It talks about a study from 1944 in the US, specifically in Minnesota. How many of those parents were full-time stay-at-home parents, probably typically mothers, who were monitoring the child and helping with potty training?
How many kids nowadays are in daycare?
When there is a 3-to-1 adult-to-child ratio, doing something like this is much more challenging when there's just one adult and one infant.
Absolutely. 3:1 is only common ant absolute top tier daycares. More likely you’ll have 6:1 or 8:1. And even high quality daycares might not help children potty train which is absolutely essential if both parents are working but people want to potty train early. By age 3 kids are moving towards preschool and are more intelligent and have better self awareness and are more reward motivated. I think diaper conspiracy is honestly less likely here than structural advantages and modern life leading to later potty training
I was only talking about infants, and I thought Massachusetts's legal requirement of 3:1 was pretty common everywhere in the US, since one adult taking care of 3 infants seems so difficult... but a quick search shows me it's not! 4:1 is pretty common as a minimum nationally, though.
> And even high quality daycares might not help children potty train
I would be extremely surprised if that’s better for the environment than disposable diapers. The key for most of this stuff is economies of scale. It’s why the produce from the supermarket that was carried thousands of miles on a cargo ship is better for the environment than the produce from the farmer’s market that was carried 50 miles in a diesel truck.
I used to use DuckDuckGo, until I realized I was using "!g" far too often.
Then I tried Kagi, and I find that works the majority of the time, including their AI. Someone else in the comments here said Kagi's AI models are bad, but I don't think they are for answering the fairly basic questions that I typically search. I'm not going to have Kagi's AI model refactor code or something though.
Just like the ideal political candidate to vote for generally does not exist for anyone, the ideal company with perfect stances and behavior on everything generally does not exist.
So yes, scale back your purchasing, but as you said: the options are limited, just like political candidates. Choose who matches up best with you, support them, but unlike your relationship to Apple, political participation has a VERY different piece.
You can't just show up and start influencing policy at Apple headquarters.
But you CAN just show up to some local organizing meetings of local grassroots organizations and political parties and influence things. You can have a direct impact, and these groups are usually small enough with few enough participants in your town that you WILL have a decent impact.
Third Iron | Senior Full-Stack Software Developer | REMOTE (US)
Do you want to develop software that helps scientists, doctors, and historians discover breakthroughs? Join our small, fully-distributed software development team to help connect scholars of all disciplines with peer-reviewed journal articles.
Our company has been remote-first since we began in 2011. You’ll join a team with plenty of experience putting into practice what works well remotely, and avoiding what doesn’t.
Third Iron has never taken VC money, and we’ve never had layoffs. Our approach to hiring and selling our products helps us feel confident that this pattern will continue far into the future.
Third Iron software is used by researchers at over 1,500 libraries, including universities, hospitals, corporations, and government agencies located in over 35 countries.
In a refreshing change from advertising-dependent tech companies and those who sell user data, we instead have a business-to-business model. We sell our subscription-based services to libraries, and anyone affiliated with one of these libraries can use our software. We do not sell user data. Our focus is on building the best software to enable research that changes the world.
We’re looking for a developer interested in full-stack work, since we have a variety of upcoming initiatives, some being mostly front-end, some being mostly back-end, and some a balance of the two.
The front-end of our stack primarily consists of JavaScript, using EmberJS for two major projects, and React for two others. Our backend is written in NodeJS, and features data storage using PostgreSQL, Elasticsearch, and CouchDB, and hosting primarily on AWS and HEroku.
If you're not in step with where you're at, and you can find other employment where you'll be happier, why not change?
You could apply your same logic to, "If you're in a relationship with a significant other, don't break up with them... get them to break up with you! You will absolve yourself of any regrets of dumping them." Yes, and you will have wasted both your time, and their time.
And the same goes for working at a company that you feel isn't good for you.
The scenario that comes to my mind is: these chips had a lot of potential customers 30 years ago, and now may be down to just one or two customers left buying too few units to make it worthwhile.
Presumably, they have "guaranteed" buyers but also, if so, why would Airbus have issues sourcing CPUs, for example?
But no one is producing 286 chips anymore, that's part of the problem Boing has. The chips fail, because they are used and old. Or is someone besides Intel making them?
If the chips are cheap and easily available, and you know their failure modes, and they've been field tested for decades, why change?
It's very different from many software development attitudes, but remember that airframe manufacturers and avionics companies employ many people just to calculate risk and failure rates. The failure rates of these things are critical to the safety of your airframe.
How many kids nowadays are in daycare?
When there is a 3-to-1 adult-to-child ratio, doing something like this is much more challenging when there's just one adult and one infant.
reply