No one travels with babies for fun, visiting my terminally Ill mother over the several years of her decline was indeed a nightmare with young children, we would not have put ourselves through that otherwise.

People do travel with babies for fun and there’s nothing wrong with that! It is possible to have a good time traveling with young kids, even a baby.

Yep did 2 times NZ <> Europe with 2 and 3 kids. It's a piece of cake IMO.

Much harder to keep them entertained them at home lol.

> No one travels with babies for fun

I have encountered this many times flying so it’s not “no one”. It’s usually younger couples who either don’t know what they are getting into or just have the energy to deal with it.

On international flights from the US it’s common to hear the reason is to bring the baby to see extended family.

That’s not what the idiom “don’t do x for fun” is about.

The expression means that X is the best of unpalatable options to accomplish something else, where X is taken in a literal and narrow sense.

People don’t fly with babies for fun. They do it because visiting grandparents is fun, and driving isn’t a good option. Or, if it involves a trip across the ocean, the alternative would be sailing.

Well that’s idiotic. Approximately nobody “flies for fun” under that tortured definition.

It’s a common idiom. And idioms are often weird. But that is exactly the point.

> Approximately nobody “flies for fun” under that tortured definition.

Yes. That is exactly how it’s supposed to be used. The vast majority of people do not enjoy the airport/airline experience and were there any other reasonable way to get where they are going they would probably take it. They are not doing it because it is fun, they are doing it because they have to.

Yes but seeing extended family is not "for fun". Family is important.

agree, and extend... ask any parent if taking small kids anywhere is a "vacation"

there is literally no such thing.

its like people who say that parental leave is a vacation. wildly miss informed and completely tone def.

That’s not correct. I took my small children on vacations to grandparents all the time. Taking the kids to any extended family that can help watch them is a vacation. The best vacations you can have involve just taking kids to see family.

i mean "vacation" in the sense that people use the term to mean "a break from work"

small kids are always lots of work and this its pretty hard to have a vacation.

i agree that visiting fam is the best, partly bc they will help with the kids :)

Group think is highly unlikely to provide new discoveries.

Well, I mean, neither is non-group think.

That's the issue. No one can really systematize "discovery".

How many "group thinkers", "creatives", "non-group thinkers", "nihilists", "anarchists", "contemplatives" in the last - say, 500 years, 5000 years, whatever - have been occasioned by the fall of an Apple? Or the fall of a branch? Or a leaf? Or what have you?

Why did it spark a new flame in the mind of Newton? Science can't explain. If we could, we'd teach everyone to be that sort of contemplative.

I assume the similarity to the word Prion is intentional.

Peon, I think

You're arguing US imperialism is the best interest for the whole world. It was definitely after WW2 considering the alternative but the only way to keep the US honest is a little friendly competition.

> You're arguing US imperialism is the best interest for the whole world

Where? Are you replying to the right message?

You may be assuming the author of the comment you’re replying to believes that what is in the best interest of the US is also in the best interest of Europe and the world.

Don't bother with complexity metrics just use claude code to work on a code base with high coupling and low cohesion.

Vapid

It was purely self interest don't piss off people so that regulators break our monopoly. Once the monopoly was challenged it became less important.

This is essentially the Trolley Problem.

No it's just harder to accurately tax each and every form of wealth so we proxy it by taxing income.

Syria, Libya, Kosovo probably more I am just naming the ones off the top of my head.

"started by" here was used to indicate that there was not already a shooting war in progress.

If you want to get technical, the US hasn't been involved in a war since WW2. See how annoying that is?

No more wars means stop putting Americans at risk to kill foreigners.

If you're going to get technical, you need to pick apart the AUMF for Iraq.

In any case, I personally don't think the US interventions in Bosnia or Haiti rose to the level of the colloquial understanding of "no more wars." This is to the extent that the public of 2024 was even broadly aware of those interventions.

Major point is this: in the last 50 years, every GOP president has started a trillion-dollar boondoggle in the Middle East that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths or more (count is still running in Iran, which the President credibly threatens to nuke every other week). Democratic presidents have initiated e.g. peacekeeping missions or the like with definite endpoints and missions. "Both sides" elides all of this as if they are the remotely equivalent.

(I'm on record suggesting that the US military should be reduced to a footprint necessary to defend only the US states and not foreign interests. 75%+ cuts in budget as a start. 11 carrier battle groups to ~4, two per coast. etc.)

> Democratic presidents have initiated e.g. peacekeeping missions or the like with definite endpoints and missions.

You can play word games all you want, this is what people care about:

https://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/app/summaryData/deaths/byYear...

(Server not found)