Is this a typo? I don't see how it could be physically possible for a three-month-old to be toilet trained. Among other things, they can't sit up on a toilet seat or walk to the bathroom.
She had me on a schedule and would hold me up. Yep at 3 months babies can't even sit up. She said at the start she would hold me up until I went, even if it took hours, and if I went she would reward me. She Pavlov'ed me. I think she said I would cry or babble in a certain way, or if she even suspected I needed to go she would put me on the potty and hold me up.
that's pretty much the chinese way of doing it. i don't know about the schedule or starting time though, actually i think they start almost right after birth. since traditionally the grandparents help with taking care of children they have more time to sit around with a baby in their lap.
the chinese also invented split pants that are open at the bottom making it possible to just grab a child when you see it ready to go without having to hassle with undressing. and once the children can walk they just need to squat down to go on their own. i did a quick look on wikipedia. apparently in europe it was common for young kids of both genders to wear dresses which i suppose also made that easier. (although dresses were worn much longer than necessary for toilet training, so they must have had another purpose or benefit too)
> although dresses were worn much longer than necessary for toilet training, so they must have had another purpose or benefit too
Easier to reuse across a wider range of child sizes (either the same child over time, or siblings). You don’t need to worry about e.g. leg diameter or crotch/knee heights like you would with trousers, so can get by basically just folding it to fit height and waist. In an era where people modified and repaired their own clothes more rather than having modern cheaper but more disposable clothes, that would matter more.
Fascinating. I'm not sure what would drive someone to do this, since until the child can actually go to the toilet on their own, you haven't achieved the actual point (IMO) of the training.
She had only cloth diapers, no washing machine, she had to wash them by hand and boil them to disinfect them. I guess the time lost just waiting for me to go was better than the time lost doing all that cleaning. I was her second so she had experience doing this.
Yep. Some friends of mine had their 4 month old completely toilet trained. (Their 4th child.)
This is also completely normal in the third world where they can’t afford things like diapers and also can’t afford children to be constantly soiling clothes.
Your selective quoting is extremely misleading. The first section about publishing a name/photograph only applies in the context of "for purposes of advertising products, events, political activities, merchandise, goods, or services or for purposes of fundraising, solicitation of donations, purchases of products, merchandise, goods, or services or to influence elections or referenda." i.e. it's illegal to pretend someone is endorsing something they are not.
Sorry, the example I had in mind was a politician and I don't know why I forgot to add that to the comment, else I'd edit it in.
The point is that "to influence elections or referenda" is incredibly vague! Almost any reporting on a person involved in the election, or even related to it (reporting on someone who's group looking bad helps a party) can be construed as "influencing an election"
But the second paragraph doesn't have any of those specifics. It's just any algorithm (an actual ban on forbidden math), software, tool, technology, service, or device.
...when the primary purpose of that algorithm, software, tool, technology, service, or device is to produce an individual’s photograph, voice, or likeness
i) without the individual’s prior consent [...]
ii) with intent to cause harm [...]
you need to read it together with the two sub-clauses, which make it much more selective (and a lot more reasonable!)
Why this fixation among conservatives on the out-of-state plates? Desire to pin unrest on "outside agitators" a la Ghorman? [1] In fact the woman lived in Minneapolis, if that matters to you for some reason. [2]
At the university level, this is patently false. Professors have wide latitude to pick the texts for their classes except in lower division classes that might be taught by a TA.
This is more nuanced than “controlled by the administration or not”.
Universities that have accreditation (typically regional accreditation for nonprofit and private research universities) have to meet certain standards for certain curriculum design. Within those requirements there is wide latitude.
That doesn't seem more nuanced between controlled by administrators or not.. An accreditation may have a minimum number of hours for Greek Classics and could expect the topic of Classical Greek Cultural norms to be compared/contrasted with modernity or it may not be mandatory to cover. That's a bit short of an accreditation telling an administration to ensure the topic is never covered or to police every unlisted topic a professor may cover.
> At no point in human history have humans not worked
This is a non sequitur. The discussion is about the point of life. At no point in history have humans not pooped, but I would imagine that few consider pooping the point of life.
> Carefully consider the lifestyle of someone living several decades ago. Would you honestly want to live such a lifestyle yourself?
Sure, I lived it, and it was very pleasant at the time and in many ways better than now in retrospect. e.g. always-on access to infinite content engines like YouTube, TikTok, X, Facebook, etc. is probably a net negative, both for individuals and society. I wouldn't want to go back a century or more and give up air conditioning, dishwashers, washing machines, air travel, electric lights. But a few decades, sure, in a heartbeat.
I agree, 30 years ago a working man doing 40 hours a week in a factory could still support a family on one income and expect to own a house. We hit a peak 30-40 years ago.
I hear this often, but I think this discounts the fact that this was mostly true for the US/Western Europe at a time where they enjoyed unilateral super-powerism as a result of winning WWII. I'm not sure that kind of prosperity is normal (though I hope it could be).
I'm worried the harsh reality for most humans is that life is often not that easy. And if it is, it won't be for long
But there is still enough wealth for all of those houses to exist. That tells me the world is wealthy enough, but it is in the hands of different people
> That was the principle many years ago, you had to leave the world exactly in the state you found it in.
This is not true as a generality. e.g. soap operas had long-running stories long before DVRs. Many prime-time dramas and comedies had major event episodes that changed things dramatically (character deaths, weddings, break-ups, etc.), e.g. the whole "Who shot J.R." event on *Dallas*. Almost all shows that I watched as a kid in the 80s had gradual shifts in character relationships over time (e.g. the on-again/off-again relationship between Sam and Diane on Cheers). Child actors on long-running shows would grow up and the situations on the show changed to account for that as they move from grade school, to high school, to college or jobs.
Parent comment was (I think), specifically talking about sitcoms from what I understood.
Sitcoms are - and I know this is a little condescending to point out - comedies contrived to exist in a particular situation: situation comedy → sitcom.
In the old day, the "situation" needed to be relatively relatable and static to allow drop-in viewers channel surfing, or the casual viewer the parent described.
Soap operas and other long-running drama series are built differently: they are meant to have long story arcs that keep people engaged in content over many weeks, months or years. There are throwbacks to old storylines, there are twists and turns to keep you watching, and if you miss an episode you get lost, so you don't ever miss an episode - or the soap adverts within them, their reason for being for which they are named - in case you are now behind with everything.
You'll find sports networks try to build the story arc around games too - create a sense of "missing out" if you don't watch the big game live.
I think the general point is that in the stream subscription era, everything has become like this "don't miss out" form, by doubling down on the need to see everything from the beginning and become a completist.
You can't easily have a comedy show like Cheers or Married... With Children, in 2026, because there's nothing to keep you in the "next episode" loop in the structure, so you end up with comedies with long-running arcs like Schitt's Creek.
The last set of sitcoms that were immune to this were probably of the Brooklyn 99, Cougartown and Modern Family era - there were in-jokes for the devotees, but you could pick up an episode easily mid-series and just dive in and not be totally lost.
Interesting exception: Tim Allen has managed to get recommissioned with an old style format a couple of times, but he's had to make sure he's skewing to an older audience (read: it's a story of Republican guys who love hunting), for any of it to make sense to TV execs.
Soap operas use entirely different tactic - every information is repeated again and again and again. They are meant to be half watched by people who work while watching them. So you need to be able to miss half the episode and still caught up comfortably.
That is why slow graduate changes.
Neither of these could afford serious multi episodes long arc with nuance played out the way current series can have.
The Polish "paradocumentary" format is like this, but taken to an extreme. Such shows are mostly dialog interleaved with a narrator describing exactly what just happened. There's also a detailed recap of everything that happened in the episode so far after every ad break, of which there are many.
It's basically daytime TV, to be watched at work, often as background, and without looking at the actual screen very often.
Is this a typo? I don't see how it could be physically possible for a three-month-old to be toilet trained. Among other things, they can't sit up on a toilet seat or walk to the bathroom.
reply