at all, including tidying/putting things away. Costs around $15k/yr though, so not for everyone. I wouldn't do this if not for kids though.
I mean, with 3x/week or even 7x/week housekeeper you'll be cleaning something. Even Jeff Bezos probably wipes a plate clean once in a while, or makes a sandwich. They're not going to be right next to you 24/7.
In many cases, it's slavery (immigrants whose documents have been taken away). Occasionally, you have tragedies occur, like the Kenyan woman who received 3rd degree burns over most of her body, and her family didn't know until she was shipped back home to die.
Extreme, but is that what we're aspiring to?
But then, it would be incorrect of me to say that I'm making a purely economic argument because I've clearly moved into making a value judgment. I think that's still valid though. Do we want to live in a country where wealthy people - or even just the well-off top half/three-fifths/whatever - expect never to have to clean up after themselves? We don't even have to ask what kind of society that creates, it's in our national memory.
This is every job. The rich paying the poor to do something that will bring them value. Every work visa is slavery by your argument. The reason cleaning as a job icks people out is because they see it as a "lesser" job. I am fine with it as long as the pay is good.
No, you're wrong. Someone with a work visa can leave if they want, they just can't stay if they don't meet certain conditions. However, they can travel to wherever they're authorized to. Difficult as it might be, they can also find another employer to sponsor them. They can also leave to visit home.
Someone who has their passport taken cannot leave. They may be deported, like someone with a lapsed visa, but unlike the aforementioned, they don't have the option to go somewhere other than the destination the deporting country decides is their home. Without documenation, they may be detained for an extended time, and cannot avail themselves of the resources available to people who can prove themselves citizens of another country.
I can leave my job - both permanently and for the evening. I can leave this country and come back (same for many foreign countries). Work life in America sucks, but it's not the same as modern day slavery.
Also, I explained why cleaning (specifically, employing a live-in maids) can be an issue, socially. It's not icky and it's not lesser; however, it can create in the society that encourages it class divisions and abuses, especially since it can only ever become ubiquitous and accessible to anyone but the wealthy if pay is not good. We have concrete examples of this in the regions GP mentions.
1. You do realise that not every house help is on some work visa where the employer takes away their passport right? That's illegal. These things happen a lot in arab countries not just for house helps but engineers too. Wanting to have a house help doesn't mean aspiring for "slavery" or taking away someones passport.
2. Work visa conditions if harsh enough are akin to slavery. You have Indians on H1B visas for over a decade with no chance of getting a green card. They have bought houses and raised families here. And can be kicked out in 3 months if they are out of a job. They are stuck.
> encourages it class divisions and abuses
Do you feel the same about a personal driver? A chef? A live-in nurse? What professions are socially ok in your opinion? If someone can pay good wages for a maid its absolutely ok. In fact its good that money flows into poorer communities. If you want real class equality ensure that every job gets paid similar amounts. A rich engineer not hiring a maid just makes wealth inequality worse. Its far better for the community than stuffing it in some index fund.
> 2. Work visa conditions if harsh enough are akin to slavery. You have Indians on H1B visas for over a decade with no chance of getting a green card. They have bought houses and raised families here. And can be kicked out in 3 months if they are out of a job. They are stuck.
Sounds very stressful. Is there no way for them to replace the H1B visa with something more permanent? Kinda like a middle step to green card?
£3.2k a year here. Most people on HN have tech jobs. I don’t drink coffee. I barely drink alcohol. I’ve never bought a new car. Again: it’s probably possible for many people here but some people prefer to convince themselves it’s impossible. Learned helplessness.
I don’t live in the US so have no idea about that. I have friends who are parents who make below the median household income in the U.K. who make time for hobbies and socialising (including with me). Resources help but I know many people with far more resources than I who would say on forums like this my life is impossible.
If you moved from a high cost of living city back to your home town, how much did that have to do with it? In HCOL cities the crazy rent or mortgage costs keep everyone running and cut into discretionary funds for assistance.
The more interesting question is: If people in HCOL areas are so poor that they can't even afford to make time to bask in friendships with the people the city has to offer, why are they still there?
Most small towns and medium sized cities, at least in the USA, have a serious lack of stepping stone opportunities. There are low-paying service and entry level jobs and there are high paying jobs that require extensive experience. There is often nothing in between.
as the other comment says, small towns don't have good jobs. so you still have the commute to bigger ones with the jobs. also i forgot another category: entertainment. if you are not an outdoor nature person, small towns have little to offer.
Okay, sure. "Do you want a fun job or do you want a well paying job?" is the age old question. Rarely do you get to have both. If what you are trying to say is: "They are willing to give up friendships and everything else that is usually considered to be important to one's personal life to be able to have fun at work", that is a reasonable answer, but this exchange is a strange way to communicate that if that is your intent.
> also i forgot another category: entertainment. if you are not an outdoor nature person, small towns have little to offer.
1. If you can't even afford to visit with a friend now and again, you most certainly can't afford such entertainment. In your feverous attempt to settle the post-purchase rationalization pangs have you forgotten what the discussion is about?
2. I never understood this anyway. Cities, especially the North American ones that resonate most with the HN crowd, are typically designed for outsiders (i.e. car culture), usually to the detriment of those who live inside the city. As a result, you quite often have better access to those big city entertainment venues by living in a small town than you do living within the very city! Where does this bizarre idea that you can only be entertained within the municipal borders in which you live come from? This is not the first time I've heard it.
american cities maybe. but european cities most certainly not.
Do you want a fun job or do you want a well paying job?
the problem is that small cities likely have neither. if they have jobs at all.
If you can't even afford to visit with a friend now and again, you most certainly can't afford such entertainment.
depends on the location. the city where i am from has plenty of free entertainment options that i would not have outside.
hackerspaces, irish folk sessions, when i was in LA i participated in irish dancing. these kind of culture activities need a critical mass that only exists in cities. in the US in small cities i might find country music sessions and square dance and maybe some other popular activities, but not the ones i'd be interested in.
also food. in LA i found a russian supermarket with had european style food that i could not find anywhere else in the US. anywhere in the world, the larger the city the more options i had available.
of course the original argument was that the cost of living was so high that people don't have money left, which was never true for me. but i also never had an issue making friends without needing money. so i think that original argument is just an excuse. if it is an argument at all. as many other commenters already said, having time for friends is a matter of choice. and it's not a matter of time or money. i could also argue that the kind of people i like to have as friends also have similar big city preferences just like me, so i like to live in a big city because for me it makes finding friends easier.
Isn’t it the opposite? Moving from HCOL to LCOL can be somewhat easy as the home equity or savings you built up in HCOL goes a longer way in the destination. Surely easier than moving from LCOL to HCOL?
Not when the real estate market is in the chaos it is right now, most of the ‘easy’ LCOL areas are not only not as LCOL, but have turned politically unpalatable, and there are large efforts now to do things like RTO in HCOL areas.
>Part of the reason I don’t live in America is I see a lot of people on salaries 2-4x mine who seem to be unable to have time to see their friends.
This is just a choice though. A choice Americans absolutely love making, but a choice none-the-less. On Reddit some dude was trying to argue that an individual needs $70,000 a year in fixed expenses just to live. Bare minimum. OTOH, I have what I consider an absurdly luxurious life and I spend less than $60,000/year TOTAL.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=DwlQ_5A2mKU - this is a video of someone who makes $2,200/month and has zero expenses (her parents pay for everything) and is in serious financial trouble.
Spend some time on bogleheads and you’ll see it all - from people saving $120k a year on $140k salary, to those spending $700k a year and not finding anything to save.
The biggest thing I’ve learned is that if you have a monthly expense, it becomes “necessary fixed expense” damn quickly.
Even if it’s $50 a month for telephone sanitizing.
> On Reddit some dude was trying to argue that an individual needs $70,000 a year in fixed expenses just to live. Bare minimum.
... Wait, how the hell did they figure that out? Did they itemise it? Was most of it just going on a very expensive mortgage or something? Are they including retirement savings?
(I've no rent or mortgage, due to having been very lucky with employer equity, but I'm not sure I could spend 60k EUR a year on myself even if I wanted to; there is only so much stuff that you'd reasonably want to spend money on.)
Yeah, I can't find the post again but they itemized it according to what they thought was normal basics.
I remember there was large car payments.
OI have been driving for more than 25 years, I've had a car payment for maybe 10 months in those 25 years. To me a car payment is a massive luxury, to this dude it's a minimum basic.
Frighteningly common attitude amongst Americans, including my parents. Never made sense to me. I get that American cities are basically designed to require a car, but that doesn't mean you need to finance or lease something brand new all the time.
Huh, I would argue that someone who has 70k after tax per year to spend generally shouldn't be buying a car with debt _at all_; they should be able to afford to save and buy one outright.
I save for my cars, I don't, generally, finance them. I did finance one car once when I was a young engineer and still had student loans. I did it because I was just starting my career. Paid off the loan completely within a year.
I basically think everyone, no matter your income, should strive to save for their cars as much as possible, and try to avoid financing. Always financing a car is a trap to always spend more than you can really afford on a car. Saving and paying cash allows you to really gauge what is affordable. Even my sister in law who makes close to minimum wage has always been able to save for her cars and pay cash.
I have a rough idea of my friend’s schedules, and I call them when I’m driving the kids around, or we text. Staying in constant contact with a few very close friends about my mental health has floated me through my mid-40s.
A tip I got from a friend in his 60s was that even when you lose friends, life is great because you constantly have the opportunity to find new ones. I am in a new close friends renaissance in my 40s, just be vulnerable and don’t take rejection personally.
This is almost identical to my experience. And during that brief sliver of time that I do get to myself, I simply don't have the mental energy to engage with others. Instead, I usually decompress by working out or reading or something else solitary, because for me socialising requires effort.
Are you a single parent? If so then yeah you have it hard, no doubt there.
But if not shouldn't your spouse be doing some of this? Why are you getting the kids ready and making dinner and doing all the homework/school stuff and working full time?
Why not have grandparents watch the kids when they visit (or you drop them off)? Why do you need to be there at all? Great time to go meet a friend for lunch. Or grandparents can take the kids to sports. Or you make friends with other parents at those sports activities so you can interact while the kids are there.
It used to be possible in most areas to raise a family and kids on a single middle-class income. So that left one person free to handle domestic tasks instead of them being split between two people in the spare time they have after the kids are all in bed.
It still may be possible now but that will require reducing your standard of living to what was common then. Think no stone counter-tops. Not driving a 0-3 year old car with $10,000 just in electronics. Having linoleum floors instead of high-end tile. Eating Hamburger Helper, spaghetti, not ordering door dash 5x a week. Resisting the constant stream of social media, influencers, advertisements that are telling you everyone else lives better than you and making you feel bad about it, which causes you to spend money on things you don't need but raise the aesthetic of your life and make you feel like you're living better.
I'd bet that if someone was happy to live in the standard of living that was 20-30 years ago, it could still be done on a single middle class income which would allow for the leisure time required to spend 6.5hrs+ with friends [citation needed]
No stone countertops? Linoleum? Sounds like absolute hell! Positivity inhumane. Next you’ll tell me that they don’t even have cable AND Netflix or gasp go to the library.
Money: You pay people to do things that take up time.
We have a house cleaner. That's a few hours right there. When the kids were little, we had a nanny. But the nanny didn't just watch the kids. She also washed and folded the laundry, tidied the house daily, and sometimes cooked dinner. In fact, now that they are in school, I'm thinking of hiring a home helper to do those things because those chores get neglected right now (although the kids can almost do it now instead).
Locality: Visit people who live nearby.
Most of my friends that I see regularly are either my wife's brothers and their families, since they all live locally, or the parents of our kids friends, who all live nearby since we go to the local school, or the neighbors who we like. We have family dinner a few times a week, either at someone's house or out to eat (see point one about money), and especially on weekends and summer break, we hang out a lot with the neighbors.
I don't however see my college friends or work buddies much anymore. That is what I had to give up when I had kids. We have some group chats and will occasionally get together, but that requires arranging babysitting, or one of us going on a trip with those friends (see the point about money again). But both my wife and I try to do that at least once a year (go on a friends trip).
Locality is increasingly unaffordable for people as it's far more common for people who rent to move often (to avoid paying high rent increases) and people who own to be forced into living in a small sunset of places where they can actually afford a home (often far away from their communities or friends)
I mean, I could walk down to a bar at 10pm, if I wanted to. I live in a city. But if I'm getting up at 6:30, I don't think I want a pint let alone three that late.
Plus, I'd still have two kids up, asking me to extend the wifi because they're not done with English yet or to help scan a page for math. I'm not going to just leave that to my partner.
Even the more traditional pint-after-work would leave me coming home tipsy at 7pm, having slacked off on all of dinner prep and child-wrangling. If I made a habit of that, it would get me my ass handed to me, and rightfully so.
I do wonder if the whole "pub-culture" thing was entirely predicated on the unpaid and unacknowledged work of women. And how much of that extended to other traditional extracurriculars like bowling leagues and clubs and such.
True, if your family is such a burden maybe you should focus on making better choices. Probably better off turning the kids over to the state vs forcing them to through 18 whole years and a childhood suffering your resentment.
I'm confused by how your question relates to the one above it. It sounds like you're saying the person above should feel free to go to the pub frequently because the mom should feel happy taking care of the house and kids without them?
> was entirely predicated on the unpaid and unacknowledged work of women
It was paid and acknowledged. It was paid in a wage to husbands meant to run an entire household under. It was acknowledged also, though we probably also took it for granted.
That being said, we're never realistically going back to a time when only one spouse worked. It's just a fact that households where both spouses work will get ahead, so that time and that type of life isn't ever coming back.
There were more kids around, which meant there were more kids for your kids to play with instead of hanging on you and more parents in the same boat to form a support network.
It’s one of the problems with birth rate collapse. The fewer people have kids, the harder it is in very hard to measure ways.
This doesn't make sense, the population has only increased.
Quick Google tells me 40 years ago, in 1985, there was 62.6 million children in the US. In 2025 there are 74.7 million. That is more children in 2025 than 1985.
Parents not allowing their children to play independently isn't due to lack of other children, it's a choice.
I suspect the number of children born to the kind of parents who's kids six figure white collar professionals want their kids in contact with has gone down.
You do it like you do in Europe. Your friends pop by and sit around while you're doing what you're doing, chatting here and there, helping out occasionally too. If you're thinking about "outings" then yes, those are cooked with your schedule.
It's simple: they didn't work as much. Typically one parent would go out and work while the other took care of the home. When the first parent got back the house would be clean and dinner would be ready. Work was over.
The work parent tended to socialise in the evening and the home parent during the day.
The home parent was essentially self-employed, working directly for themselves and the family. A real "hustler" lifestyle.
Nowadays we've got everyone working full time for someone else leaving only evenings and weekends to work for ourselves. Or you spend a huge chunk of that salary on childcare, cleaners and dog walkers. We're addicted to work.
This is all feeding wealth directly to the owning class. People used to own a lot more themselves. They used to own clothes that could be repaired; furniture that could be polished, restored and lasted for generations; machines that could be serviced etc. Now nobody has time for any of that stuff. What you "own" is just worthless commodities like IKEA or Zara. Things that used to be assets are just another expense now.
The problem is there's no real way out for individuals. House prices are driven up by couples who both work. Tax systems benefits such couples too. So you're doubly screwed if you want to opt out of building billionaire wealth and instead work for yourself like they used to. Then you've got factors like settlements being built around cars, so now you need two cars, another huge expense (not an asset) or the stay at home parent is basically trapped at home all day. So now you're triply screwed.
What we really need AI for is a way out of these ridiculous local optima we get ourselves into. We desperately need to solve inequality. Unfortunately we also like to feel like we're in control, so any AI has its work cut out: guide humanity to happiness but trick them into thinking it was their idea. I have no idea why an AI would bother to do this for a species that themselves chooses not to do this for other animals and even each other, though.
all the dogs and furniture and hobbies and subscriptions and running around. Grasping, grasping, grasping...
my partner and I are people of simple means. We garbage pick or get off Facebook marketplace most of our stuff for super cheap (nice OLD stuff... Which I repair!) but have a fairly nice home that we’ve bought. She saved a lot just working for the post office in there pay: She didn’t go anywhere, and enjoys things like house cleaning and doing the dishes and reading. It’s the same as the Buddhist monks I spent time with. I give this example and people flat out rage at me, saying how awful a life that is. But my partner is one of the kindest, happiest people and adores simple things (she's also really fit and stellar in bed, so that helps...) She has found ways to legitimately enjoy the small moments and being present in life, not chasing a bunch of shiny flashy things all around the world. I’ve learned a lot from her.
In short: we don’t need AI, we need to just do less and learn to get back to simplicity. THAT would afford time to socialize.
The most successful people at work I see have a stay at home partner that looks after the kids, or no kids, or kids left for college. Its pretty impossible to have a demanding job and family life and your own life.
I have zero IRL friends, not even acquaintances.
I stopped having friends once I had kids. So its been at least a decade. At the point now where my oldest is 13 and the youngest is 11 that I could probably have the time for them if I wanted but I haven't had any for so long that the desire is just gone. The effort required just doesn't seem like its worth it. I work remotely as well so I can actually go days without speaking to an adult aside from my wife. I don't even work on a team so literally not a word to anyone.
My wife had a good friend via our oldest being best friends with her oldest. We would do family get togethers and I would hang out with the husband but I had zero desire to hang out with him 1:1 despite both wives pushing for it. Our kids stopped being friends and we stopped being friends with the family. Honestly it was a relief. Having to pretend to be interested in what they were saying was exhausting.
I get up at 7am to get kids ready for school and start work at 9. Work until 4ish and then go get the kids. Everyone is home by 4:30 or so but then we have sports 4 nights a week until about 7. Then dinner. Wife is not remote so generally gets home around 6pm. Weekends is sports on Saturdays. We have Sundays to ourselves right now which is great. I'm writing this in the 2 hour break between kids sports games. I took the youngest to football, came home, the wife took him to a birthday party and now I have to take the oldest to his game in an hour.
I hit the gym for an hour or so 4x a week sometime between 7 and 9 during the week depending on if I am having dinner with the family (sometimes I'll go during work). Then I go again on Sunday. Gym is pretty much the only me time I have and I will not miss it.
Gotten to the point where I struggle to think of people I meet as real. I feign interest until we can part ways. I don't even know people's names at work. They are all offshore as well so our hours don't really overlap. Can't even pretend to be interested in my siblings anymore. I have to see my wife's dad once a week and its a struggle. I dread him passing away as I am going to have to try and pretend to be upset. He is a great guy, I have nothing against him, just no connection.
It just is what it is, I love my wife and kids but just have zero attachment or empathy for anyone else.
Instead of doom scrolling on social media we called a friend.
Instead of binge watching another meh show, we had friends over to play cards or a board game.
Instead of over scheduling kids with constant activities, parents had a regular night out with friends while kids spent quality time at home with the other parent.
The time is there. It was in the past. We just have a finite amount of time and use it differently.
Imagine the time when kids could actually do things on their own and learn resilience, independence, and community alongside their friends. Instead, their parents now need to drive them everywhere alone because communities got rid of school buses, sidewalks, and speed bumps to help make cars go faster. We've done the real-life version of gamers min-maxing the fun out of a game.
You are so right. Just imagine having a physical community that wasn't completely gutted for the sake of transporting cars through non-communal spaces to other non-communal spaces. In America, we can hardly even imagine this, and if you try, you will experience something close to a mob backlash.
All of this assumes people have friends to start with.
This becomes much harder for those without friends which I think is what the article was about. Not disagreeing with you though, untold hours have been wasted on social media.
Invite your childless friends to come visit you. I'm childless but all of my oldest friends have kids and all of those kids know me. It's probably easier for them to travel and if they stay a few nights you'll have time for both family time and adult time. Plus, I think it's great for kids to interact with adults who are trusted but aren't an authority figure.
People didn't used to work this much. Now that both spouses in a household typically work the kind of schedule you mentioned along with increasingly longer commutes due to housing unaffordability, we spend more time at work cumulatively than generations before us did.
A lot of people integrate both friends and kids into their lives, instead of wearing different hats and splitting time. Dinner with friends on a weekday or Friday. Playdates are a good excuse to spend 8 hours hanging out with with another parent. Drag the kids along to BBQs and campouts.
Combine it with kids stuff. Chat to fellow parents at PTA and sports. I have a circle of friends consisting mostly of fellow school parents and sports players still going 10 years after kids left school. We get together for beers and poker and some coffee mornings.
I also have young kids but I pull off more than 4hrs per week with friends.
These conversations are difficult online because people who fall into routines without friend or personal time often refuse to believe that anything else is possible. Even in this comment thread there are accusations that other people are lying about spending time with friends because they just can’t believe it’s possible.
The common thread I see in discussions is the claim that every day is filled from start to finish with every activity. Now realistically we know you’re not exercising every single day, not doing laundry all weekend start to finish, and not reading a zillion PTA newsletters every night because those are just examples. Yet those lists are always given as reasons why people can never have free time even though they aren’t always happening.
It’s much harder for single parents, obviously, but for a household with two parents it shouldn’t be hard for one parent to go out with friends after the kids are down one night each week and/or for a couple hours on the weekend. This alone would get to 4hrs/week or beyond. I’m not exaggerating when I say every set of parent friends I know does some variation of this. Friend groups will sync up their nights away to get together.
Second, playing with kids is an easy opportunity to meet up with parent friends. We take the kids to a local park with local parents a couple days a week in the afternoon briefly before dinner. Really easy way to catch up while the friends are playing.
Third, once the kids are old enough to not require extreme supervision at dinner time we like to have friends over for dinner. Obviously this isn’t a fancy 3-course meal with wine afterward, but we don’t care. Friends like to stop by for a quick dinner.
Fourth, if you’re cramming your schedule so full of kids activities and cleaning tasks to keep the house constantly clean that you have zero wiggle room for finding a couple hours with friends each week, that’s a choice. Saying this makes a lot of people angry, but the truth is you have to prioritize and compromise. Some times we decide we don’t have time for another activity commitment. Other times we decide the house can stay messy for an extra day to catch an opportunity to meet up with someone. Most of the time we trade off parent to parent.
Like I said, it’s different if you’re a single parent. However every parent friend I know does some variation of this and we spend time with each other. If finding a measly 4 hours per week feels completely impossible, I would suggest stepping back and looking at priorities and how your splitting time between parents.
I should also mention that paying attention to things like screen time and distractions is important. I’ve had a few friends who were exasperated at how impossible it felt to do anything, until they checked their screen time tracker and realized that 3-4+ hours of every day was disappearing into their phone. For others this could be TV or computer Internet browsing. Some of this is always okay, but you have to realize it’s a choice you’re making about where the time goes.
Almost all my in-person friends nowadays are parents of kids who my kids associate with. Mostly through sports. You get to kill two birds - support your kids and associate with adults. A few you’ll make good bonds with.
Its all fun and games until the kids have a falling out. Then its clear it was very much a friendship of convenience. I always saw them as such but it was a little upsetting for my wife.
But my wife still meets at least monthly with a group of the moms from our first travel team when the kids were in 3rd grade - almost a decade since they were teammates. There was probably some trauma bonding that occurred.
I do think 6.5 hours is much easier if only one spouse works. My wife and I both work demanding jobs, but during times when one of us has been in-between jobs or off work, things look very different.
I had a TV in my room since I was 8 (1988) and my parents didn't police anything. Maybe this is a newer concern due to a greater understanding of tech dangers
I come from a large family and have a large family. It’s hard, but definitely worth it.
More objectively, research seems to indicate happiness tends to be less vs childless during the first hard years, but it slowly evens out and pale with kids are generally much happier later in life.
I have a few opinions here. Unhappiness spreads faster than happiness. You don’t hear about all the happy families down the road, but you will hear about the dysfunctional one. Your friends don’t talk much about the good feelings snuggling up with their toddler, but will tell you about the massive meltdown that their toddler had a few weeks ago.
If you aren’t dysfunctional, set a consistent example, and are consistent with your kids boundaries, you don’t have to be unhappy with your kids. Along those lines, put your screens down and go do something with your kids (don’t just passively watch between doomscrolling) and you’ll find there’s a lot of enjoyment to be found for you too.
This a legit question before having kids, I don’t mean to belittle it, but after having kids, for me, it’s like asking if I wished the people I loved most never existed. The question no longer makes sense.
> human kids are exotic pets for the wealthy or crazy
I'm having a hard time parsing that statement.
Are you suggesting that only the wealthy can realistically afford to have children today, or that parents increasingly treat their children like status symbols or pets?
Both interpretations strike me as pretty dystopian.
> Are you suggesting that only the wealthy can realistically afford to have children today, or that parents increasingly treat their children like status symbols or pets?
A little of both. Kids are a luxury good in the current macro.
The cost to raise a child from 0-18 in the US in 2023 dollars is ~$330k (Brookings, USDA). This does not include daycare (~$1k/month if you can find a slot) nor college. No sick leave nor paternal leave mandate, no job security, and so on. 2.5M children experience homelessness each year in the US. 14M are food insecure.
Look at wage data, correlate against housing and other non discretionary expenses, back out to affordability.
> Both interpretations strike me as pretty dystopian.
Welcome to the shit show. “To know is to suffer.” —- Nietzsche
I’m unsure I agree with this. South Korea, Japan, China, etc. This is clear from the total fertility rate, how it presents is just a different shade in each country. Outside of the Nordics and parts of Europe, I don’t think anywhere else puts an effort into making being a parent not suck. And even places putting material resources into family and parent support, it doesn’t move the needle.
ok, i don't know about south korea and what's going on there with the extremely low fertility rate. but china has way more support for children than the US. china's low fertility rate is not because of social or economical factors like elsewhere but because of the one-child policy which has been abolished a few years ago.
I don’t think anywhere else puts an effort into making being a parent not suck
i don't believe that is true. not even in developing countries. the reason we can't see that is that developing countries suffer from other problems. but those problems don't motivate people there to not have children. on the contrary.
And even places putting material resources into family and parent support, it doesn’t move the needle
because material considerations are not a big factor. you were arguing that having children is expensive, and that children are only to be afforded by the wealthy, and treated as a status symbol.
but if that is a factor then it is only a factor in the united states and nowhere else in the world. especially not in developing countries.
This is likely an unpopular opinion, but most of the parents I know do not have these extreme schedules and lack of flexibility that leave zero time for friends.
I do know some parents who fell into the parenting version of “the cult of busy”. I think it’s easy to stack your calendar with a million things and commitments and then wonder where your time went. When someone starts complaining about never having any free time but then in the same paragraph mentions optional commitments like PTA involvement taking up their free time, you have to read between the lines to see what’s really happening. If I didn’t have enough time to see friends for even 4 hours per week, dropping PTA involvement would be an easy target.
Honestly, the time crunch trap happens to people in all situations, kids or not. I did some volunteer mentoring for a while and it was shocking to hear so many 20-somethings without kids or relationships tell me how they never had time to see their friends any more between their 9-5 job and chores. When pressed for details they reveal that they’re doing things like grocery shopping every day, spending 2 hours making and cleaning up dinner every night, an hour at the gym, 2 hours catching up on their Netflix, and on and on.
Life is all about priorities. Honestly as a parent I don’t know how anyone could get less than 4 hours/week with other parent friends. We always meet up with parent friends at the park or do other activities together. If you’re strictly entertaining kids alone and you’re not in a remote location, it would be my top priority to make some other parent friends quickly.
For me, absolutely. I have not accomplished anything nearly as personally satisfying. Watching my kid make a new friend or catch a pass in a game is far more rewarding than any personal accomplishment. Just going for a walk with them and enjoying the random conversations and questions is amazing. Would not trade that for the world
I'd say a gradient is usually a covector / one-form. It's a map from vector directions to a scalar change. ie. df = f_x dx + f_y dy is what you can actually compute without a metric; it's in T*M, not TM. If you have a direction vector (e.g. 2 d/dx), you can get from there to a scalar.
I'm not a big Riemannian geometry buff, but I took a look at the definition in Do Carmo's book and it appears that "grad f" actually lies in TM, consistent with what I said above. Would love to learn more if I've got this mixed up.
This would be nice, because it would generalize the "gradient" from vector calculus, which is clearly and unambiguously a vector.
It's probably just a notation/definition issue. I'm not sure if "grad f" is 100% consistently defined
I'm a simple-minded physicist. I just know if you apply the same coordinate transformation to the gradient and to the displacement vector, you get the wrong answer.
My usual reference is Schutz's Geometrical Methods of Mathematical Physics, and he defines the gradient as df, but other sources call that the "differential" and say the gradient is what you get if you use the metric to raise the indices of df.
But that raised-index gradient (i.e. g(df)), is weird and non-physical. It doesn't behave properly under coordinate transformations. So I'm not sure why folks use that definition.
You can see difference by looking at the differential in polar coordinates. If you have f=x+y, then df=dx+dy=(cos th + sin th)dr + r(cos th - sin th)d th. If you pretend this is instead a vector and transform it, you'd get "df"=(cos th + sin th)dr + (1/r)(cos th - sin th)d th, which just gives the wrong answer.
To be specific, if v=(1,1) in cartesian (ex,ey), then df(v)=2. But (1,1) in cartesian is (1,1/r) in polar (er, etheta). The "proper" df still gives 2, but the "weird metric one" gives 1+1/r^2, since you get the 1/r factor twice, instead of a 1/r and a balancing r.
And I'm just a simple applied mathematician. For me, the gradient is the vector that points in the direction of steepest increase of a scalar field, and the Jacobian (or indeed, "differential") is the linear map in the Taylor expansion. I'll be curious to take a look at your reference: looks like a good one, and I'm definitely interested in seeing what the physicist's perspective is. Thanks!
There's just so much C++ at Google that really has no business being C++ and falls into the "networked server" category. At least large swaths of the Search and Maps codebase, large chunks of flume (beam) batch pipelines, etc., etc. It's only historical accident and network-effect stickiness that keep that from being written in Java.
I could easily imagine him thinking Go could make inroads there. But then it took a very long time to get a flume port, and even then it didn't have half of the nice affordances that the C++ version did.
People say they need the efficiencies of C++, but IMHO they really don't when so much of the actual code time is spent slurping data from one sstable and writing it to the next sstable.
Looks interesting, but it's not at all responsive. I can't view it without making my window larger than my screen and manually sliding it back and forth. Even basic TUIs know their output size. I know it's a UI demo, but that seems pretty basic.
How is this still so hard? Tk basically had this figured out 25 years ago.
It's a super early release and the project itself is pretty fresh, and that's also how it was announced today at FOSDEM, so we can expect improvements.
It ends up sounding like a smarmy Sunday-morning talk show conversation, with over-exaggerated affect and no content.
So far I've just fed it technical papers, which may be part of the problem, but what I got back was, "Gosh, imagine if a recommender system really understood us? Wow, that would be fantastic, wouldn't it?"
Already in the sample embedded by Simon. "Gosh", "wow", "like", "like", "like", "[wooooaaaawiiiing, woooooooaawiiiiiiing]", "Oh my god", "I was so, like...".
While it's impressive, I agree that it tends to make over the top comments or reactions about everything. It could probably make a Keurig machine sound like a revolutionary coffee maker.
I always come back to Schutz's Geometrical Methods of Mathematical Physics as my reference for notation, but I agree. I came to this by way of General Relativity, so that colors my perceptions. The few treatments of GA that I've looked at (briefly) weren't very clear about the distinction between 1-forms and 1-vectors and seemed to assume Euclidean metric everywhere, so I left thinking that it seemed a little weird and not quite trusting it.
In any case, my experience is that the coordinate-free manipulations only go so far, but that you pretty quickly need to drop to some coordinates to actually get work done. d*F=J is nice and all, but it won't calculate your fields for you.
I know at least one team is at work is using the Assistants API, and I'm talking with another team that is leaning pretty heavily towards using it over building a custom RAG solution themselves, or even over other in-house frameworks.
