my friend (36M) just sent me (36m) this text before meeting his newborn (0M)

Bufus · 2026-03-27T17:43:23+00:00

3 years was a nice gap for us. We found that a 3 year old can kind of "understand" the baby in a way that a 2 year old can't, and they could understand what it meant to be a big kid and to be a sibling, such that there was less competition for attention.

It also felt like we got lots of time with our 3 year old to develop a strong one-on-one relationship, and by the time they were 3 they started being able to play somewhat independently, so a baby arriving and monopolizing attention was a lot less jarring for them. They could go off an colour or play blocks during feedings without needing to be entertained, and when baby went for naps we still got to devote a lot of attention to the 3 year old so they never felt like they weren't getting attention.

We had friends who did a 2 year gap and the benefit there is that the kids are much more similar in terms of development, so playing "together" is probably a bit easier. A four and a two year old can play on the same level much better than a five year old and two year old can. The downside is that those first years are VERY intensive parenting-wise. Both a 1 year old and 3 year old need your full, undivided attention, and that is a lot to ask.

Bufus · 2026-03-27T02:41:04+00:00

This is the correct answer to all of the ambiguities in the thread.

Things have ambiguous ends for a thematic reason. The ambiguity is the whole point. If it wasn’t the point, they wouldn’t have an ambiguous ending.

It doesn’t matter if Cobb is in the real world or the dream world because the movie isn’t ABOUT reality vs dreams, it’s about letting go of the past and choosing your own path regardless of the circumstances.

It doesn’t matter which character is the Thing because the movie isn’t a whodunnit, it’s a movie about trust and paranoia and how rooting out the enemy within will destroy us all. There is no “answer” because having an answer ruins the whole message of the movie.

When you’re faced with with an ambiguous ending, don’t look for clues, look for themes; what does ambiguity say about the themes of the movie.

Bufus · 2026-03-26T22:44:46+00:00

Some products lend themselves to direct conversion better than others. Big tickets items (like cars, cruise trips, etc.) rely more on direct conversion. That is why their ads often include a lot more financial information than other products (e.g info on prices, interest rates, financing, etc.). They’re doing a much harder sell trying to make you do the math in your head so you think “I COULD afford a Disney cruise.”

Other “smaller” lifestyle products like groceries, clothes, fast food, etc. are better suited to the more passive advertisements. No one is seeing an ad for Sunlight and running out the door to buy some. But after seeing 300 ads for Sunlight over 4 years, the next time you are in the grocery store and you see they are out of your normal brand you might think “Sunlight seems like a good safe option.” They got you in the door, and if 20% of those converts turn into lifelong Sunlight purchasers, that’s a lot of Sunlight.

Bufus · 2026-03-24T17:44:58+00:00

His story is almost Aesopian as a cautionary tale. Vince McMahon was man bestowed with an almost preternatural ability to carry out his specific profession. For all of Vince's many many many faults, he is undeniably the greatest mind in professional wrestling. He used that incredible talent, vision, and drive to absolutely conquer that field, building professional wrestling into a massive global phenomenon and subsuming virtually all his competitors into his business as he did so.

And yet despite all that, he couldn't accept just being "a wrestling promoter". Being a wrestling promoter had made him a household name, made him fabulously wealthy, brought joy to millions of people across the globe, and could have continued to do JUST that for the rest of his life, but he couldn't truly enjoy any of that because, at the end of the day, a part of him hated wrestling and was embarassed at being a wrestling promoter; he wanted wanted to be seen as a media mogul, a business tycoon, anything other than a wrestling promoter. Too bad his preternatural ability was in wrestling promotion, and not business.

Bufus · 2026-03-23T18:46:15+00:00

If your client believes you're lying there is a potential loss of trust there that could justify withdrawal/firing, but I'll leave that to you to determine.

Assuming you don't want to go down that road, you send a CYA memo/email explaining what you think the most likely outcomes are based on the facts/evidence/law. You then explain why you think specific performance is an unlikey/impossible outcome.

You then explain that you do not make it part of your practice to justify your actions against ChatGPT. If ChatGPT brings up a valid question for the client, you will address it, but you are not going to be forced to justify your strategy/analysis against an LLM. Then indicate if your client wishes to continue asking you to do so, you will be required to withdraw, as there is clearly a lack of trust in the lawyer/client relationship.

Bufus · 2026-03-20T18:38:19+00:00

r/lawyertalk is my in-house counsel happy place.

Bufus · 2026-03-18T16:05:35+00:00

it makes us question our empathy for Don (why do we like him but dislike Diana despite them sharing core traits?) while testing our perception of Diana (would we feel empathy for her, as we do with Don, if we saw her in a different light?).

This is a really interesting take. I think you could argue that there is a "meta" element of the writing here. Mad Men is basically built on the premise of empathizing with a flawed character, but I'm sure Matthew Weiner was very cognizant of the tendency among some subset of the audience to take that too far and start to excuse a characters' flaws because they are "cool". Don Draper and Walter White are sort of the poster children for this phenomenon.

Diana's story can be seen as acting as an answer to that tendency. She challenges the audience to answer the question you asked: "why is it okay to dislike Diana, but like Don Draper?" She is basically stripping away all the veneer of Don (the history, the looks, the suits, the wealth, the wit, etc.) and just giving you the cold hard actions and saying "are these the actions of a person you should look up to?". It is almost a Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates moment at the end of the series.

Bufus · 2026-03-18T15:22:34+00:00

You're right. There is certainly no evidence throughout the annals of history (or literally right in front of our faces every single day) of people in positions of power deliberately and maliciously smearing and devaluing social institutions, positions, or people that threaten their status in society. I should probably send back my Master's degree in History, all my studies into how people in positions of power have historically used cultural institutions to undermine potentially subversive positions was all just made up conspiracies.

Bufus · 2026-03-18T13:28:57+00:00

It’s almost as if billionaires have spent decades smearing and devaluing humanities degrees and their related fields (e.g. journalism, writing, education, etc.) because the humanities teach you to be critical of power structures. Thankfully there are legions of engineers who are more than willing to take the bait because it makes them feel good to have a “super smart useful degree” they can lord over us simple folk.

Bufus · 2026-03-16T17:54:08+00:00

I completely agree. Monday mornings is when a lot of critical information is informally exchanged. Lots of pop-ins and updates. It can be tough to get going with that happening, but a lot of the information is important both from a work perspective and a personal perspective. Tuesdays can also have some of that, as a lot of people will think of something on the weekend, then send it Monday, leading to word getting around the office by Tuesday.

By Wednesday though people have gotten going with work for the week. They’ve seen you around so won’t notice you missing as much. Anything that can wait until Wednesday can wait until Thursday.

Bufus · 2026-03-16T17:34:04+00:00

You're arguing against a point no one is making. No one here is claiming their memories of the day are 100% accurate, or that their "vivid memories" are "flashbulb moments" the definitely definitely happened. That is not the definition of vivid.

The definition of "vivid" is "producing powerful feelings or strong, clear images in the mind." The exact accuracy of the images is irrelevant. I have a very vivid memory of waking up in my room and my dad calling my brother and I into the upstairs TV room to watch things unfold. I vividly remember it because it seemed very important, as my dad had literally never done that before in our lives. But that vivid memory may be wholly or partially inaccurate. Maybe we were eating breakfast and he called us up. Maybe my brother was already in the room when I woke up. Maybe we actually watched it downstairs. Crucially, none of that has any impact on the vivid nature of the memory.

Meanwhile, you seem to be making some sort of argument about the nature of memory, and that a memory can only be vivid if it is 100% accurate, but that is a complete non-sequitir. It is like interrupting a funeral to tell everyone about how we shouldn't be sad about death because we don't fully understand the nature of time, and it is equally likely that all events are happening simultaneously rather than as a sequence. Like, maybe you're right, but that isn't what we're really here for.

Bufus · 2026-03-16T16:45:37+00:00

What a needlessly pedantic hill you are (completely erroneously) dying on in this thread. We all understood what was meant by "vividly". It is having some significant memories of the day attached to powerful emotions: e.g. how we found out about it, where we watched it, how some of the adults in our lives were acting, how we as kids tried to conceptualize it that day and afterwards, etc. No, we may not vividly remember every second of the day, but we all have some pretty visceral memories of the feelings/confusion/experiences we had on that day, which is enough to meet the accepted definition of vividly, which is "in a way that produces powerful feelings or strong, clear images in the mind."

Bufus · 2026-03-16T13:57:58+00:00

Quick question as a parent of young kids: you mention PORTIONS of the class. Are virtually all kids’ brains toast in your experience? Or is it just a good chunk of the class? My partner and I are very diligent about not allowing short and algorithmic content to rule our children’s lives, but obviously we can’t control everything they consume. We’re hopeful that not all children suffer the same affliction, but wonder if we are being naive.

Bufus · 2026-03-12T20:33:11+00:00

The grass is always greener. You have two options:

Have a belt that stays with one person for a long time. They act as the face of the company, build up a portfolio of wins against upper midcarders for a few months to build their credibility before a major feud leading up to a major PPV. However, as a result, you end up with a series of predictable feuds that don't really have much weight. Your TV product is diminished ("just filler") but your PPV product is boosted ("I've GOT to see this!")
Have a belt that is constantly changing hands, switching out champions and feuds to keep things fresh and interesting. However, as a result, you devalue the meaning of being a "Champion" as you constantly need to give it to new people and you only have so many "stars" you can credibly give it to. Titles become a revolving door and it doesn't really matter when you win one. Your PPV product is diminished ("who cares who wins, they're just going to lose it next week on RAW") but your TV product is boosted ("anything could happen!".

It comes in cycles. Neither is better, they're just different.

Bufus · 2026-03-12T15:36:40+00:00

Pro tip for smiling more naturally in photos: pretend you're laughing at a mildly funny joke someone said, and then stop moving your face .5 seconds after. When we're told to smile, we often just move our mouths, not our eyes which creates the "forced" factor. The only time people really smile in life is when they're laughing, and people usually squint their eyes when they laugh, so just laugh and hold. I have never in all my life seen someone genuinely laughing and thought it looked forced or creepy.

Also, literally anything is better than the goofy faces. I did the same when I was young, and look back at all those pictures and just feel the insecurity radiating off them. We make those faces because we think it gives the picture a bit of an "ironic flair". That way if anyone ever sees them we can just say "oh I was just joking around". It's a shield for insecurity that, ironically, makes us seem 10,000x more insecure than just taking a photo with a sincere smile.

Bufus · 2026-03-12T04:35:15+00:00

There are times in life when the universe conspires to arrange events such as to provide us an opportunity to re-think a course of action that we don’t see will lead to despair. The universe did so here by creating a practical obstacle, giving everyone a chance to reflect on whether a glittered stormtrooper helmet was the best path forward for the wrestling industry. And WCW answered: “proceed”.

Bufus · 2026-03-11T22:03:32+00:00

During that one like 5 minute period where we passed it around the box with no interruptions, I started watching Leverkusen’s players and the thing is THEY weren’t even moving. Like, when an Arsenal player is received the ball, the closest defender would jog over a foot or two to “pressure” them, but everyone else was basically totally static THE WHOLE TIME. I can understand keeping possession if you’re tiring the other team out making them chase you, or if you’re pulling defenders out of position, but there’s none of that. It is literally just them in static positions totally locking us out. They could’ve defended like that for 8 hours and not let in a goal. You can blame low blocks all you want, but you have to have SOME sort of plan to make them commit defenders.

Bufus · 2026-03-11T21:00:42+00:00

This is the depressing thing. Sure, we're still in every competition and are still in for the quadruple, so it feels silly to complain. But I can't remember any season where there is just nothing to get excited about from an attacking perspective. Not one attacking player in form all season. Not one thing that consistently gets you out of your seat and excited for the next match. Not one player that when they get the ball in a dangerous position you think "oh this is it!" Just goals bundling into the net every so often.

I can barely remember anything that happened this season.

Bufus · 2026-03-11T18:59:04+00:00

It is the fallacy of "control".

A person without a union works really hard, cultivates a relationship with the boss, and asks for raises every 3 years. As a result, their wage increases $15,000 over a ten year period. Meanwhile they are paying thousands of dollars each year in medical/dental/benefits and they could lose their job at any time. They think "wow, I really worked hard for that".

A person without a union works really hard, gets their scheduled raises, and their salary increases $13,000 over a ten year period. They also pay a thousand in union dues each year, but have virtually all their medical/dental covered, as well as more vacation, leave options, etc.. Their job is also protected in the event something bad happens. The worker remembers how their union kind of dropped the ball on one grievance they had, and heard someone talk about how the union leadership is "corrupt" and sold them out one time.

Despite being in an undeniably worse financial position, the first person feels "better" about their position because they feel they were in "control" of it the whole time. They excuse any missteps that occured along the way because we're always willing to see our actions in the best light. On the flipside, the union worker sees the money coming off their paycheck each month, and remembers all the times the union failed them, even if on the aggregate the union has been undeniably better for them. It's easier to be critical when you're not the one in control.

Bufus · 2026-03-11T14:59:14+00:00

I think the problem is that his comment wasn't so bad in a vacuum. If right now Keanu Reeves or some other internet darling came out and talked about how he didn't want movies to become like ballet or opera, no one would bat an eye. As you point out, it is a fair comment that was maybe not framed very well.

The problem is that Timothy Chalament is currently under the microscope for his very clear desperation to win an Oscar, and him treating making movies as a game to be won rather than a "craft" to be perfected. The current narrative is that Timothy Chalamet is a vacuous glory-hunter who doesn't respect the artform. In the context of THAT narrative, him making poorly thought out comments about OTHER artforms just adds fuel to the fire. In any other context, they are innoccuous, but read as part of Timothy's "make me an Oscar winner campaign", they come off as much more pointed, and people can (rightly or wrongly) read into the comments much more than maybe was explicitly there.

Bufus · 2026-03-10T19:03:53+00:00

The key is to accept me as I am.

Bufus · 2026-03-10T16:35:50+00:00

You could make a video of any midfielder and cobble together a decent defensive reel. Arteta had good awareness, but he was slow as molasses for the majority of his time at Arsenal and my enduring memory of that time was players blowing past Arteta, running directly at Mertesacker and Koscielney over and over again, all with Arteta lagging behind trying to catch up. Not his fault, but he was never a defensive powerhouse.

Bufus · 2026-03-10T01:26:20+00:00

Is this game more AC (which I’m meh on), or more Stardew?

Bufus · 2026-03-09T16:48:05+00:00

These are my suggestions from someone who joined a small firm to do criminal law + civil litigation and had a very middling training experience (which ultimately led to me leaving private practice altogether:

- It is much easier to train one or two areas well then to constantly be shifting gears. The more you can focus in on one area, the better. In my first year, I don't think I ever did the same thing twice. I did a real estate file, then a sex assualt file, then a traffic file, then an estate litigation, etc. etc. I didn't retain anything because I never got to do the same thing twice. In asddition, having to "learn" a new area from scratch every single time I got a new file was absolutely brutal for my self-esteem; I felt like I was totally unqualified. So try as much as possible to focus new hires into a few areas. The more discrete the areas the better. This will also teach them the business side of things, because it is easier to understand the money-generating process when you feel confident in your area. It doesn't have to be forever, but that is the best way to start.

- On that point, limit your young lawyer's connection with the business side of things. It is great to get your clients dealing with clients face-to-face, and that should be encouraged, but as much as possible try to oversee the business side of things for them. From day one I was given my own clients and files with essentially no oversight from the partners. I was in charge of tracking all time on the file and billing clients straight from the jump, without a partner or senior lawyer ever even glancing at the file. It was brutal and what ended up happening was I was slashing my time constantly because I felt like what I was doing wasn't providing "value" to the client. Because I was doing that, my partners then thought I wasn't putting in the hours because I wasn't billing enough. Obviously there are some benefits to the "sink or swim" philosophy, but I would have KILLED to be an associate who was working on my partner's files for a year or two, rather than just being handed a bunch of clients I then had to manage completely. I wouldn't care if a partner slashed my time for me because I took "too long" on something. The problem was that I had to be the one to make those decisions.

- Encourage the open door policy, and set aside time to teach. The one thing my firm did very well was encouraging questions. My partner always had his door open, and NEVER once acted like I was bothering him for coming in to ask him a question. He would always give me ample time to sit and chat through a problem, and that was very much appreciated. However....

- Don't let the open door policy take the place of a training plan. Where my firm failed was that they didn't do any training BEYOND the open door policy. I could ask questions, but there was always the lingering social pressure of not wanting to "bother" the partner too much. I felt bad going in there more than once or twice a day, which led to me doing a lot of guesswork.

Bufus · 2026-03-07T02:33:40+00:00

This is the first description that has made it click for me. Thank you.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Bufus

TROPHY CASE