FL Studio has advanced a long way since it first came out. The software professionals are using today is nothing like it was 00's. The name at the time "FruityLoops" also didn't help its image as a pro tool.
From what I've seen it's the youngest generation who are most anti-AI slop at the moment. I don't see that changing. People like originality and authenticity. AI is not either of those and never will be. That's not to say the biggest pop stars in the world won't be using it - but they're inauthentic anyway.
It can be both and I don't know how much I would trust the USG as the canary in the coal mine given their technical readiness typically seems low across most institutions in that they are probably more exposed because they haven't shored up their systems.
As shitty as the government approach is here we can't keep glossing over the fact that a significant part of the web is now incredibly dependent on Cloudflare and no matter how many times we face issues with huge consequences nobody seems to care.
My one concern with this is the risk of eventual burn out + mental health issues which will have its own impact on the children. Full time career + very present parent during the weekdays might just not be possible. WFH definitely helps make it significantly more possible though.
Also worth not forgetting that in most cases the fathers of millennials were a hell of a lot more present and emotionally available than their fathers etc. I'm sure we'll make plenty of our own mistakes that our children will try to avoid when their turn comes.
Those household structures aren'tpopular, they're just common when women have no other options. I have nothing against those structures, they work great for some families. But the reality is that they often force the wife into becoming an unpaid caregiver for her in-laws (who constantly criticize how she runs the household).
I don't really understand this mindset that being at home and raising your kids is only something you do when forced to. For my family, if we had more options -- ie, more money -- then both of us would be stay-at-home parents. It's much more of a joy than going to work.
Your comment's framing makes no sense to me. My wife pushed for me to go into engineering instead of academia so she could stay home and we could be comfortable. We're married. We have kids. The entire point is we're not independent. That's what married literally means. Unioned. Joined. There is no her and me. There is us.
Why would you need or even want to be independent? Why would you plan to form a family while keeping your options open/having one foot out the door?
Plenty of women (and men) end up in relationships they hate, and if they have no independence they are pretty much fucked. They have no way to escape. Women having options makes a huge difference.
What you are describing is pretty much ideal for a lot of people, but it's not what everybody gets.
How does this happen though? It's not like you wake up one day, look around and see you've started life in the middle, you're married and have kids, and you hate your spouse. Did your spouse have a stroke and undergo some massive personality change or something?
Assuming you want a family, your very top priority when evaluating someone for dating from the very beginning should be whether that person would make a good spouse and help you to form that family. Otherwise what are you even doing? Someone who can't commit is its own red flag for that purpose. If you have kids, that's it. You're in it. You need to be committed.
And having a job doesn't mean you're independent of your spouse anyway. If one of us died or we split, it'd be absolutely devastating to our family regardless of the money (e.g. if life insurance/social security covered everything). I would be hugely screwed trying to raise the kids without her, job notwithstanding.
I think the simple fact of the matter is that most people have absolutely no clue what they’re doing when it comes to relationships, and think their social media hot takes are indicative of what they ought to want.
This is on top of societal pressures. In more liberal parts of the US (and the world) it's accepted that you will take your time finding a partner, or even stay single if you want. In more conservative societies the expectation that you will marry young and start popping out kids is intense.
I think it goes both ways. I moved from a liberal to a conservative area. Maybe there are people shaming those who don't pop out kids, but more so I I've noticed it's that they're not shamed if they want to just let loose to their instincts and get impregnated as an 18-year-old and yield to their natural desires and interests. In a liberal city a 18 year old popping out a kid and is often viewed as a pariah.
I mean people do not naturally grow up wanting to stare at a desk/PC all day deciding to become a scientist or a doctor and study a bunch of shit that his almost no relation to what humans were adapted for for millions of years. Our evolutionary programming was to bang, have kids, and roam the jungle and grab the resources and satisfy our short brutish lives.
Now the fact that something is evolutionarily natural or historically normal doesn't mean it is good or right. But just letting loose on that particular natural instinct tends to be more accepted in conservative societies while in the city or liberal areas teenage (past age of consent) pregnancy is seen maybe more of something they will shame you for. You're supposed to do a pretty unnatural thing of staring at books until you're 22 or 26 and then stare at a computer screen so you can get a good job to pay a gazillion dollars for childcare delivered by minimum wage workers. You're supposed to take your time and maybe about the time your biological clock has run out, you pay $20,000 for IVF and you do a speedrun.
So which is a greater imposition of societal pressure? I won't claim conservative societies don't exhibit more social pressure than liberal ones. But on this point, it's not clear to me the conservative one is doing the greater of the pressuring.
We don't have a trust fund, of course, which is why I'm working to earn an income.
My wife currently stays home with the kids, although that might change down the road. She doesn't have any trust fund or inheritance either, of course.
However, although I'm earning the money, it's 100% a shared resource. It goes into a shared account. I'm pretty sure that's a legal necessity since we're married, but it's how we'd choose to do it anyway. There's no division between my finances and hers.
We married each other to be a team together forever, but even if we separated, our finances would be divided in half between us. If we'd wanted to fend for ourselves, we wouldn't have gotten married, and certainly wouldn't have had kids.
She feels sorry for me having to go to work every day, but it's a logical division of labor because I have much higher earning prospects.
I say this because I want to understand your definition; are we a traditional household in your view?
In the context of the original comment by pkaler, and subsequent replies from basswood, mschuster91, purplerabbit, and nradov, I understood "trad household structures" to be one where the man in a husband/wife relationship sells his labor to someone else and the woman does not.
So yes, but, I would note that there is probably a difference (for the purposes of this conversation) between the following:
A couple that earns median income per year and still chooses to have only one income earning spouse specifically so the other spouse can spend more time with the kids, whilst making significant sacrifices in other aspects of life such as school district, kids' activities, vacations, material goods, etc.
And a couple where one earns significantly above median income and can afford to have only one income earning spouse without making significant sacrifices.
In the context of the entire chain of comments, I would assume purplerabbit was referring to the first type of couple, who choose to forego many of life's luxuries in favor of child rearing, and that is the type of "household structure" that nradov was saying is not popular, except "when women have no other options" (i.e. women's rights allowing them to be financially independent).
>However, although I'm earning the money, it's 100% a shared resource. It goes into a shared account. I'm pretty sure that's a legal necessity since we're married, but it's how we'd choose to do it anyway. There's no division between my finances and hers.
There isn't in my marriage either, but I would still advise my wife to maintain her ability to earn income in case I were to go crazy, lose my job, or some other risk. And I would advise my daughter of the same.
For what it's worth, we're the first type, which is why my wife will probably join the workforce in a few years too, for want of money. But while the kids are young she thinks it's really important to stay home with them, even if it means living in a cramped basement for now.
But the point is, we both would prefer to be home with the children, and it's only for want of money that either (or both) of us would work. The privilege is being able to stay home; the sad reality is having to work at the office to earn a living.
It just strikes me (and her too) that the conversation around this issue is framed so backwards, as though everyone deeply wants to spend their waking days at an office desk / driving an Uber / etc, whereas spending time with your children is a miserable burden that people only do if forced it with no other options. I get that might be the case for some people, especially if they hate their family or have an abusive partner, but to me it's an alien mindset. Work is the abusive partner that we can't escape from, but tolerate for the kids.
>as though everyone deeply wants to spend their waking days at an office desk / driving an Uber / etc,
I don't think this is it, which is why I brought up a trust fund in one of my previous comments.
This comes down to personal risk tolerances, but it seems evident that many people feel that volatility in job markets and shrinking economic opportunities mean that there is a sufficient gain in security of housing/food/energy/healthcare/future economic opportunities such that it can be worth a sacrifice in spending time with children.
My parents moved to the US, along with their extended families from a developing country, and they almost all spent 24/7 working to develop businesses or whatever to ensure the kids had more opportunity than them. And they succeeded, most of my cousins do very well for themselves, and they can have a spouse that stays at home without decreasing their kids' future chances, but some don't (perhaps because their parents ended up in a stagnant metro rather than a growing one, that one factor is the single biggest difference in trajectories in my family).
It is easier than ever to be outcompeted by someone else around the world, so there is kind of an up or out situation for those that aim for maintaining a certain quality of life. It's also fine to opt out of that rat race, but from my perspective, the biggest cost is less access to healthcare.
I would note that the whole one spouse spending time with kids thing is probably a post world war 2 American/British phenomenon. Even in village life in developing countries, both the husband and wife are out working in factories or fields while grandparents who can't work anymore or older siblings and cousins are taking care of the kids. It's a grind for most people, most of the time.
Your framing makes perfect sense to me, and I agree with it. It comes down to economic forces requiring parents to sacrifice time at home with their children.
In this framing, being able to have a stay-at-home parent is a privilege to be treasured. Not everyone can manage it, which is a tragedy.
Of course, for those who don't want to be a parent and prefer their job, that's fine too. Some people, whether men or women, just yearn for the mines. I wouldn't say that any such people should be pressured to be a stay at home parent. Hopefully they can be happily childless, or else partner with someone who enjoys raising children, or else get support from grandparents or the community.
What I simply object to is a framing that views being a "traditional" stay at home parent as an intrinsically miserable or undesirable role, when it's what so many of us factory workers wish we could do ourselves but can't afford to. When a (loving, non-abusive) couple can afford to have one parent stay at home, my wife and I both view that stay-at-home parent as the lucky one.
My wife self-reports as very happy and talks a lot about how proud she is of the decision. I'll acknowledge that we are privileged in terms of support -- 3 relative families within 30 minutes and most people in a 100 meter radius attend the same church. Even in our setup, however, we really wish we could swing a multi-generational setup and have grandparents around all the time.
Women are just as responsible for enforcing traditions as men are. You could just as easily argue that men are the ones with less choice; after all, it is much more socially acceptable for a woman to work than for a man to be a stay at home dad.
It's also false that a stay at home has essentially resigned themselves to ruin in the event of divorce/disagreement. Someone who has been a stay at home long enough to be unemployable, in the vast majority of states, will be rewarded with alimony and if applicable child support to the point they will easily be taking about 50% of the spouse's salary for long enough to retrain.
Of course the spouse has the risk the other ex-spouse will sabotage themselves and end their incomes to avoid paying the order, at which point they may be thrown into prison if they are found. But are they worse off than the employee who can be fired at a moment's notice and go broke by a boss who isn't sabotaging himself at all and bound by no such judicial order? Maybe so, but it's not by some gigantic long shot.
Severely missing the point here. It’s about being criticised and not recognised while doing so. It’s about lack of choice – and no, when you’re 25, you don’t know what this does to you over time. And when you finally do, it’s too late, you’re not going to run away with your kids and no job.
Except "trad" households (full time SAHM in a nuclear home) are not traditional. Tradition is not something only the upper-middle class in a post-war boom attained for a short period of time.
Throughout human history, it was rare for only two people to raise a child, let alone one. Or for women to not bring money into the home.
Like many "trad" trends, it's based more on advertising and television than history.
At the very least, you need a whole society of aunts and uncles and grandparents and cousins, and deep friends to truly do any kind of traditional family structure in the traditional way. Otherwise it's just emulating an extremely narrow portion of the trad that didn't exactly exist in the first place.
> At the very least, you need a whole society of aunts and uncles and grandparents and cousins, and deep friends to truly do any kind of traditional family structure in the traditional way.
"It takes a village to raise a child" was meant literally. However, the glory of capitalism required people to move to where the jobs were, turning that millennia-old principle upside down ever since industrialization. And car culture was the ultimate fatal blow, when children can't even walk their own neighborhood any more.
I remember when Hillary Clinton said "it takes a village to raise a child" and she was mocked by conservatives and accused of undermining parental rights and wanting governments to control families.
And when BLM made it part of their charter to encourage community support for children beyond the typical nuclear unit they were accused of a radical Marxist agenda to "destroy families."
For some reason the very concept of extended families and community engenders deep anger and hostility from some Americans, and that's odd for a nation of immigrants considering how common the "whole society of aunts and uncles and grandparents and cousins" is in the rest of the world.
> For some reason the very concept of extended families and community engenders deep anger and hostility from some Americans
I think because excessive individualism plays into the hands of large companies. There is an individualist culture that has naturally grown over time in the US, but it has also been pushed by big corporations because if you can't depend on your neighbors and extended family, you need to spend money to fill the gaps.
But when leftists says things like community support, it doesn't bring up images of traditional villages and extended families. It brings up images of communists saying things like abolish the family. Naturally, due to their history.
It's not like leftists are known for their traditional family values now or then, so why should it be taken that way?
Yes, when you intentionally take what leftists say in bad faith and stereotype them negatively, then the bad faith interpretation and negative stereotypes make sense. But normal people don't hear "communism" when leftists say "community support."
Also given how many people espousing "traditional family values" among the right turn out to be abusers, pedophiles, rapists, deadbeats, etc, what you might consider "traditional" values don't actually mapped to the left-right political axis at all.
And I assume you didn't bother reading my comment or this thread very hard and just wanted to dunk on the left, but the American nuclear family isn't "traditional family values" to begin with.
>> even if they're on vacation, they have a right to record something/everything and someone/everyone around them in public
Big assumption here that the place you're on vacation doesn't have different laws. You may have absolutely no right to record "everything and everyone" around you.
They also use them to flag people who've been previously banned and the systems work across venues. The idea that verification in the real world is cursory is not accurate.
The vast majority of places I frequent do not even have a person at the door checking IDs. If the bar tender/server thinks you look young, they ask for ID. I clearly do not look to be too young, so there's that. The last place I went to with an actual scanner was more of a nightclub that had a cover charge.
There's a fine line between night clubs and bars (and a venue can operate as both, depending on the night).
Functioning as a bar where people come in, drink and eat - generally not checking ID's at the door.
Functioning as a night club, generally checking ID's at the door. Almost no places I've been to scan ID's. I'm also middle aged and not going to night clubs hardly ever. Pretty much just a couple concerts a year in the big city. Those venues scan ID's.
sure, but it is what it is. the places with scanners may be more sophisticated than i give them credit, but you cannot deny there are places that do not card every person every time you visit. online places will never not know it was you. if you cannot see the differences, then you're just deliberately being obstinate about it
>> Waymo and other taxi services are inherently bad for cyclists compared to increasing transit utilisation and providing more ways to walk and cycle that feel and are safe.
This is nonsense. Even in places with great public transport a lot of people own cars because taxi's and Uber's are unreliable or unavailable. Given Waymo should be available at any time of day and not pick + choose rides as randomly a lot of car owners should be able to give them up.
reply