Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 275 posts

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#251

Post by gbog »

rayiner wrote: post #157
gbog wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's inconvenient and better avoided. Toddlers cry, that's the normal thing. Some are unbearable and then a pacifier is ok but they become addicted and you're easily in deep shit if you travel and forget them or lose them (I had one in each pocket when taking a plane). I guess most kid don't really need it, parents need it, when they can't bear the cries. But even then I think you just postpone the annoyance. I have…

> Toddlers cry, that's the normal thing. Right, but toddlers also normally nurse to comfort themselves. If you're not breastfeeding (or if you're like me and you're the night-time parent but have no breasts) then a bink can be pretty clutch in terms of getting the kid to sleep so you can go to work in the morning.

Why, I don't mind your kid or any other using pacifier. I mind a bit the "pacifier by default" implied by its presence in the US baby box.

Also, if you can get a kid to control emotions early, it is all the better, and pacifier may postpone this a bit.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#252

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #157
gbog wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's inconvenient and better avoided. Toddlers cry, that's the normal thing. Some are unbearable and then a pacifier is ok but they become addicted and you're easily in deep shit if you travel and forget them or lose them (I had one in each pocket when taking a plane). I guess most kid don't really need it, parents need it, when they can't bear the cries. But even then I think you just postpone the annoyance. I have…

> Toddlers cry, that's the normal thing. Right, but toddlers also normally nurse to comfort themselves. If you're not breastfeeding (or if you're like me and you're the night-time parent but have no breasts) then a bink can be pretty clutch in terms of getting the kid to sleep so you can go to work in the morning.

[deleted]

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#253

Post by gbog »

nawitus wrote: post #151
gbog wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure that the pacifiers are a good idea, do they have them in the Finland box?

There's a 'biting toy' in the package, but I'm not sure if that's exactly the same thing as a pacifier. http://www.kela.fi/web/en/maternitypackage

You mean the circle shaped plastic toy at the bottom? That's not the same purpose, it will not block the crying orifice as do the pacifier.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#254

Post by [deleted] »

therandomguy wrote: post #200
gbog wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's inconvenient and better avoided. Toddlers cry, that's the normal thing. Some are unbearable and then a pacifier is ok but they become addicted and you're easily in deep shit if you travel and forget them or lose them (I had one in each pocket when taking a plane). I guess most kid don't really need it, parents need it, when they can't bear the cries. But even then I think you just postpone the annoyance. I have…

It is a self comforting device and recommended by AAP: http://goo.gl/ZnR17

[deleted]

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#255

Post by [deleted] »

tomjen3 wrote: post #168
arethuza wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One question I find interesting is to what extent governments should be in the business of building solidarity and shared values. Personally, I'm all for it - but that's a product of my age (40s), location (Scotland) and where I grew up (a small village in the North of Scotland). NB Having a father who served in the RAF during WW2 probably influenced me far more than I realised at the time - my political views around…

I don't find that interesting at all, I find that question to be very scary, because I don't want a government that is in the business of telling people what is right and what is wrong. I want a government of people smart enough to themselves realize what is right and what is wrong and to ensure that the government follows these things. A government that runs Guantanamo and puts people in jail for smoking joints isn'…

[deleted]

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#256

Post by mikeash »

snowwrestler wrote: post #230
mikeash wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly is this worth noting? Nobody jumps to point out that there's still somebody paying for the "free" tiers of Dropbox or GitHub or whatever. Yet the moment somebody mentions a "free" social program, people suddenly have to hammer on the point that somebody pays for it. We're not a bunch of imbeciles who think that social programs just rain from the sky....

I disagree, there is a tremendous amount of discussion here on HN about the real cost of "free" services, particularly in light of the recent end of Google Reader, sale of Instapaper, etc.

Reading through the comments on the current front-page stories about Bitbucket and Zynga, I don't see a single comment saying that their free services aren't really "free".

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#257

Post by andrewflnr »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #194
jerf wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because social programs get their money from coercion. GitHub doesn't. (To the extent that you think you can find a private company that can and does use coercion, I object to that too.) Even as a liberatarian, I'm happy to say some things are well worth the coercion. But it should never be forgotten , because otherwise people do start thinking it's just free money that has no other concerns whatsoever, and start spe…

Because social programs get their money from coercion Language matters, and the verb 'coercion' in this context, to me, is actually repugnent. Here's what Wikipedia has to say ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion ): "Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or f…

You say that using the word "coercion" is repugnant, and then quote a definition that perfectly fits taxation? You've got some nerve. You can see it however you want, but if you don't pay taxes, someone will come and physically haul you off to jail whether you like it or not, someone who is prepared to escalate to deadly force. Sure sounds like coercion to me.

Taxation might make sense as an "entrance fee" if someone asked you whether you wanted to participate, and gave you an honest chance to say no, but we don't really have that. You usually can't even just hide out on your land and not interact with anyone except dealing with trespassers, because of property tax, a form of coercion I find particularly repugnant.

Yes, language matters, which is why "coercion" is the perfect word for taxation.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#258

Post by [deleted] »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #194
jerf wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because social programs get their money from coercion. GitHub doesn't. (To the extent that you think you can find a private company that can and does use coercion, I object to that too.) Even as a liberatarian, I'm happy to say some things are well worth the coercion. But it should never be forgotten , because otherwise people do start thinking it's just free money that has no other concerns whatsoever, and start spe…

Because social programs get their money from coercion Language matters, and the verb 'coercion' in this context, to me, is actually repugnent. Here's what Wikipedia has to say ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion ): "Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or f…

[deleted]

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#259

Post by anigbrowl »

snowwrestler wrote: post #249
anigbrowl wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, why is it so imperative that we talk about the costs if we're in a agreement that there's a net benefit? Perhaps I am projecting, but generally when people are at pains to point out that things are not free and there's a cost, what they mean is that there's a net cost to society (or think that there is) and that the money would be best spent somewhere else or not collected at all. When you lead off with a compl…

There's a net benefit to eating out every night (it's tasty and we don't have to do dishes), but my wife and I still consider the costs. Just because something produces a net benefit does not mean that there are infinite funds to allocate toward it.

Those are benefits. A net benefit means it's more economically efficient than the alternative - which might be true for you, but isn't necessarily so.

Re: Why Finnish babies sleep in cardboard boxes

#260

Post by clicks »

andrewflnr wrote: post #257
CaptainZapp wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because social programs get their money from coercion Language matters, and the verb 'coercion' in this context, to me, is actually repugnent. Here's what Wikipedia has to say ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion ): "Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or f…

You say that using the word "coercion" is repugnant, and then quote a definition that perfectly fits taxation? You've got some nerve. You can see it however you want, but if you don't pay taxes, someone will come and physically haul you off to jail whether you like it or not, someone who is prepared to escalate to deadly force. Sure sounds like coercion to me. Taxation might make sense as an "entrance fee" if someone…

It is a curious thing that you object to this.

Are you not also being coerced to conform to virtually every other societal norm? Try walking out naked down the street in broad daylight. See if you're not jumped by the police. Try hunting some deer in the non-hunting season for food, -- because afterall you're hungry and the meat would do: you'll meet the heavy side of law.

You're seeing things from a libertarian-lens I think. Human society is built on a social contract, that pretty much basically boils down to an agreement of certain rules and guidelines so the collective fares better in the end. It's a thing to avoid a tragedy of the commons. We recognize that the unprivileged are not given the same opportunities as the privileged ones (their children are not going to schools where their peers are supportive/smart, they don't have the right role models, they don't have access to the same resources), and we decide that it is only fair that they receive a little help from the privileged. You can choose to stop paying taxes and in the end be left with a deteriorating society with unable customers... but you don't want that do you? What is so hard to understand about this?

Post reply on HN