We've had 3 and none of them "slept through the night" until about 8 months, at least. Please note that there's a bit of misconception about what "sleep through the night means", so by that I mean 5 hours straight. That seems to be what people mean around here when they say that. Now I do have friends whose kids slept through the night from the moment they brought them home from the hospital. I also have friends whose kids cried all the time if you put them down for 2 minutes and wouldn't sleep for more than an hour at a time for over a year. They had another kid that slept normally. Checked all the usual suspects like allergies, lactose intolerance, rashes, etc., and couldn't find a reason. The answer the doctors give is "colic", which just means "cries a lot".
It's pretty easy to think you're doing something right, and then you have another kid and realize you were just lucky. That's basically what happened with us - 2nd kid out of 3 was a bad sleeper.
"But well-balanced, emotionally developed adults know better."
Two things - first, in our case we're both professionals and used to being good communicators under pressure, and we both *sometimes* get to the point where we say something we regret (or should regret). It's a lot of stress. Secondly, the whole point of this story is that this kind of stuff messes with you, and even messes with your brain. Having kids may make you less of an "emotionally developed adult." Knowing better is different from actually being better when you're in an emotional state, sleep deprived, and stressed out.
There's this reality show called "The Amazing Race." Teams of two people race around the world for prizes. Typically these teams are siblings, spouses, parent/children or significant others. Sometimes when you're watching you wonder, "Why are you two together? Do you even like each other?" The fact is, when you take two people and put them under a lot of stress it puts a lot of strain on the relationship.
All the moms around here call it "baby brain." The memory thing that most moms (and dads) experience just has to be sleep deprivation. When I did basic training they cut us back to 5 hours of sleep a night for weeks, but that was to show us that we could still function on that little sleep. When I became a father, I was getting two sessions of about 2 to 2.5 hours of sleep per night, for months. The latter was definitely much worse and affects everything - mood, work, and relationships. The mom also has (a) many more social pressures to be the "perfect" mom - (thanks Facebook), (b) tons of weird hormone changes going on, (c) physical trauma from the birth, (d) a weird combination of stress and mind numbing boredom, and (e) whatever this "baby brain" thing is. It absolutely sucks for her (and sometimes seems to manifest as anger), so she's going to take all that shit out on someone, and as the father you're the only one that's handy, so you get to grin and bear it. Over the course of several years things do improve a lot. It never goes back to the way things were though - sometimes too many things get said, too much animosity and frustration build up. People can hold grudges for a long time.
Nobody can really be prepared for being a parent. Even if you're told all the stuff to expect, it doesn't sink in until you're actually in the situation, and at that point there's nothing you can do but take a deep breath and do your best.
The only argument that can support a hate speech law is one that blocks "incitement of violence" similar to the idea that shouting fire in a crowded theater is an action you took to harm people, not expressing an idea. If the law blocks someone from saying "I hate Christian/Muslim people" then the law is wrong and over-reaching - that should be covered under freedom of speech and freedom of expression. If the law stops you from saying, "Join with me! Let's go round up Christians/Muslims and string them up!" then the law is reasonable and justified.
The fact is that an ad company isn't a government organization and can make whatever rules about content that they want. It doesn't make or enforce laws. If they want to use a "3rd party" blah blah blah, then that's their choice.
I know 2.5 million seems like a lot, but I visited what seems like a relatively small family-run bee operation on the weekend who claimed they had over 24 million bees. According to numbers I can dig up quickly, 2.5 million bees is about 50 colonies out of 2.5 million colonies in the US.
It's definitely a problem, but it's a bit more reasonable to talk about how many colonies were destroyed rather than number of bees, since that's how other statistics are tracked.
All of these technologies are pretty exciting, but there are a lot of disruptive things in there, particularly as it relates to displacing workers' jobs. The first item on the list is going to cause a huge shift as truck, taxis and bus drivers all start losing jobs en masse. None of them are likely to be happy about having to retrain for new, more difficult work (any more than buggy whip manufacturers were) and most will likely just be added to the millions of people disenfranchised with the new economy. This is a dangerous situation. What good is a grand new economy if there's nothing in it that I can see myself getting paid to do?
For a while I was wondering if we'd see a resurgence of co-operatives, where a community gets together and builds their own little economy, with a small farm and some skilled trades people. You'd at least be able to live a reasonably happy life. Unfortunately I can't see that happening. How would that community pay the ever-increasing land use fees such as tax, etc.? That land becomes more and more valuable to the people who have money, and they can just force the have-nots off the land.
Our business is run on trust. We trust you will pay in advance.