873
"Why would I spend time bonding with my kid when I can just get an AI to do it for me?" (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
180 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

top 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 252 points 1 month ago (26 children)

His wife is going to leave him, and he will have no idea why.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] 154 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    He will ask ChatGPT and it will give him an answer

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    "Your wife left you because you refused to be an active participant in your shared relationship and delegated your parental responsibilities to a glorified plagiarism machine. You're not just a useless partner — you're worthless as a father at best and actively harmful at worst. "

    "No, I don't think that's right. I've convinced myself that AI is the coolest, most useful thing in the world that can only make things better."

    "You're absolutely right! I made the mistake of considering your wife's perspective when your opinion is the only one that matters. As an AI bro, you know better than anyone — the universe revolves around you!"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 1 month ago*

    And I think he wouldn't even care. I mean he's himself actively making an effort to get out of the relationship and replace himself by an AI. At that point it doesn't even matter if he's doing it, she's doing it and whether the replacement is made up of flesh and bones or electricity. He's dispensable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (20 children)

    Shit sticks together, what makes you think she would leave?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (19 children)

    What part of simply asking her husband to be involved with their child made you think she's shit? People change over time. He may have chosen a different trajectory from hers

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    Same part as what makes you guys thing she would. Basically boils down to, we have no idea what they are like!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    We have one data point: him attempting to shirk his familial responsibility after being asked. It provides some small level of support for the stance you're arguing against.

    It does not support your contrarian response at all.

    So, no. It doesn't boil down to the same thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    It does, if you choose not to understand that, no problem. We have no idea what the next response from the wife could be. "Wow, that's an amazing idea honey!" is just as likely considering she married this man.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    Reread what I said.

    Understand that you need to INVENT something that isn't part of the evidence to support your position. That is not the same as overeager extrapolation from what IS available.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (12 children)

    Hivemind goes crazy. You fabricated that in the same way I did. There's no telling what the wife reaction would be, so you can infer anything from the tweet.

    Nobody is denying this: him attempting to shirk his familial responsibility after being asked

    The point you are arguing is that his wife would leave him from things like this, which is assuming that his wife would object to his "familial responsibility avoidance", which is the same as assuming she would not object to it. You are inventing the wife having a negative reaction, I am saying the wife could have a positive reaction.

    Also, you invented something first, pot calling the kettle black.

    He may have chosen a different trajectory from hers

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    which is the same as assuming she would not object to it.

    Whenever a law says "a reasonable person," my strategy is to drag them into an infinite fractal of technicalities and possible exceptions because I don't know what reasonable means.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Just because you would like one situation to be reality and think that because it is the most reasonable, doesnt mean it is the only possible reality.

    Think of all the famous pieces of shit that exist, they have spouses. Why? Because they are also pieces of shit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    You need more evidence for that, mate.

    I'm saying she would leave him because I would leave his ass. If she wouldn't, then I feel sorry for her. Truly pitiful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    I'm not disagreeing with you about that. Any reasonable person would leave him. All I was saying is that perhaps the wife is not reasonable. How something so simple caused some people to explode, I dont know.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Re-reading the thread, I understand better what you were saying. This is different, though: the AI thing is kind of sudden, in a cultural sense, and it's harder to imagine someone having married a person already knowing they would be into this extremely anti-human parenting style beforehand.

    Like, you're suggesting that a Republican guy probably has a Republican wife, and yeah that's true, but I don't think that it follows that an AI-absentee-father would probably be married to an AI-absentee-mother.

    And that's broadly why people are blowing up at you. Rhetorically speaking, it sounds a bit like you're just being spiteful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    I'm basically being told I cannot form an opinion based off an assumption while they are doing the exact same thing. It's hypocritical.

    We were not discussing the percent chance of one situation over another, I am just being preached to that only one thing can be true. "I would leave him" isnt evidence that she would.

    I think it makes perfect sense to predict she wouldnt leave him over this, just in the same way she would. We also dont know how long they have been together, or how old their child is. There's so much we dont know and that is all I pointed out. But apparently the echo chamber decided it was that the wife will leave, so any other input was going to be met in this way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Right, but there's something about this that you're not understanding. The people in this thread are not talking about a real woman, they're talking about a hypothetical woman. A "reasonable person" kind of woman.

    Yes, we could talk about how it's technically possible that his wife is on disability and is circumstantially incapable of leaving him, therefore she wouldn't, QED—but it's just not that interesting.

    People are saying "she would leave him," but what they actually mean is "she should leave him." You don't realize that you're arguing with this second sentence, that's why you're chafing against everyone here. There's subtext that you're missing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    !!! I am talking about a hypothetical woman too! It's literally no different! My hypothetical woman just doesn't align with the preference that the wife would leave him over this. That's it! I'm so confused on how something so simple has been so confusing for you all!

    I am just being trolled at this point. I fell for it. I'm gonna leave this here, I don't know if its the effects of the echo chamber or a lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking, but it's just going to go around in circles, I can't explain it any further. Good luck out there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    My guy, I promise, I'm not trying to hound you.

    Speaking of reading comprehension, though, I feel like it might be good to go over this. Like, as a self-reflection excercise.

    My wife: Can you read our baby a book?

    Me: I can just play an audiobook from my phone.

    Two lines of dialogue, and yet you can infer a lot of information about what kind of character he is just from this one answer to this one question. He doesn't value human connection. He views the baby merely as a problem to be solved. He might consider it a nuisance. He doesn't really like being a parent. He thinks technology can solve the human condition.

    In one line of dialogue, he has established himself as a villain to anyone who understands why an audiobook is fucking absurd to even suggest.

    Now one more:

    My wife: But then it won't be in your voice.

    In just one further line of dialogue, now we know that the wife does understand and value human connection, and is the one urging him to get it himself. In this story, to an audience of people who don't want to see the husband's ideology become more popular, she has made herself a hero. She stands in stark opposition to everything I just said we could infer about him.

    It would be uncharitable of us to assume she's a bad person when the only information we have about her is that she values good things and is urging her husband to as well. It's not uncharitable to say the same of the husband because he has already demonstrated that he doesn't get it and doesn't want to.

    The problem you're running into is that you're trying to impose, maybe not definitely, but even so, that she is a bad person as well with no evidence from the story that was told. You're being uncharitable to this woman, and for seemingly no reason. And a lot of people, if they see you being uncharitable to a woman for no reason, are going to assume you're doing it either because you agree with the husband's villainy, or generally that you're just being spiteful because you have problems with women. Neither look good.

    Like I said before, it is possible that the wife is a shit person too, but there's no reason to assume that. There are reasons to assume the opposite, actually. And the technicalities that might allow her to be evil in spite of what we already know about her just aren't that interesting to talk about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 144 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    Parenting hits different when you work in AI

    Yeah, hits like mental abuse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 61 points 1 month ago* (13 children)

    I knew people were gonna be obsessed with AI, but I genuinely never thought people would surrender all executive function and thought to what is, ultimately, a very elaborate and planet destroying if=then machine.

    the amount of people I have seen becoming totally dependent on it is ridiculous. There are people who cant even have human interaction anymore without running it through their AI model to process the message, and produce a reply.

    and its 100% invading the real world too, I dont know the whole details cause you try to turn your ears off at the pharmacy to not hear other peoples private information.. but there was a woman getting very heated with one of the pharmacy people and I only took notice when she slammed her phone on the counter, aggressively pointed at it, and said very loudly "I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY, LOOK, RIGHT HERE, MY AI SAYS YOU'RE WRONG" in a that kareny way that says her and her AI was 100% wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    Damn I try to keep my mouth shut but if someone screamed that near me I'd be interjecting. Like goddamnit the AI does not know anything.

    It's a machine modeling human speech. It's all a hallucination and sometimes that hallucination is straight up lies and sometimes, hopefully most of the time, it aligns with actual reality.

    I fucking loathe that people won't take 15 minutes to just read a basic primer on what an LLM is. It's a fancy autocorrect, and yeah it's way more complex than that but at the end of a day it's made to model realistic human language output - and that's it. It doesn't have any actual knowledge, it doesn't have any way to know if what it says is true or not, and it certainly doesn't know if what it says is insane.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    I think I fall a bit between the people who use it for everything and your opinion of it.

    I get that it's basically just a prediction engine but thinking of it like that is unhelpful in my opinion. I've seen AI rewrite entire code bases overnight that would have taken a team of humans over a year. It's obviously useful technology it's just people have this tendency to overuse it.

    It's kind of like how in the early 2000s they were putting Bluetooth in everything. Eventually we'll work out what it's useful for and only use it to that we just have to wait for the frenzy to die down.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    I've seen AI rewrite entire code bases overnight that would have taken a team of humans over a year.

    And was the code better, cleaner and more readable? Moreover did it actually still do what it was supposed to and not introduce further unknowns?

    I get that it's basically just a prediction engine but thinking of it like that is unhelpful in my opinion.

    Unhelpful in the sense that it is what it actually is or unhelpful in the sense that it makes you question the fake narrative we're getting shoveled to us by tech bros and traditional mass media?

    Like that's just what it is. All I want is folks to be honest about the limitations of this tech and what is underpinning it. It's still very impressive but at the end of the day there will always be an inherent problem with LLM in that they are non deterministic - you can give the same AI the exact same prompt 10 times and you'll get 10 different replies.

    There is no way to get around that. You can't have a perfectly predictable output and even 1% of the time error is not good enough for widespread adoption when a mistake could mean someone dies or is horribly injured or loses a ton of money etc etc

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    And was the code better, cleaner and more readable?

    I'm going to interject here. I've got family who does software development professionally, and has leaned heavily into AI to assist with coding, and the answer is 'yes', but there are some caveats. If you just tell an AI what to do and let it run hog-wild, you end up with shit. When you have an experienced programmer review and have the AI make targeted changes, it is extremely effective. Some of his projects are seeing 1000% improvements on resource usage and/or compute time.

    Here is the rub though. You're not going to end up with experienced programmer to manage programming AI agents if they never get any actual experience programming because they've just been having an AI do all the coding for them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Right I appreciate your insight. I'm not heavy in coding myself, I brush up against code and use it for some automation and assistance but I've also seen it write literal nonsense for code.

    That rub is so real. I asked the thing to write some code for me for a Sailpoint workflow and I wasn't familiar with the syntax so figured it'd be a good place to use AI. That thing hallucinated extremely convincing code except it just wholesale made up how it worked and of course it looks fine to my eyes but then go to run it and error -> work to fix that error and then -> error, etc etc.

    After chasing my tail for an hour or two I finally stopped and went to pull up some official documentation and that's when I figured out the AI was just hallucinating like a motherfucker. So I went back and did it the "old fashioned" way, but at least the AI did give me an idea of what I had to do.

    Anyways, I could see someone who isn't me just running around in circles for days because they believe the LLMs we call AI are giving them actual answers.

    I blame some of it on how AI got mixed into web search. Traditionally, the resource from the web would at least be written by a human and usually relevant. Generally semi trustworthy and not made up. Now people see search results with AI summary/answer at the top and that is not vetted, could be a straight up hallucination*, or even just a total misinterpretation of your search phrase so totally irrelevant.

    *I wish this term was different because it has an implication that the AI can and cannot hallucinate when the truth is the AI is always hallucinating. Put another way, to the LLM there is no such concept as truth. It annoys me that people seem to believe that the AI "knows" stuff. It does not. Stop anthropomorphizing the fancy robot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    It's simply better than a human could have produced in the same time. If it works who cares how clean it is like this is what I don't get about programmers they're so obsessed with cleanness and it doesn't matter it's so unimportant to the end goal yeah I get that maintenance of the program would be a pain but the AI is going to do that so who cares.

    I do sort of feel that this community is so obsessed with hating AI that they don't give it the benefit of the doubt when it actually achieve things.

    The problem with AI is not the product itself it's the way that people use it like let's not lose sight to that, that's not give all the tech Bros ammunition by trying to claim that everything AI does is terrible and bad and awful simply because it was the AI that did it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    who cares how clean it is like this is what I don't get about programmers they're so obsessed with cleanness and it doesn't matter

    It matters to the compiler so the code actually will run and not break. It matters to whoever has to fix or update it when things change. It matters to the hardware it runs on and how much memory that hardware has.

    It very much matters.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Yeah I get that but if we're going all in on AI then humans won't be involved in the process of recompaneling it.

    Like I wouldn't want infrastructure criticals software to be like that but if it's just random stuff that needs to run for me personally then I don't really care.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    How code is written directly impacts how well it runs and if it can even do what you want. Like if it's written shitty it might work for 95% of the time and things you need it to but 5% you hit some random edge case and it explodes because it wasn't properly tested and developed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    I don't understand what people use it for. At work I use it because it's much easier to ask an AI than try and deal with our crap internal documentation. People who use AI in their personal lives are just weird to me.

    The only technology I really use is a digital calendar, which is an objectively superior product to the paper-based calendar simply because it gets updated by the whole family and stays in sync. I don't have smart light switches, or cameras in every room, if a hard drive on my computer breaks then I lose all my data there's nothing on there that I really care about, I might be ultra weird because I even get my photos printed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 107 points 1 month ago (28 children)

    I have a few friends who use OpenAI and Gemini to do this (generate new stories every night) and I do not understand why you would do so. There are a bazillion kids books out there. Just get ten of those and your kid will be happy for ten months!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I can imagine some reasons they would opt for this. First, the AI is always there so they don't have to do put in any effort at all in acquiring the story. Second they could make the stories tailored to what they want to teach their kid - regular kids books usually have decent morals and lessons for helping the kid become a better person and a lot of AI aficionados don't want that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Why do you need an AI to do that? My grandpa used to let us just make up what we wanted to hear a story about and tell a story about that. I do the same. Its not hard. It doesnt have to be the most minted story in history.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    If you're in the US just sign up for Dolly Parton's Imagination Library and you'll get a free kids book for your each of your kids every month.

    That woman could've been a billionaire several times over but consistently chose to reinvest her wealth into community rather than hoarding it all to herself like a dragon. What a shame she's gone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Not to mention the creation of a shared cultural heritage.

    Most Danish kids have heard a few, or all, of HC Andersen's biggest works. It gives them something to talk about when they're socialising with other kids

    If your friends kid, becomes the only kid in their class which haven't heard the stories of their local cultural heritage. That's a potential for creating a social rift in school, why have you not heard about the ugly duckling?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -37 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    Childrens books are expensive. A 20 pages one cost the same amount like a 700 pages roman.

    We use the library but cant go there every week.

    Thinking is hard after full workday + 6h intense childcare. Youll see what i mean when you have kids and do it without screentime. Zero.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    I certainly wouldn't buy all our kids books brand new.

    I do buy a couple of the hard cover classics.

    I buy a heap from thrift stores. This is probably the majority.

    We go to the library when we can.

    I also pirate and print some.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Do you not have access to books from when you were a kid? That's what mom did until she could buy new books.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    No.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Oh...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Sorry, I guess the context is that none of those things we kept from when I was a child.

    With kids paraphernalia there's the cheap stuff that gets worn out quickly and discarded, and the expensive stuff that might last more than a generation. We had the items in the former category.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 child)

    Libraries near me don't require you to actually go to the building to get a book. You can borrow an e-book using an app. It's not the greatest way (especially if your kid likes picture books or is that age where a lot of children's books are just picture books). But it doesn't require you to go to the library every day or even every week.

    There's also no law saying you have to read to your child every night. But offloading parenting onto AI just because you're tired and want to limit their screen time isn't a good look. But I've gotten books, toys, movies, games, TV shows from other parents who's kids have aged out of those items a fair few times in my life. I don't think it counts as limiting screen time to have the bot read your kid a story.

    Yes I have a kid. We are both special needs which means that a lot of parenting is challenging on its face.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    Every child is hell in their own special way but not every day is going to be 6h 'intensive' childcare. Unless you've got an intellectually challenged child, you're going to have some days where it's easier and some where it's harder.

    And, if they make it hard enough, they go to bed without a story. They cry and scream and they learn, then maybe tomorrow they'll just be hard instead of too hard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    Interesting you used roman for novel. Are you Ukrainian or Russian? Edit: I see this is the same in a lot of languages. Could be German.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • [–] 101 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Me: "Why dont you come visit and talk to me in the nursing home?"

    My kids: "just talk to grok"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • [–] 100 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I'm so glad AI is here to relieve me of the physically and mentally overwhelming task of checks notes spending time with my child.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 80 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    That poor kid, Imagine your own father thinks so little of you that he would rather spend 10X the time to train a clanker just so he doesn't have to spend time with you.

    I'm guessing some day he will be one of those oblivious assholes on facebook whining because his kids cut off contact.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 70 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I thought this was satire, but it appears to be real.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • [–] 68 points 1 month ago

    Parenting hits different when your intelligence is artificial

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 42 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

    This is ragebait. Right? People can't possibly be that shitty...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I watched a presentation from a big tech company in which the presenter talked how, while his wife was giving birth, he saw that as an opportunity and asked AI to build a "nursery design" site because he could use his daughter as a model. People were praising him for being forward thinking about providing to his family, I just couldn't imagine being this greedy.

    I saw people from the same company eagerly discussing using AI to recreate dead relatives. It's disgusting how much these people are hypnotized by AI

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    I said this the other day, it's a story. Regardless of whether or not it's ragebait it has a kernel of truth existing inside a story. Could this have happened, sure. Is it an objective truth? Most definitely not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 40 points 1 month ago

    Brought to you by the creators of, "just give them an ipad" and "call the cops there's a kid outside playing"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 69 points 1 month ago

    Parenting hits really different when you’re an idiot and a sociopath.

    Alvin there doesn’t want to bother talking to his child.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 31 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Siri, play Cats in the Cradle

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments
    view more: next ›