It doesn't seem absurd to me. The types of places that ban children are the types of places that children wouldn't enjoy and wouldn't appreciate. They're places that cost $50 and up for an entree, and dinner generally takes more than an hour.

There's no obvious reason for a child to be there. People mostly take their children so that they don't have to hire somebody to watch their children -- which implicitly obligates everybody else in the dining room to watch their children.

The article's case is that we all need to learn to have other people around, in order to live in a community. "Continuing to allow kids in restaurants is a way for people other than their relatives to invest in the socialization of those children."

I believe that the author is missing that this is about "fine dining", perhaps the top 5% of all restaurants. The vast majority of restaurants not only allow children, but welcome them. We can all socialize each other's children at McDonald's, at Olive Garden, at TGI Friday's.

I don't think it's hard to answer the article's question of "how we can show up for parents and kids in ways that cost the rest of us very little". The answer is in the 95% of restaurants that don't mind, while allowing a small fraction of spaces for (wealthy) adults who sometimes want to not be obligated to socialize other people's children.

(Indeed, if there's a problem, it's that only the wealthy can afford that space. It's a privilege we don't extend to anybody else. If you wanted to have adults-only Olive Gardens for the middle class, and force the rich to teach other people's children what it's like to hobnob, I'd be all for that.)

Why? How does it harm you? Have you ever attended a wedding where children weren't allowed? Do you disagree with that practice?

If you think it's absurd, don't go to that restaurant. Go to any of the other hundreds or thousands of restaurants within driving distance.

This article even acknowledges that kids are never harmless to the enjoyment of other diners.

Some people (and I'm not even including myself here) want to eat around only quiet adults, and it's their right to seek that out and it's a restaurant's right to provide it. It's reasonable for a restaurant to want to occupy a niche.

This is dumb. Nearly 100% of restaurants allow children. Why is it a problem for a few in each city to ban them? Not every space needs to be for every group of people, and we already have spaces that are specifically for adults (bars or clubs) and spaces that are specifically for children (playgrounds, Chuck E. Cheese, etc.)

It would certainly be galling if an entire block or town banned kids from restaurants, but that's not happening here (or anywhere, as far as I know).

A lot of cryptocurrencies are in Rust these days. Half of the crypto stack of Mina is, Sui is, Linera is, Grin is, Penumbra is, etc.

I wonder if there's somewhere that people can propose a name for things and people can tell them why they might want to use something else - 'Pony' is fairly common slang for 'crap' in London / Southern England.

Not directly related to the article, but I just wanted to share my experience with using artificial sweeteners to overcome a sugar addiction. Based on the recommendation from my fitness coach, I found that aspartame-based sweeteners were really helpful in reducing and eventually eliminating added sugars from my diet. I used a FreeStyle Libre 3 sensor to monitor my glucose levels and was surprised to find that the Monster drinks I drank whenever a craving kicked in didn't have any effect on my glucose levels.

It took me about three weeks to get rid of the sugar habit, and now I only consume small amounts of sugar through an apple a day and protein powder in my morning porridge. I'm also back to water only. I figured I'd share in case it could help anyone else out there struggling with strong sugar cravings.