5 ms·
How did we do it before? I can't even imagine. /s
by jethro_tell 8y ago
How did we do it before? I can't even imagine. /s
- watwut 8y agoHe said that it is useful and makes his life easier. He did not said that whole family would die without it.
- jethro_tell 8y agoWhat I am saying, is that I think the increase in convenience is largely perceived.
- hinkley 8y agoClap on clap clap Clap off clap clap Clap on, clap off. The Clapper! clap clap
- jethro_tell 8y agoYou can't clap with a baby in your arms?
- cortesoft 8y agoAre you arguing that we should just stop creating anything new, since we clearly survived before without it? This comment could literally apply to ANY new thing.
- jethro_tell 8y agoNo I'm not, I work on home automation for a living. I am saying the value and added convenience is largely perception and it doesn't. I raised my first kid pre-echo and my second post echo. I think for the most part, raising a kid is easier than we thing, and we are surprised at how well we are doing and attribute that to things around us, much like our old superstitious ancestors.
- musage 8y agoThe TV not running in the first place and singing to one's child isn't "surviving", it's like a lush forest compared to the irradiated wasteland that is "turning off the tv and playing some white noise and/or music". > This comment could literally apply to ANY new thing. Yes, and? It applies to using x-ray machine to fit shoes in shoe shops, which was super fancy schmancy at first, and I'm sure anyone who rejected it solely on the bases of being unnecessary was laughed at by first adopters, too. On the other hand, there's the discovery of washing hands being derided and ignored, when quicker adoption could have saved lives. Exactly because it can go both ways, you have to look at the actual thing. You can't determine the quality of a thing or the usefulness of a habit by just looking at a calendar and a clock.