It’s rough at first but you will learn the baby’s rhythms and preferences. If you track their sleep and wake up times (I did it the old fashioned way in a notebook) you’ll see a pattern emerge pretty quickly, and then it gets easier because you will figure out how to work with it.
Every baby is different so most of the advice you find won’t work, but if you try enough things you’ll eventually find something that works consistently. Or you might just luck out and get a good sleeper.
The big tip I have for you is to understand wake windows. Babies can get too tired to sleep(!) so you need to make sure to put them to sleep roughly 1-1.5 hours after they last wake up.
Follow a routine every day. I posted elsewhere in this thread what worked for us. It was tough when they were infants because neither of ours slept through night till about 2. The routine saved us.
try co-sleeping, and also a comfortable baby-carrier that allows you to carry the baby around while keeping your hands free so you can work. the most difficult from babies not sleeping is that they are not supposed to sleep alone. see attachment theory. the other advice, if you can follow it, is to sleep yourself every time the baby sleeps. again, co-sleeping makes that easier.
I dunno, we found that our kid slept slightly better moved to his own room at 5 or 6 months old. Although that meant maybe 4 wakings rather than 5. Now he's nearly three years old and sleeps solidly for 10 or 11 hours. My guess is that food and metabolism have a big part to play.
If their technology choices are holding them back it just means the product becomes more turbulent as they desperately thrash for a way to make more money.
A protocol isn't a good enough reason for investors not getting their payday. They'll just force aggressive and reckless changes to see a return.
The only way this kind of thing works is if profit isn't in the equation, or the easiest path to profit lines up with what's best for the customers.
This is why I'm skeptical about bluesky in general. Despite the protocol, it's incredibly centralised. If they wanted to make money it won't be long before they start putting up the walls around their garden. The same thing applied here as well, if investors demand a return the open protocol usage will shrink or become less open.
I'm unpersuaded by the assertion that closing the source is an effective security bulwark.
From that page:
> Today, AI can be pointed at an open source codebase and systematically scan it for vulnerabilities.
Yeah, and AI can also be pointed at closed source as soon as that source leaks. The threat has increased for both open and closed source in roughly the same amount.
In fact, open source benefits from white hat scanning for vulnerabilities, while closed source does not. So when there's a vuln in open source, there will likely be a shorter window between when it is known by attackers and when authors are alerted.
The HN discussion on the announcement is just 90% posts of the theme "if a student can brute force your FOSS for $100, they can do you proprietary code for $200" and "if it's that cheap to find exploits, why don't you just do it yourself before pushing the code to prod?"
I believe that the reason the chose to close the source is just security theater to demonstrate to investors and clients. "Look at all these FOSS projects getting pwned, that's why you can trust us, because we're not FOSS". There is, of course, probably a negative correlation between closing source and security. I'd argue that the most secure operating systems, used in fintech, health, government, etc, got to be so secure specifically by allowing tens or hundreds of thousands of people to poke at their code and then allowing thousands or tens of thousands of people to fix said vulns pro bono.
I'd be interested to see an estimation of the financial value of the volunteer work on say the linux or various bsd kernels. Imagine the cost of PAYING to produce the modern linux kernel. Millions and possibly billions of dollars just assuming average SWE compensation rates, I'd wager.
Too bad cal.com is too short sighted to appreciate volunteers.
I think it's more prosaic, OSS is great for building a userbase but not great at generating revenue. So just wave the OSS flag while you build a userbase, then pull out whichever flimsy excuse seems workable at the time when you want to start step two of your enshittification plan.
Not only are they good at reading and writing machine code now, they are actively being used to turn video game cartridge dumps back into open source code the community can then compile for modern platforms.
If you believe they really did it for security, I have a very nice bridge to sell you for an extremely low price ...
Look, tech companies lie all the time to make their bad decisions sound less bad. Simple example: almost every "AI made us more efficient" announcement is really just a company making (unpopular) layoffs, but trying to brand them as being part of an "efficiency effort".
I'd bet $100 this company just wants to go closed source for business reasons, and (just like with the layoffs masquerading as "AI efficiency") AI is being used as the scapegoat.
Seems like a nice way to raise a bit of money for the foundation, and the problem of children needing email addresses is a real one. I just don't understand how reserving an email address years before they need it actually improves their privacy.
Is this really just a case of reserving an address if your child has a common first name and last name, without having to keep the address active?
Could you elaborate on the issues with their S3 compatible storage? I've been considering it and haven't seen too many issues in my testing, beyond the lack of identity control.
I cannot say much about the quality, but I am also testing around with it at the moment. As for the identity control, you may be able to achieve this with a few extra steps, if you set up bucket policies for the credentials. For this, it would be a bit cleaner to move the storage box to a project of its own.
Absolutely not, that would prevent profits to big political donors. Instead we should ban bash oneliners, or ID gate them. No loops or pipes (etc) unless you've handed over government issued ID.
Google pay Mozilla hundreds of millions of dollars each year to place Google as the default browser. It's by far their biggest income stream. In 2023 it was reported as 75% of their revenue.
There's no world in which 75% of your revenue coming from Google doesn't influence what you do. Even if it's not the main driver of all decisions, pissing off Google is a huge risk for them.
If the plaintiff pays 500 million to the judge and the defendant goes to jail, there's no proof that the judge wouldn't have made the same decision without the 500 million. If you're a fool, you'll sneer and ask "Where's the proof?"
Well if you bring up law how about: innocent until proven guilty?
Google is not bribing Mozilla...they probably keep them alive to avoid all kinds of monopoly lawsuits. With their market share however, you would need more prove to justify further conspiracies...
Great for shareholders, terrible for consumers. This is what we get when we allow rampant consolidation and throw out the idea of regulated competition.
It's not like there's really any competition anyway. Prices are going up, I can't switch from Netflix to HBO, because the content is available across platforms.
If Netflix just moves the HBO content to Netflix then that's one subscription less for a lot of people, so even if Netflix subscription goes up, many will still save money.
There is more competition than ever. That is why these legacy companies are being bought and sold.
Amazon/Apple/Comcast/Disney/Netflix/Oracle are all in the business of selling video, plus they are competing for attention with Youtube/Tiktok/Reddit/HN/etc.
There is also Sony and Lionsgate and A24 not selling direct to customers.
At university in the UK it's almost always maximums rather than minimums. It's damn hard as well, you never get the word count you actually need to fully cover the subject and always end up desperately counting those last few as you trim it down. My university would cap your grade if you went over the count by a certain % as well.
I do think it made me better at writing though, and it certainly made me aware of how much people are actually willing to read.
I've been on a similar journey this past month, although it sounds like mine went a little more successfully. I've managed to get a repo setup which contains a nix flake with nix-darwin configuration, and it also calls into some home-manager modules which I also use on a linux device as well. I do agree, the nix language isn't particularly to my taste either.
I know you're hoping to go from first principals but I'm happy to share the repo if you want (email in my profile).
Aside from that, what issues did you run into? I'm keen to know if I've just not gone deep enough and will soon hit something.
reply