4 ms·

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

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.

boogies 6y ago
Do I get to steal that pedantry award if I point out that two parents can take 48 person-hours a day?
- AussieWog93 6y ago
  But the baby itself can only get attention for 24 hours per day. I think you need to give that pedantry award back. :P
  - boogies 6y ago
    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)_/¯
  - haser_au 6y ago
    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.
- dmqctx 6y ago
  Not a fan of pedantry. Would like to see less of it in the world.
BeetleB 6y ago
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
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
rich_sasha 6y ago
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...

boogies 6y ago

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

AussieWog93 6y ago
But the baby itself can only get attention for 24 hours per day. I think you need to give that pedantry award back. :P
- boogies 6y ago
  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)_/¯
- haser_au 6y ago
  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.
dmqctx 6y ago
Not a fan of pedantry. Would like to see less of it in the world.

BeetleB 6y ago

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

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

rich_sasha 6y ago

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...