The Irony Thread

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

At least I'm not the only one.

If you haven't seriously considered taking the littl'un for a few laps of the block in the pram to get them off to sleep... at 4am, then you still have some way to go. 😀

Way ahead of that curve, hah!

pinno

You learn: I want attention cry. I am sick cry. I am hungry cry etc Ignore the 'I want attention bawl'.

My two were sleeping right through bar one feed in the night within a few weeks.
Instead of being on edge and listening for the middle of the night i'm hungry bawl and not really sleeping well, I would set the alarm for 2am. Wake them up, change nappy, strip them off a little (then the warm milk is comfort too) and then put them back to sleep.

I found it was better for me to wake up at 2am and feed them despite being at work all day. That meant that my OH had a good nights sleep and then when she was on her own all day, she had the energy to look after 1... then 2. I got a broken sleep but a scheduled broken sleep which was better than a concatenated one.

...and here's a tactic: we used to do a late late nappy change and feed. This often meant waking them up at 11pm ish and that sets them up for the next 3 hours.

Within 10 to 12 weeks, they were sleeping the night through.

No, I still maintain that the honeymoon is over when they start to move. I've nothing but lovely memories from their first 6 months. Then you need to anticipate everything and you need eyes on the back of your head.

elbowloh

pinno said:

You learn: I want attention cry. I am sick cry. I am hungry cry etc Ignore the 'I want attention bawl'.

My two were sleeping right through bar one feed in the night within a few weeks.
Instead of being on edge and listening for the middle of the night i'm hungry bawl and not really sleeping well, I would set the alarm for 2am. Wake them up, change nappy, strip them off a little (then the warm milk is comfort too) and then put them back to sleep.

I found it was better for me to wake up at 2am and feed them despite being at work all day. That meant that my OH had a good nights sleep and then when she was on her own all day, she had the energy to look after 1... then 2. I got a broken sleep but a scheduled broken sleep which was better than a concatenated one.

...and here's a tactic: we used to do a late late nappy change and feed. This often meant waking them up at 11pm ish and that sets them up for the next 3 hours.

Within 10 to 12 weeks, they were sleeping the night through.

No, I still maintain that the honeymoon is over when they start to move. I've nothing but lovely memories from their first 6 months. Then you need to anticipate everything and you need eyes on the back of your head.

The first 4 months was a doddle, then this 4 month sleep regression thing kicked in and since then nights have been terrible (apart from a handful when he will do 7 hours straight). There have been many nights when he literally wakes up every 20 or 30 minutes. He'll sleep now from about 7-11 ok, but then its waking up every couple of hours through till about 6. He just hates sleeping, it's the same story with napping during the day, he just fights sleep.

TheBigBean

Two is not a very big sample size.

pinno

elbowloh said:

pinno said:

The first 4 months was a doddle, then this 4 month sleep regression thing kicked in and since then nights have been terrible (apart from a handful when he will do 7 hours straight). There have been many nights when he literally wakes up every 20 or 30 minutes. He'll sleep now from about 7-11 ok, but then its waking up every couple of hours through till about 6. He just hates sleeping, it's the same story with napping during the day, he just fights sleep.

Eeek. Is there any way to keep him awake/restrict sleep int he day time? Perhaps put him to bed later? He'll be grumpy to start with but that must drive you up the wall.

elbowloh

pinno said:

elbowloh said:

pinno said:

The first 4 months was a doddle, then this 4 month sleep regression thing kicked in and since then nights have been terrible (apart from a handful when he will do 7 hours straight). There have been many nights when he literally wakes up every 20 or 30 minutes. He'll sleep now from about 7-11 ok, but then its waking up every couple of hours through till about 6. He just hates sleeping, it's the same story with napping during the day, he just fights sleep.

Eeek. Is there any way to keep him awake/restrict sleep int he day time? Perhaps put him to bed later? He'll be grumpy to start with but that must drive you up the wall.

Well, thats the thing, he won't sleep in the day either. He'll nap for 30 mins max in the day, no more than 2 or 3 times a day.

Pross

bompington said:

.. well, opinions are divided on controlled crying, but I can tell you that it works. I did have to physically prevent Mrs Bomp from going in and picking Bomp Jr up about an hour in on the first night we tried it, mind you.

Not great when you live in a semi-detached or terraced house though. I'd go nuts if a next door neighbour's child was left to cry themselves to sleep so was always reluctant to leave ours more than 5-10 minutes (even that feels like a lifetime).

With our first I used to have to put her in the car and drive for half an hour but with the second she slept 6 hours straight on her first night and other than when ill never gave us an issue afterwards.

briantrumpet

I seem to have stumbled into mums&dads.net...

bompington

I would say it counts as proper irony that Mrs Bomp was still trying to get Bompette to go to sleep last night....

... after she posted on the family groupchat after 2am.

She is now a 20yo student who left home over 2 years ago.

slowbike

We had a few years of broken sleep - some nights he'd go through with just one wakeup - other nights he'd wake every hour or two ... he'd get naps in the day too ...

[smug mode on] last night - he slept for 12 hours - bar the 10pm up for a pee which we force him to do - usually needs it too.[smug mode off]

The "let them cry" when it's attention does work - it's hard to do though - having a camera in the room meant we could see what he was up to and having neighbours with hearing aids meant we didn't need to worry there either!

The iRony - he doesn't like lots of noise and crying - from others ...

[/dadsnet]

pblakeney

Irony.
People sending me to sleep by discussing lack of sleep. 😂

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

I seem to have stumbled into mums&dads.net...

Brian, it's good to hear that not everyone who frequents Cake Stop is breeding

slowbike

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

I seem to have stumbled into mums&dads.net...

Brian, it's good to hear that not everyone who frequents Cake Stop is breeding

Can't be breeding all the time - you need some time to ride your bike

Stevo_666

slowbike said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

I seem to have stumbled into mums&dads.net...

Brian, it's good to hear that not everyone who frequents Cake Stop is breeding

Can't be breeding all the time - you need some time to ride your bike

People on here ride bikes?!

pinno

Stevo_666 said:

slowbike said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

I seem to have stumbled into mums&dads.net...

Brian, it's good to hear that not everyone who frequents Cake Stop is breeding

Can't be breeding all the time - you need some time to ride your bike

People on here ride bikes?!

😲

Stevo_666

Climate change protesters glueing themselves to the Lib Dems electric powered bus.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

Climate change protesters glueing themselves to the Lib Dems electric powered bus.

You're implying the LDs are indeed a party with green credentials. Some of the campaigning is working then.

pblakeney

The assumption that an electric powered bus is “green”.
Where does the electricity come from?
More inconvenient than irony though.

chris_bass

pblakeney said:

The assumption that an electric powered bus is “green”.
Where does the electricity come from?
More inconvenient than irony though.

I take your point but I am all for electric vehicles - yes currently (pun kind of intended!) the electricity comes from fossil fuel power stations (or at least most of it does) but it is possible to generate electricity without burning fossil fuels - wind, hydro, nuclear etc whereas it is very hard to get a petrol vehicle to move without emissions!

we need to embrace electric cars so the technology can get to a point where the ranges increase, charging times reduce and they become a more viable option so when the generating technology improves more and more electricity can come from cleaner sources and therefore car emissions will dramatically reduce.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

Climate change protesters glueing themselves to the Lib Dems electric powered bus.

You're implying the LDs are indeed a party with green credentials. Some of the campaigning is working then.

More that they have a 'green' bus.

slowbike

Stevo_666 said:

slowbike said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

I seem to have stumbled into mums&dads.net...

Brian, it's good to hear that not everyone who frequents Cake Stop is breeding

Can't be breeding all the time - you need some time to ride your bike

People on here ride bikes?!

Allegedly ...

pblakeney

chris_bass said:

pblakeney said:

The assumption that an electric powered bus is “green”.
Where does the electricity come from?
More inconvenient than irony though.

I take your point but I am all for electric vehicles - yes currently (pun kind of intended!) the electricity comes from fossil fuel power stations (or at least most of it does) but it is possible to generate electricity without burning fossil fuels - wind, hydro, nuclear etc whereas it is very hard to get a petrol vehicle to move without emissions!

we need to embrace electric cars so the technology can get to a point where the ranges increase, charging times reduce and they become a more viable option so when the generating technology improves more and more electricity can come from cleaner sources and therefore car emissions will dramatically reduce.

True, but current cars etc are not green. Especially if you consider whole life and manufacture.
In the future maybe, but not yet.

Longshot

pblakeney said:

True, but current cars etc are not green. Especially if you consider whole life and manufacture.
In the future maybe, but not yet.

This is correct. Even a more proven 'green' technology like LED lights is not as straightforward as suggested. I get that the increased upfront costs results in lower emissions and, supposedly, costs over the lifespan of the lamps but, as I'm now having to get in an electrician to rewire new LEDs into my kitchen where 8/12 LEDs have failed after 5 years I would question the accuracy of that.

rjsterry

There seems to be an urge to damn anything that isn't a perfect solution. Some improvement is better than no improvement.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

There seems to be an urge to damn anything that isn't a perfect solution. Some improvement is better than no improvement.

Improvement is good.
Self righteous pontificators not so much.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

There seems to be an urge to damn anything that isn't a perfect solution. Some improvement is better than no improvement.

Improvement is good.
Self righteous pontificators not so much.

So all the hybrid buses and taxis are just virtue signalling? Self righteous pontificating is merely irritating whereas air pollution will actually shorten your life.

chris_bass

pblakeney said:

chris_bass said:

pblakeney said:

The assumption that an electric powered bus is “green”.
Where does the electricity come from?
More inconvenient than irony though.

I take your point but I am all for electric vehicles - yes currently (pun kind of intended!) the electricity comes from fossil fuel power stations (or at least most of it does) but it is possible to generate electricity without burning fossil fuels - wind, hydro, nuclear etc whereas it is very hard to get a petrol vehicle to move without emissions!

we need to embrace electric cars so the technology can get to a point where the ranges increase, charging times reduce and they become a more viable option so when the generating technology improves more and more electricity can come from cleaner sources and therefore car emissions will dramatically reduce.

True, but current cars etc are not green. Especially if you consider whole life and manufacture.
In the future maybe, but not yet.

so how do we get there, make cars that are better or as best we can do for now and improve the technology until we get there or just say sod it this isn't 100% green so lets just not bother?

we need people and companies to invest in these things so that the technology can develop.

same with solar panels and wind power etc

chris_bass

back to irony

Brexit MEPs leaving the Brexit party so that Brexit can happen!

pblakeney

People blowing hot air on saving the planet when they could keep quiet and save the planet. 😉

Jeremy.89

rjsterry said:

There seems to be an urge to damn anything that isn't a perfect solution. Some improvement is better than no improvement.

This.

There is also a tenancy to mumble about life cycle environmental impact, without necessarily knowing what assumptions have been made to give you the life cycle impact.

IIRC, the Co2 impact per mile of a small internal combustion engine could be made to be about the same as an electric car, so long as you assumed the grid was fairly dirty.

But that ignores that electric cars don't spew nox sox and particulates around at pedestrians.

Of course then I'm ignoring that a dirty power station also does the same (although they can be fitted with scrubbers, but then that makes them less thermally efficient...)

That's before we get onto manufacturing either car.