151–160 of 169 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s an interesting fact I didn’t know before that makes sense in retrospect. I wish you hadn’t phrased it snarkily tho: is it really “sad” that someone doesn’t know an interesting fact that you do, or is it a fun opportunity for others to learn something?
FWIW I didn't read snark. I read "I am sad to see…", much as I might be sad to see the history of any other ancient thing forgotten.
I’m impressed this guy has time to write. My wife and I raised four children. My wife was blessed to be able to be a “stay at home” mom during the early period. It was a lot of work. I often joke that after the first two weeks of our oldest, I had no recollection of what the first two years of marriage had been like. The child rearing experience is just so all consuming. Four years ago, that oldest child got pregnant…
I agree. Children gave me a lot more time to read , surprisingly, but I have hands that are way too busy to write as much as I would like to.
Congrats to him. I’ve seen stats that somewhere between 30-50% of all twins are born through IVF. So technically not a huge surprise on that result. A little surprised on the 50% death rate for children before the age of 5 in 1800. It’s amazing how recent that is.
> I’ve seen stats that somewhere between 30-50% of all twins are born through IVF. So technically not a huge surprise on that result. It sounds like you think this was an IVF pregnancy? But Scott says it wasn't: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-the-long-run-were-all-da...
Congrats to him. I’ve seen stats that somewhere between 30-50% of all twins are born through IVF. So technically not a huge surprise on that result. A little surprised on the 50% death rate for children before the age of 5 in 1800. It’s amazing how recent that is.
I recall my wife’s doctor saying that was because they used to implant multiple embryos during IVF, and they no longer do that, especially since the Octomom fiasco.
Congrats to him. I’ve seen stats that somewhere between 30-50% of all twins are born through IVF. So technically not a huge surprise on that result. A little surprised on the 50% death rate for children before the age of 5 in 1800. It’s amazing how recent that is.
I kind of treat 1800 as old enough that I'm not surprised, but for me it's surprising to look at the huge 27% children death rate that we still had in 1950, as it's amazing how recent that is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LOL. Amaze. Don't be too amazed though. What he states isn't the scientific consensus. Persistent sleep deprivation is harmful to human beings, and you don't "reset and go back to well-rested again". Some sleep deprivation can be endured though, as any parent will tell you -- I know I wasn't "well rested" afterwards. I mostly was grumpy and very slow to think.
The writing was “tongue in cheek.” He doesn’t actually mean it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm an atheist; I've read and studied the Bible as part of my catholic education 25 years ago. Not that I'm strongly against it, but my attention is challenged by many things, and a man who starts an article about becoming a father with a clear sex-is-for-procreation Bible quote makes it sound like his experience of life is not relevant to mine.
You're behaving foolishly. If you spend just a moment looking at it you'd see the author isn't even taking the religious text he's quoting seriously! So your great fear of accidentally interacting with a religious individual is overblown. Well, since you chose not to read it, and continue to choose thusly in similar situations, you'll never really be able to confirm or deny whether or not"his experience of life is re…
An article who's title implies the inevitability of parenthood is probably not good mental fodder.