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

The dating app paradox

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#451

Post by talldatethrow »

trashface wrote: post #56

A couple years ago, post pandemic, I tried these apps for the first time in my life (mid forties), and I had the what is apparently the typical hetero male experience of no matches. It wasn't bad dates or ghosting or catfishing all that stuff you read about. Just no dates, no chats even. Gave up after a few months and deleted them, I doubt I'll ever go back on there. Its perhaps controversial, but I definitely didn't…

No woman is looking for an average guy on dating apps. Would you look for an average car at an average price on a car sales website, if they were all within your ability to get?

Re: The dating app paradox

#452

Post by _heimdall »

throwaway743 wrote: post #355
claytongulick wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What tax rate do you think would be required to support those programs? How much would you have left over for raising children?

Ending wasteful spending of our tax dollars on gov contractors and letting them slide with huge overcharges, partly due to use-it-or-lose it budgeting, would help in a big way. Ending this shit budgeting practice would also be big. Nevermind how much of our tax money goes towards the MIC. Rather see our money go towards these programs to help one another, over bombs to tear people apart.

Optimizing spending and cutting waste only gets so far, and its only a short term fix. At the end of the day the system needs to include a sustainable model for one of the population to be subsidized by everyone else, in this case that segment is single parents.

With many western countries also seeing a large growth in the retired population, that leaves a segment of the population heavily subsidizing the elderly and single parents, along with all other government programs and similar groups that need help (like the poor, students, those too sick to work, etc)

Re: The dating app paradox

#453

Post by _heimdall »

shiroiushi wrote: post #404
ethbr1 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>- free childcare > Where exactly are all the workers going to come from to support this one? This extends to most child-cost related issues: childcare, primary-education, activities, secondary-education, tertiary-education. Scaling the child:child-cost-worker ratio up needs to be a huge part of this. Which is going to require some out of the box thinking (e.g. cultural acceptance of MOOCs / online degrees).

Um, I don't think this answers my question. Online courses aren't a substitute for early-childhood daycare. You have to have actual people present in-person to do these jobs, and people willing to do these jobs for the wages offered are in short supply, or are people you really don't want watching your kids. This also extends, as you seem to say, to other jobs with high contact with young children, like elementary sc…

I'm curious, would you support funding to help anyone willing to homeschooled their child as an alternative solution here?

I often hear similar arguments for the need to help parents offload certain portions of childcare so they can go to work, I don't know that I've ever really heard any meaningful push to help parents offload work so they can raise their children full-time.

Re: The dating app paradox

#454

Post by talldatethrow »

ravenstine wrote: post #74
michaelt wrote: post #34

If you're interested in this sort of thing, I can recommend creating an account on your dating app of choice with the opposite gender. The experiences are as different as night and day - and the different user groups have completely different requirements of the product. The article is interesting, but IMHO they've really missed the key asymmetries that make good dating apps so hard to build.

Better yet, do some experiments outside of just gender. Make an account for a dog. Or be a guy who's a total douchebag. You may not like what you find. EDIT: Seems people here don't like what I have to say or think I'm kidding. I haven't done the dog experiment myself, though I've seen it done a few times by others. It's quite the realization when a dog gets more attention than you do as a human on a dating app. Yeah…

My craziest online dating story is from 2007 with PlentyOfFish. Was hours from going to the girls house to torrent and chill. Googled her username from POF back when usernames sometimes meant something. Got a hit on a weird forum. Threads with pictures. Had to make a fake email to make account to see attachments. Confirmed, normal looking girl from Alameda CA letting her dog do her. I swear on my parents life. I stayed off online dating for several years until the tinder craze in 2014. Your dog comments gives me a spark of PTSD.

Re: The dating app paradox

#455

Post by user_7832 »

intrasight wrote: post #378
user_7832 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a revenue of $1000, but always being $1000 away from being in debt. ...yeah I get "what if I spent $900 on a purchase and got the money back the next day" is a valid criticism, but I mean, just above poverty. By the way the P(expected) = (1 billion * 0.5) + ((almost) zero * 0.5) = a very respectable 500 million, which even at $1000 a day would take 500,000 days or over a thousand years.

> but always being $1000 away from being in debt As in like 70% of Americans

Yes, quite likely. Which is why I specified

> any well-settled person

I would expect the average SWE on HN to be worth more than a $1000. (Of course there are exceptions, I'm not an SWE myself but I'm only talking about the average person for simplicity.)

Re: The dating app paradox

#456

Post by user_7832 »

garciasn wrote: post #268
user_7832 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry to hear that. Wouldn't some of that be considered a crime/fraud, meaning legal recourse may be an option? Of course a lawyer would know better. (Not that it might be easy to recover the money, but the judge could have wages garnished.)

The burden is on me to prove she used it to prepare for divorce or used it on her affair. It’ll cost at least $100K and probably more to do so and it may not matter. And, no, when you’re married it’s not fraud.

If she was using your money, would that not be some kind of "unauthorized spending" that you could "report" to your bank? I'm not just talking about preparing for divorce but even other expensive purchases. But I can imagine that it's probably near impossible if you're married with a joint bank account...

I would still suggest speaking with a lawyer about this if you haven't already, but nonetheless I wish you the best. Perhaps consider the money the "cost" of getting rid of person who needed to go anyway.

Re: The dating app paradox

#457

Post by user_7832 »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #305
user_7832 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being able to start a friendly conversation under circumstances where an average male might fail is a prime sign of date-ability. Under this assumption, would the average man be undateble? (Not that I agree or disagree with the rest, but this seems odd to me.)

> Under this assumption, would the average man be undateble? Yes. If men don't approach women, they stay single. Period. Look at the ratio of men under 30 in the US who are single now. It is mindblowing.

That's a fair point, it does appear to be anecdotally true.

Re: The dating app paradox

#458

Post by baobabKoodaa »

lazide wrote: post #293
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quitting a gym has lower cost than quitting a job, though. Especially if the "quitting" does not occur in amicable circumstances.

You wouldn’t get a chance to quit either one, probably. The job might fire the accuser - they might have an incentive to investigate. At the gym you might get arrested and then banned, with no one interested in doing followup to figure out the actual truth - just have you released after it was clear it was fake. The gym wouldn't want anything to do with you either way afterwards.

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just saying the repercussions for whatever things like that happen, they will be lower at the gym compared to the workplace.

Re: The dating app paradox

#459

Post by user_7832 »

Exoristos wrote: post #263
user_7832 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being able to start a friendly conversation under circumstances where an average male might fail is a prime sign of date-ability. Under this assumption, would the average man be undateble? (Not that I agree or disagree with the rest, but this seems odd to me.)

What assumption? The assumption that a bookstore is the only place men and women can interact?

No, I meant the assumption that the average man is undataeble as he cannot start a conversation.

Re: The dating app paradox

#460

Post by ravenstine »

talldatethrow wrote: post #454
ravenstine wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better yet, do some experiments outside of just gender. Make an account for a dog. Or be a guy who's a total douchebag. You may not like what you find. EDIT: Seems people here don't like what I have to say or think I'm kidding. I haven't done the dog experiment myself, though I've seen it done a few times by others. It's quite the realization when a dog gets more attention than you do as a human on a dating app. Yeah…

My craziest online dating story is from 2007 with PlentyOfFish. Was hours from going to the girls house to torrent and chill. Googled her username from POF back when usernames sometimes meant something. Got a hit on a weird forum. Threads with pictures. Had to make a fake email to make account to see attachments. Confirmed, normal looking girl from Alameda CA letting her dog do her. I swear on my parents life. I stay…

Yikes! That's worse than my experience. She wanted me to pretend physically abuse her, and not in a BDSM with a safe word sort of way. I just don't want any element of that kind of dynamic in my life or to accidentally unleash some negative part of my psyche that's dormant.

Likewise to you, I quit dating for a while after that experiment.

> torrent and chill

LOL

Post reply on HN