Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fake girlfriend, revisited

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 109 posts

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#91

Post by tamana »

azinman2 wrote: post #85

I have a somewhat analogous experience that proves to me this could plausibly work. A few years ago I was single and met a guy at 'da club' who was visiting just for the weekend from .au. We hit it off and hung out while he was in SF until he flew home (to his husband, they were in an open relationship.. I know complicated). Note: This initial physical chemistry is the part that a "service" may never be able to repli…

The traditional ways to do this are to have a crush on a friend, or to just have a friend.

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#92

Post by kbenson »

Retric wrote: post #75
Rylinks wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The no-fly list can have three nines of accuracy and still have more false positives than actual hits.

Depends on how you define accuracy. Your thinking in terms of the test for the no fly list is X accurate, but that does not mean the no fly list it's self has X accuracy. List A, contains every person on the planet so it's comprehensive, but nobody would call that an accurate no fly list. List B contains one name of an terrorist who has made specific credible and recent threats, it is very accurate.

I think what's really being alluded to is that regardless of your accuracy (unless it's 0% or 100%), your false-positives will always be subject to your inputs.

Put another way, if you have no terrorists going through, then your false positive matches will always be greater than or equal to your positive matches, and in this case, equal only when they are both zero, since there would never be a real positive.

In a less extreme case, such as the reality we live in, we have many millions of non-terrorists and a few terrorists, and even with three nines of accuracy, it's likely your false positive matches far outweigh your real positive matches.

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#93

Post by azinman2 »

tamana wrote: post #91
azinman2 wrote: post #85

I have a somewhat analogous experience that proves to me this could plausibly work. A few years ago I was single and met a guy at 'da club' who was visiting just for the weekend from .au. We hit it off and hung out while he was in SF until he flew home (to his husband, they were in an open relationship.. I know complicated). Note: This initial physical chemistry is the part that a "service" may never be able to repli…

The traditional ways to do this are to have a crush on a friend, or to just have a friend.

I don't think that gives you the same kind of support. A crush you don't FaceTime/text/whatever multiple times a day for an extended period of time. And if you had to hide your feelings then there's no relief.

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#95

Post by civilian »

daniel-cussen wrote: post #50
keithpeter wrote: post #5

OA quote: ""lower league English football" wasn't available" Possibly explains the recurring need for a fake one. Serious contribution: bots faking it with other bots generating large numbers of apparently real social profiles. Not just gf/bf whatever but other forms of relationship (fake boss asking for more work this weekend as a cover for...). Ideal chaff for the surveillance society.

I ran a website like that, it was all scammers. On both sides. I left because I didn't want my name attached, but it organically attracted both scummy type 1 users and scummy type 2 users, where both were necessary for interaction to take place. EDIT: I should add that I wasn't made fully aware of the depth of the scamminess of the whole thing until I accidentally tried cleaning up some "offers" and found it was all…

How did the scams work? Why were the users scummy? Was it just faking social interactions?

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#96

Post by tclancy »

keithpeter wrote: post #5

OA quote: ""lower league English football" wasn't available" Possibly explains the recurring need for a fake one. Serious contribution: bots faking it with other bots generating large numbers of apparently real social profiles. Not just gf/bf whatever but other forms of relationship (fake boss asking for more work this weekend as a cover for...). Ideal chaff for the surveillance society.

The ones I feel for are the fake children of these relationships when they come to an end.

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#97

Post by daniel-cussen »

civilian wrote: post #95
daniel-cussen wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ran a website like that, it was all scammers. On both sides. I left because I didn't want my name attached, but it organically attracted both scummy type 1 users and scummy type 2 users, where both were necessary for interaction to take place. EDIT: I should add that I wasn't made fully aware of the depth of the scamminess of the whole thing until I accidentally tried cleaning up some "offers" and found it was all…

How did the scams work? Why were the users scummy? Was it just faking social interactions?

The scams were hardcore; yes; and no. No fake social interactions, it was actually just scammers trying to get people to order goods on the pretense they would then ship them to Buenos Aires, for example. That example, oh man, I couldn't believe how sketchy, how beyond sketchy, that website was. Or is.

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#98

Post by mjb394 »

Dunno why people are surprised that (straight) women are interested in boyfriends as well. Plus or minus a percentage or two, there are as many single women as single men, and they face many similar family/societal pressures to be involved with someone (if not more due to the eventual biological timebomb). Partners are not commodities, and it's way better for women to be single than to have the wrong partner.

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#99

Post by zardo »

mirimir wrote: post #35
dineshp2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't be too hard for the surveillance society to distinguish the real profiles and bots(Edit: or people pretending to be different people). The US Government has built up such far reaching surveillance tools, of which we have just seen the tip of the iceberg, that this chaff that you are talking about wouldn't be chaff at all.

These aren't bots. These are people, pretending to be other people.

The whole thing reminds me of the main character's job in Her. Life imitates art.

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#100

Post by lolo_ »

mjb394 wrote: post #98

Dunno why people are surprised that (straight) women are interested in boyfriends as well. Plus or minus a percentage or two, there are as many single women as single men, and they face many similar family/societal pressures to be involved with someone (if not more due to the eventual biological timebomb). Partners are not commodities, and it's way better for women to be single than to have the wrong partner.

I think I'll get downvoted for this, esp. on HN, but I think the main surprise people have with this kind of thing (+ what you're missing out with the comparison to men frankly) is the significant biological difference between men and women - it's far, far easier for a woman to find a male partner than vice-versa. Generally, women choose.

In history 40% of all men have reproduced, while 80% of all women have. It's just biology.

So it's surprising they couldn't find this in real life. Additionally, women tend to have better support networks than men.

Of course, this doesn't mean it's easy to find a decent guy, and yes, partners are not commodities, so maybe that is the real issue while still wanting some companionship.

And it's not just way better for _women_ to be single than to have the wrong partner, it's way better for a person to be single than to have the wrong partner.

Post reply on HN