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

How fateful?

chan.co.za

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 343 posts

Re: How fateful?

#131

Post by autoexec »

ericmcer wrote: post #112
zhte415 wrote: post #5

> It makes me feel very philosophical. Likely we had walked past each other every other week for three years with our heads down, or in the clouds, paying very little notice to the people around us. Past Channon had not the foggiest clue what impact an unnoticed stranger would come to have on her. Since learning this I can’t help but look at the passers-by in my day-to-day life in a different light. And no shame in g…

I don't really agree, if you sat down and talked with every single person you walked by throughout the day you would meet many people you clicked with, both on a friendship and romantic level. If the author was that outgoing they probably would have met their partner earlier, or she would have found someone she liked better. In other words I don't think who we end up with is some 1 in a million cosmic star aligning m…

> I don't think who we end up with is some 1 in a million cosmic star aligning moment, it's probably more like 1 in 100

I suspect that you're right for most people, but those odds will be better or worse depending on the person and their circumstance. For some people, it probably is closer to 1 in a million, or could even be worse. Some go their entire lives meeting people and never finding one. There's probably not much harm in feeling a bit lucky to have found your person, especially if you suspect at least one of your odds were worse than most.

Re: How fateful?

#132

Post by nova22033 »

elzbardico wrote: post #118

Plot Twist: When google's algorithms decided those two individuals should pair, it started showing them ads for the same events in order to increase the probability of them meeting. The goal was achieved by the system in 3 months, exactly as predicted with a 99% probability with a 95% CI. The system's next goal is to subtly nudge the couple to reproduce within the next year in order to help google meet their user acc…

This is plot of a Black Mirror episode...sort of..

Re: How fateful?

#133

Post by NoGravitas »

room505 wrote: post #71

My spouse and I passed each other all the time because we lived in the same neighborhood. I almost had the courage to approach her. Ironically, we ended up meeting through a dating website!

It's almost as if the dating website played the role that a formal introduction from a mutual acquaintance might have played once upon a time.

Re: How fateful?

#134

Post by throwaway2037 »

wzdd wrote: post #63
lynguist wrote: post #31

My takeaway is this: If you want to meet your significant other, attend a university. After university your chances will dwindle down as you won't frequent that big come together place any more.

The story leads with the fact that the author met her boyfriend on Bumble, despite attending the same university and living in the same city for five years. So that's a surprising takeaway.

I thought the same, but I am generation older. It made me think: Does anyone still ask people out for dates in real life? I am sure some, but the ratio must be incredibly low now after online dating became so common. To be clear: I do not think this is worse. For example, with the rise of different types of dating apps, it does seem that women (seeking men) have more agency in their dating life. In my generation (and culture), women almost never asked out men, so they were always waiting for romance to happen to them. Of course, this has changed significantly. Some part is the rise in agency of women (education, earnings power, social changes, etc.), and some part dating apps.

Re: How fateful?

#135

Post by skapadia »

elzbardico wrote: post #118

Plot Twist: When google's algorithms decided those two individuals should pair, it started showing them ads for the same events in order to increase the probability of them meeting. The goal was achieved by the system in 3 months, exactly as predicted with a 99% probability with a 95% CI. The system's next goal is to subtly nudge the couple to reproduce within the next year in order to help google meet their user acc…

That's some Black Mirror level dystopia there, and totally within the realm of possibility, if it isn't already happening.

Sync that up with Apple Watch 8's ability to estimate ovulation, and poof, declining birth rate problem solved!

I'm scared.

Re: How fateful?

#136

Post by angryGhost »

scandox wrote: post #90

Can people now just meet each other without an App? Is it generally possible to just kick off conversations with people you haven't been introduced to? I mean if these two were sitting under the same apple tree, they'd be on their phones checking out Bumble, surely?

easier said than done

Re: How fateful?

#137

Post by Tozen »

andyp-kw wrote: post #78
seba_dos1 wrote: post #10

Fun fact: whatever you can do with this data, Google can do as well!

We get it, Google has access to the data you share with them, shocking.

The interesting aspect of that, is what Google and other authorities do with such data. They can be unlocking all sorts of private trivia, unbeknown to any of the users involved, to an extent far beyond any are suspecting.

That could include such authorities, manipulating or interfering with events and lives, more than anybody would think possible or should be legally allowed.

Re: How fateful?

#138

Post by gambiting »

skapadia wrote: post #135
elzbardico wrote: post #118

Plot Twist: When google's algorithms decided those two individuals should pair, it started showing them ads for the same events in order to increase the probability of them meeting. The goal was achieved by the system in 3 months, exactly as predicted with a 99% probability with a 95% CI. The system's next goal is to subtly nudge the couple to reproduce within the next year in order to help google meet their user acc…

That's some Black Mirror level dystopia there, and totally within the realm of possibility, if it isn't already happening. Sync that up with Apple Watch 8's ability to estimate ovulation, and poof, declining birth rate problem solved! I'm scared.

Don't worry, knowing google they would build this just so someone could get their cushy promotion, then the whole thing will be abandoned within 1 to 2 years max. Corporate dystopia falls apart when met with the apathy at google, no problem.

Re: How fateful?

#139

Post by n0tth3dro1ds »

skapadia wrote: post #135
elzbardico wrote: post #118

Plot Twist: When google's algorithms decided those two individuals should pair, it started showing them ads for the same events in order to increase the probability of them meeting. The goal was achieved by the system in 3 months, exactly as predicted with a 99% probability with a 95% CI. The system's next goal is to subtly nudge the couple to reproduce within the next year in order to help google meet their user acc…

That's some Black Mirror level dystopia there, and totally within the realm of possibility, if it isn't already happening. Sync that up with Apple Watch 8's ability to estimate ovulation, and poof, declining birth rate problem solved! I'm scared.

>declining birth rate problem solved

Or maybe it declines more rapidly? Women could just use the cycle prediction to avoid fun time on “risky” days.

Re: How fateful?

#140

Post by eru »

literalAardvark wrote: post #128
elzbardico wrote: post #118

Plot Twist: When google's algorithms decided those two individuals should pair, it started showing them ads for the same events in order to increase the probability of them meeting. The goal was achieved by the system in 3 months, exactly as predicted with a 99% probability with a 95% CI. The system's next goal is to subtly nudge the couple to reproduce within the next year in order to help google meet their user acc…

That's pretty disturbing, and not too far beyond capabilities. I think the biggest one missing would be that iirc a date going well seems pretty much random in dating service data, despite a fair bit of effort to find correlations.

I don't think randomness would be an issue. Google already assume that people clicking (or not) on ads is a random process.

Randomness is fine, just get enough smart people on it to learn about the distribution etc.

Post reply on HN