You make a good point. At the same time, when he broke his electoral promise to stop foreign interfefence and kidnapped Maduro, his voter base did not turn against him. That seems to have emboldened him to pursue more military actions abroad.
Now let's see how long until he invades Cuba, and how his voters will react.
I wonder what Cuba would look like now if Batista had never been overthrown. That's probably on par with how it would have worked if US meddling were more successful. I can't say I know it would be worse.
Difficult to separate "Cuba is bad because it is badly governed" from "Cuba is bad because it has been heavily sanctioned and no longer gets help from the Soviet Union", really. Too many different variables. Hard to imagine it being worse than Haiti or El Salvador, but also hard to imagine it having free elections (because that would immediately elect an anti-US socialist who would be overthrown again).
I think that was just silly. Nothing actually happened in Greenland. His whole thing is about slowing China down. That explains Venezuela, Iran, and a lot of the price-rising tariffs are explained by wanting to choke Russia's oil and gas revenues, which also has the secondary effect of hitting China.
Somebody, in a conversation of which there will be no record, told him it was a good idea, telling him it would be quick, he would be lauded as a hero, there would be vast mineral riches, etc. This person wanted to break up NATO, but this wasn't part of the sales pitch, I imagine.
Almost everyone's asking the same question regardless of what they think's going on inside Trump's head. The two most coherent answers I've seen are "to soothe his narcissistic injury from being told he can't" and "feels entitled to it because NATO", you will note neither of these was his stated reason, and all of this is still catastrophically poor judgment on his part.
My experience has been exactly that: retirement = uninterrupted weekend.
I can't understand people who can't conceive of a healthy fulfilling life that does not involve work or volunteering. There is more to life than laboring.
My intuition is that it is a lot like sports betting: many laypeople bet for what they hope will happen, rather than trying to beat the market earnestly.
The winners, as you point out, are the house and those with insider knowledge.
In the same way you power through taking care of your kids, not because you enjoy it but because you prioritize their well-being, how likely is it that moms are generally doing the same? It seems to me like men have been historically avoiding this child-rearing responsibility, moreso than women enjoying doing so.
I can tell you that my wife and I are both exhausted of taking care of them 24/7. It is not something we do for funsies.
I think it's natural that someone, whether you believe in biological differences or not, will relatively prefer child-rearing to some other tasks that the family needs to do. Modern society has brainwashed females in particular into believing that equal-childcare should be a thing and they're being robbed if one is "avoiding it" (even your rhetoric exhibits this brainwashing).
It doesn't have to be the wife per-se. When I was building our house, I did most of the carpentry. My wife hated it and did very little of that. My wife hates driving the tractor. My wife hates driving any vehicle. My wife hates doing the plumbing and electric. My wife hates taking care of the pets, so I take care of them. My wife doesn't like practicing self-defense and security for the house, and there are lots of dangerous animals and criminals here, so I handle that. I do not ask my wife to do any of those things except at worst a few small % of the time compared to when I do them. This does not bother me at all because different people prefer different things.
Modern society has brainwashed people to think they need to share child-care and ideally equally. I think this is highly misinformed utopian vision. Voluntary preference based division of labor is smart and helps us all enjoy our lives more. Very rarely do couples have absolute equal relative preference for all the tasks, even if they dislike all of the tasks.
It seems obvious that if you brainwash people to think labor sharing by exchanging tasks is "avoidance" that you increase the chance one of the two parties will just veto any additional children. But if you bring this up then it's straight to whataboutism but women also don't enjoy it which totally misses the mark about relative preference that results in imbalanced childcare, which can be evaluated even when both people dislike a task. Unless you totally reject sexual dimorphism, you should be at least open to the possibility as well that females on average might have higher relative preference for child-rearing than other things, as long as feminists aren't shaming them left and right with artificial impositions that somehow they're being robbed if a man is "avoiding" it by exchanging labor to do something else.
Treating childcare as a chore to be assigned to whichever parent dislikes it the least is not in the best interest of the children. They benefit from having two engaged parents.
It's truly glorious that what's in the "best interest of the children" is whatever matches the stranger outsider's philosophical goals. Of course who could argue with "engagement." That sounds great! The devil of that is in the details, and not necessarily mean anything approaching equal time spent child-rearing. "Interest of the children" spoken by some outsider to try and force others to act towards their philosophy, might be responsible for more atrocities and misdeeds than anything else in history.
Personally I don't take your omniscient approach. I believe the parents are nearly always better position to determine the interests of their children than some random dude on HN, than the outsider trying to impose their goal of their particular vision of "engagement."
I am merely explaining why I take care of my kids. Your reaction suggests that you feel attacked by that, when it is not my intention at all. Where do you think that reaction may be coming from?
You're not saying what your position clearly - instead you're "just asking questions", and it's rubbing some people up the wrong way (including me, sorry). It looks like you're not apologising for that because "it wasn't your intention".
If you're sincerely trying to engage in good faith, I feel you should be apologising for your role in sending it in the wrong direction unintentionally.
To be clear, I'm not taking a position in the debate here, just commenting that the way your engaging is legitimately a bit annoying if you're not aware. The other person getting really angry isn't the best look either, but I'm sure they already know that.
I see, this is all one big misunderstanding and you were only talking about taking care of your kids, not referring to how anyone else might take care of their children. And now I need personal introspection for my psychological weaknesses. You are fucking good at this. I might suggest a career in family therapy or family law, because although this gas lighting won't work on me, they use the same kind of duplicitous rhetoric and you'd fit right in and get it to work on plenty of people.
Without proper statistics we can't know. But I do wonder why is it that if you spend any time on parenting websites you find lots of mothers complaining about deadbeat husbands, and so few fathers complaining about deadbeat wives. Purely anecdotal, but it is very lopsided, and it has made me wonder why is it.
I'm a dad, too. The lopsidedness could come from many places: mothers being drawn to parenting websites (marketing), women feeling more compelled to voice complaints online (if they are stay-at-home-moms, they don't have coworkers to chat with), women actually getting treated unfairly (very true... patriarchy), etc.
I've heard this from many moms, "My husband does so little in terms of housework, childcare, play and mental load, that it is actually easier when he is out of the house; when he is home, I essentially have to take care of an additional child." I even know some moms that organize playdates for their husband, as in ONLY the husbands, so that that the husbands are out of the house.
On the other hand, I know of two separate marriages that fell apart because the husband worked, did all the child care and housework, while the mom stayed home and doomscrolled. After a few years of no improvement, divorce. Of course many things could be at play here... screen addiction, post-partum depression, etc.
Raising kids is complex, time-consuming, hard, and amazing. It takes a lot of energy, people, and love. I always try to assume people are doing their best, though sometimes even that's tough.
You can see why men don't share often. The women get excuses (addiction, post partum, etc) and it's naturally assumed that men are dead beats. Probably not your intention but as one of those divorced dads I can tell you the bias is overwhelming.
It depends on the site but when I was a SAHD, I found many of those parenting sites were not welcoming to dads, even dads doing the exact same work as the moms. Moms there wanted a place to vent about their husbands and men who were pulling their fair share or were handling most of the parent duties simply weren't allowed.
This, it's well known that women want to vent and men want to fix the issue. This difference in communication and perspective has been supported in various research.
Yeah, seriously. Anyone with some experience in life understands that men and women are (on average) wired very differently, and this is one of the ways.
It seems like a safe guess that very few of the moms complaining about their partners on r/parenting are also married to the dads who are posting on r/daddit.
It's like how /r/steak is just dudes posting steak pictures, and there is some new cooking sub where it's just women posting food pictures and complaining about their significant others. Women be complaining.
> there is some new cooking sub where it's just women posting food pictures and complaining about their significant others
If you are referring to /r/girldinnerdiaries, that is not a cooking sub, nor is it intended to be. The whole point is pairing a photo of dinner with the situation and mood of the photographer.
It's right there in the name: Girl Dinner Diaries.
I'm not sure how serious you are about the dismissive "women be complaining" comment. A big part of your perception may be that women have more to 'complain' about; society is measurably unfair for women. Another part could be that when women voice their struggles it is called "complaining," and when men voice their struggles they are "being serious." Also, men get shot down for showing vulnerability and seeking support, so their struggles are internal. And this isn't always good for mental health.
My comment was descriptive, not normative. I’m not ascribing moral valence to it, just stating what’s happening and speculating why. For example, men probably complain less because men get shot down for showing vulnerability in public settings like online forums. Women probably complain more in public because they get sympathy. Whether one is good, or one is more mentally healthy, I don’t think either is healthier or unhealthier, but I don’t particularly care.
Being a deadbeat is defined as not paying. It's not about caregiving. These roles may not be equally distributed by gender, but then why is there not as much complaining by men about women not being equal partners financially? It's has to do with bias.
You can also find that much of the research about household duties is biased against the type of work that men have traditionally done (eg excluding yard work, maintenance, etc).
> But I do wonder why is it that if you spend any time on parenting websites you find lots of mothers complaining about deadbeat husbands, and so few fathers complaining about deadbeat wives.
My ex wife does this. I take my issues with her to a therapist (instead of online forums). FWIW I have always been more present than her in our child’s life and certainly pay a lot more too. One data point, but it’s in the population you’re referring to.
Some people want sympathy at the expense of their partner’s reputation.
Just to be clear: this was said by Bryan Catanzaro, the VP of applied deep learning at Nvidia. It is not generalizable to workers using AI tools on their day-to-day work.
A few teams like his are notorious for requiring a ton of computation as they try out different novel approaches, particularly in the context of training rather than inference.
Bryan will sometimes comment on HN, so we may get lucky.
It's unclear what he means so it would he good to clarify. Neither the Axios article nor this one provide the details.
> For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees," Bryan Catanzaro, vice president of applied deep learning at Nvidia, told Axios
He me means they spend more on in house GPUs then employees because of experiments and research thats one thing.
If he means they are running up an OpenAI/Anthropic API bill on coding agents that would be surprising.
Knowing what his team does, I am quite confident that it is the former.
Even years ago Nvidia gave their engineers generous access to some of their own internal GPU farms, so that they could run all sorts of different experiments for software and hardware features. You can look into his team's publications, if you want to learn more about the sort of thing they do.
Now let's see how long until he invades Cuba, and how his voters will react.
reply