Hacker News Reader

Comment by segmondy | Hacker News Reader

You have less time, but you learn to organize and structure your time better. You also realize that if all you do is carry the baby, feed the baby and change diaper you will lose your mind, so you begin to find ways to push out work in 15-30mins increments. At least that's my story. :-D

View on HN

Lucky you. Baby #1 required beyond constant attention, literally like 30hr per day (healthy just needy). Baby #2 is sweet and easygoing, but then there’s 2 of them...

Agreed. We found Baby #1 to at times be a full-time job for two people in the first couple of months.

Down-time is precious precious precious. Either catch up on sleep, or relax as best you can. For me personally, consumption has largely taken over from creation which I am not sure how I feel about but its working so far :-)

You feel OK for now.

There might be depression and increasing anger, once you realise the kid is still needy and your partner is now occupied with #2.

On a more serious note, for me consumption at this point in my life is a vicious cycle that does not make me a happier or better person - yet the circumstances keep pushing me towards it.

I have compassion for your experience having two of my own where one still is difficult after seven years, but I'm here to nitpick and win the pedantry award on your addition of "literally" when it's impossible to take 30 hours per day, as a day is only 24.

Do I get to steal that pedantry award if I point out that two parents can take 48 person-hours a day?

But the baby itself can only get attention for 24 hours per day. I think you need to give that pedantry award back. :P

No. Because why the child can only get attention for 24 hours per day, other tasks primarily focused on the child (buying nappies, cooking baby-friendly meals, washing bottles, etc.) are what Parent #2 is doing while Parent #1 looks after child.

I read it as “required beyond constant attention, literally like 30hr [of attention] per day”, not “required attention beyond constantly, literally for like 30hr per day.” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not a fan of pedantry. Would like to see less of it in the world.

Although I meant my comment figuratively and in abuse of the word “literally”, I now feel compelled to defend it with lame grammar Nazi tactics:

I said the baby requires attention for 30hrs a day. This does not mean it receives that much attention, rather that a prerequisite to it making it through the day is 30 [person-]hours a day, indeed split between a few people. One person entertains, the other washes bottles, etc.

Tbh as a parent of 2 kids I barely have the time to write HN comments, I’m positively surprised how coherent it is in the first place...

You will not win that award. From Merriam Webster:

> 2: in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible

Reply on news.ycombinator.com