I have kids and I am quite the opposite. My interest in them is very occasional. Teaching anything takes a lot of work and they're typically not interested anyway. Most of the experiences they have at school, I have no real insight on. I like to see their interests develop, and I notice that my youngest would probably enjoy partnering with me on some things, but that is it. I'm sure that puts me on some spectrum, but that is how I feel and, whenever a few other dads I know take their guard down, they have a lot of similar feelings - but they cannot state them, because they have become socially unacceptable.
Note also that a lot of what we consider "fatherhood" is a Western construct of the last 150 years, with falling birth rates and diffused wealth. Things were very different when families were poor and sprawling: fathers simply did not have significant time to spend with all their kids, when they had a dozen of them and were out of the house most of the day for work. Significant bonds would be developed only while working together, later in life.
There are tribes where the mom cares for the sons until they're eight and then the boys are raised by the men from there on. Joining in the tasks the men do daily.
That said, a lot of people don't bond for the sake of bonding, but bond over a shared task (one that really needs doing, not an invented game that mimicks a task..)
I reckon "old hardware" is likely to be more reliable of "new hardware", generally speaking... If we could fix how they get energy, these things could probably go on for centuries.
Well, we don't know about them, do we? Technically speaking, some alien might have already plotted the entire Milky Way hundreds of years ago without telling us.
I don't think SP2 made much of a difference in the popularity of XP. It was already dominant, and it's mostly remembered as "legendary" because it had become the target platform for every hardware and software vendor on the planet. Windows 98 was too flaky to engender any serious friction to upgrades, and Windows 2000 was not consumer-friendly enough; XP effectively unified the consumer and professional desktop markets, and became the gold standard.
SP2, if anything, slowed down adoption, since it threw a bunch of spanners in the way of third-party code. It was probably necessary, just to stem the flow of bad press, but no mean a key in XP's overall success.
It was not that bad. I remember when SP fixed a bunch of issues with bluetooth, and windows CD burning program was better than any of the Nero Burning ROMs, cause those became unusable overbloated.
Windows Me was some weird marketing attempt at squeezing more life out of the dead-end '9x line. I honestly don't know who, in their sane mind, would ever pay for such a thing.
I guess it depends on the industry, but most people would happily run anything that had undergone a single round of patching. And plenty were so obsessed with the latest and greatest that they would jump at .0 releases without a care in the world - which is how Vista got its reputation, for example (the .0 was pretty bad, and by the time both builds and ecosystems had improved, people had decided to stay away).
That's effectively how it was in European countries, when TV was nationalised. Then everything became about extracting as much money as possible from consumers, and here we are.
reply