For the best experience on desktop, install the Chrome extension to track your reading on news.ycombinator.com
Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | history | more tcbasche's commentsregister

Infant mortality was also astronomical in pre-history.


I would say it's considered heretical elsewhere in the world too, because of the vastly increased risk of SIDS.

It seems selfish to me to put that kind of risk on your own kid.


My understanding is that essentially all of the risk of cosleeping comes from parents who are one or more of morbidly obese, alcoholic or drug abusers. Got sources that say otherwise?

Here's one (small) study that says cosleeping is safer that an separate room:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1440-1754.2007...


It seems like your mind is already made up, but in any case:

https://rednose.org.au/article/Co-sleeping_with_your_baby (Australian non-profit raising awareness against SIDS)

https://raisingchildren.net.au/newborns/sleep/where-your-bab... (Australian government-based parenting resources)

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/baby/caring-for-a-newborn/redu... (UK Health service)

It's all official health advice from government bodies which say it's unsafe regardless of the parents situation.

I've found though this debate is similar to the "anti-vax" one, in that most people are quite emotional about it regardless of evidence, and can't generally be persuaded.


The current recommendation where I live is to sleep with the baby in the same room but in their own bassinet or crib for the first six months. After six months they can move to a separate room. So it is possibly the case that co-sleeping is safer than a separate room at that age but more dangerous than same room, separate beds.


I quit somewhere after a week. Basically it wasn’t what was advertised (job was supposed to be Python backend but was mainly maintaining Ansible scripts) and the turnover on the team was astonishing. The pair that interviewed me had both quit by the time I joined and nobody there at the time I joined knew even what the point of the project was.


Probably, the upshot is I know to not bother with whatever is being plugged


Been there. It's time to find a more challenging role!


It's the classic HN echo chamber. It's the same people that say nobody uses Amazon anymore, Google search doesn't work, everybody codes in Clojure now etc. etc.


I'm sure if they just explain it like that, it'll bode well


>- don't choose lazy pluralization - eg instead of `names/name`, use `nameList/nameItem`

Isn't this just extra noise? If the type of the variable is an Array wouldn't `nameArray` be superfluous? Worse still is if the type changes but the name stays the same.

I get the advice is probably Javascript specific, but even in a Typescript world it doesn't make much sense to me to do this kind of type-in-name encoding.


Even in typed languages `names` and `name` are too similar to slow code reading down.


Exactly this. In many languages the compiler will help you.

But this has bitten me in Ruby, JavaScript and PHP several times. Runtime errors and downtime. Most recent: autocompled some updatedCartsItems when it had to be UpdatedCartItems. Both were used in the same class. Had they be named sensible, like CartListWithUpdatedItems and UpdatedItemList or something better, I'd have saved myself hours of WTFing through CI logs.


Disagree, but in that case wouldn't `nameList` and `name` be best?


I suppose there's not many other ways to incentivise people in America other than offering them money. Seems like simply informing for the overall benefit of society wouldn't be incentive enough ...


>I suppose there's not many other ways to incentivise people in America other than offering them money

that about sums up the problem for Americans and the world have in general.


The problem is about how it is enforced. Vigilante-type crowd sourcing to enforce laws isn't the right way to go about this.


> Vigilante-type crowd sourcing

...is a contradiction in terms. People who report things to the responsible authorities rather than taking violent enforcement action themselves are engaging in exactly the behavior vigilanteism is defined in opposition to.


Do you really think citizens policing each other is a good way to enforce laws?

This is going to get ugly real fast. It creates division and disharmony in a community. No wonder people are getting angry about this.

Read history.


> Do you really think citizens policing each other is a good way to enforce laws?

Irrelevant, because this isn't citizens policing each other. (Though, I will note in regard to your question that the alternative of having a distinct subculture separate from normal citizens that inevitably views themselves aligned against the citizenry policing the citizenry is far worse than citizens policing each other, but yet that's what we mostly do.)

> This is going to get ugly real fast. It creates division and disharmony in a community

Lawbreaking creates division and disharmony in a community.

> Read history.

I’ve read quite a bit of it; but I disagree with your implicit analysis, which attributes to a method of enforcement that most modern societies have chosen for some laws problems that stem not from that source but from the particular laws which certain repressive societies enforced using that and other methods.


Worst case is a junior who has read all the books but done none of the work so they end up parroting the talking points without being able to back them up or explain why.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search:

HN For You