U.S. Government Database of Dad Jokes
fatherhood.gov
fatherhood.gov
https://web.archive.org/web/20230126220339/https://www.fathe...
It is unknown why this particular website (if it ever existed?) got hugged to death, but much of the Government uses AWS govcloud and similar solutions.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s still a lot of waste, inefficiency, and BS in government contracting. But some aspects of it are getting better. In our case, we were explicitly told by our “customer” to allocate more resources to scaling than we may in the private sector so that our application would not get hugged to death.
That's not to say I'm not glad this exists - I am! But I don't think it deserves a large budget.
They certainly shouldnt be spending to scale a ton on dad jokes, in case it's very popular for a day
% host -t ptr 44.252.197.15.in-addr.arpa 44.252.197.15.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer a05e7be9b6fd75377.awsglobalaccelerator.com.
% host -t ptr 102.237.33.3.in-addr.arpa 102.237.33.3.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer a05e7be9b6fd75377.awsglobalaccelerator.com.
It is on AWS.
CloudFront is the AWS CDN offering.
Before the three-step one pager it was a UX that only a mother could love on payday. The bigger problem was every time it would end up on somewhere like Yahoo finance (don't laugh, this was 2007 and earlier) it would fall over like this database. The key to scaling it seems pretty obvious today, write all the searchable data out to a single JSON file and have the browser poll that. It was doing multiple millions of user sessions a day I was told and couldn't have been deployed at a better time.
Some projects you get lucky with I suppose. I check it out every once in a while and the UX is basically still the same.
I ended up getting locked out of my account due to some issue trying to enter what my password manager generated for me and eventually just gave up on ever converting the one small paper bond I was given as a kid to a digital one.
If the goal was to frustrate people away from converting paper bonds, they certainly succeeded.
(RoyalSloth's blog survived the hug while hosted on Hetzner's smallest 1 vCPU instance.)
... the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 of course!
It's in Sec 7103: Grants for Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood
EDIT: to clarify, an argument that providing dad-jokes leads to less single motherhood (which then leads to less spending) is so tenuous, that if you accept it, you can accept almost any kind of mental gymnastics.
I agree that reducing single motherhood would probably lead to less spending. It's the connection to dad-jokes that tenuous (at least without any further evidence).
For most claimed benefits, it doesn't require a lot of mental gymnastics to find some arguments why they would reduce some spending in the long run.
If you give me an example as a challenge, I can (most probably) spin you the argument of how it reduces spending.
It's an argument against this specific argument for government spending.
Making bad arguments is excessively easy, independent of whether the thing argued for is good or bad, or true or false.
To give a simple example: consider a faulty proof of Pythagoras' theorem. See eg https://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/FalseProofs.shtml
Pointing out flaws in these purported proofs is not an argument against Pythagoras' theorem; it's still true after all. It's merely an argument against the faulty arguments.
I don't know whether it's a good use of tax money (probably not), but it's such a minuscule amount in the grand scheme of things, that it doesn't really matter.
Eg repealing the Jones act would do a lot more, if one wanted to get riled up about something. It's basically a very inefficient re-distribution from Hawaiians to a few domestic ship owners.
For anyone curious.
The insurance industry could've tolerated quite a bit of disruption. The ACA was successful in ensuring the donor class got to keep the profit levels they are accustomed to, the only thing it was ever designed to do.
So it reducing the number of uninsured by many millions was just an unintentional consequence, or what?
Now a bunch of people are paying hundreds a month for a ten thousand dollar deductible. Those people already pay for socialized medicine (the US spends the most on socialized medicine per captia), so I don't see that as a win as much as a gift to the insurance companies.
curl -H "Accept: text/plain" https://icanhazdadjoke.com/
Here’s a freebie for you new dads:
What do you call a spider with twenty eyes?
A spiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiider.
How much suffering could we avoid for children if we could convince more pregnant women to not smoke and drink and consume drugs?
[0]: https://www.paulgraham.com/say.html [1]: https://paulgraham.com/resay.html [2]: https://paulgraham.com/saynotes.html
The “I‘n being suppressed because I can’t say these things” articles by extremely well placed people who constantly say these things is tedious.
"Don’t smoke or drink alcohol"
But as I said, we do that already, and far more directly as part of women's healthcare. It is not a men's health issue, so it can't be done through existing systems. The effectiveness of telling women to be responsible mothers, which you objected to earlier, does not negate the fact that we do tell them, so your political narrative does not make sense.
Did you hear about the two satellites that got married?
The wedding wasn't much, but the reception was incredible.
Should the punchline be "out of this world"?
(Though I wonder whether the Chinese can claim dumping with the WTO? That's what the Americans do with Chinese goods that are delivered cheaper than they would like to compete with.)
It may seem silly on the surface, but solving issues at the root is often way more effective than treating the symptoms. In plain words: we're better off solving crime by having a kid grow up in a healthy household, rather than throwing that kid in prison after they commit a crime, who may in turn have a kid who grows up in an unhealthy household without a father.
I agree, slapstick is very funny