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

471–480 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#471

Post by iggldiggl »

kmmlng wrote: post #429
roenxi wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are more fundamental questions here of whether we want population growth. There seems to be a de-facto equilibrium springing up where wealthy countries quietly drop below replacement rate fertility and then migration from poorer regions happens. It isn't immediately clear why this is a bad thing either. It seems intuitively fair, sustainable for the forseeable future, nobody is being forced to do anything again…

It causes lots of problems because many of our systems have been set up in times of growth and won't function without it. Take for example "pay-as-you-go" pension systems in much of Europe. Here, you don't fund your own retirement, but the current working population funds the retirement of the current retirement population. This works great when you have population growth, because you can have e.g. five working peopl…

> Take for example "pay-as-you-go" pension systems in much of Europe.

Money by itself is worthless if you can't exchange it for actually useful goods and services. So non-"pay-as-you-go" pensions cannot circumvent demography, either – if too many retirees with their accumulated capital would be chasing too little working-age people providing goods and services, you'd just get inflation and all your accumulated capital became worth less.

Re: The dating app paradox

#472

Post by ed_balls »

devilbunny wrote: post #340
ed_balls wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have very little info. I like snowboards, standup, dogs, no description. I've put software engineer as a job. A couple years ago, I've A/B tested a few photos and with regular photo in a t-shirt I've only got a 2-4 likes per week. With a very similar photo to this one https://e0.pxfuel.com/wallpapers/29/831/desktop-wallpaper-io... I've got about 60 likes per week. I've thought that's a lot, but my ex told me she's…

If your "best foot forward" is a snapshot in a T-shirt, that is understandably going to draw less interest than a professional model shot by a professional photographer with professional hair, makeup, lighting, and expensive clothes. I've got clothes that probably aren't much cheaper than that, and while I do look my best in them in random photos, it's nothing compared to the response I get when I'm seen wearing them…

I should probably add that the picture was average quality - my mate made it using old Samsung. Second one was in a plain black t-shirt, but much better lighting and camera.

I have enough signal to claim that a profesional picture in a suit can boost your matches by 2 orders of magnitude. All my ex-girlfriends said it excites them I'm confided and ambitious - I'm not - but the suit conveys that messages. It's fascinating.

Re: The dating app paradox

#473

Post by lazide »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #469
lazide wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might want to re-read my comment.

I have now re-read your comment. I did not find anything there that I would've misunderstood. Can you explain to me what you feel I misunderstood?

Being arrested in public often has much more far reaching negative consequences than the accuser being fired, and you not being arrested.

Assuming work is going to actually investigate before acting of course. They do at least have some incentive on that front - if they need you more than the hassle it creates.

The current society propaganda is society doesn’t need men, so if it’s a woman doing the accusing, don’t expect society to want to investigate. Unless you’re in an area which is ‘anti’ that and the cops think they can manage it. They’re very unlikely to actually pursue charges of false accusations though, that opens a giant can of worms almost everywhere.

It takes a really compelling and provably nasty situation for someone to be willing to risk the backlash from a pretty woman crying and wailing - who you know is more than willing to make false allegations.

Women’s ‘power’ is their beauty - aka the drive others have to make them want them. As to if it’s manipulation or influence depends on the degree of intended mutual benefit in it.

Men’s ‘power’ is their physical violence (which can allow them control over resources), aka their ability to physically force someone or something to ‘comply’. As to if it’s warlord style or ‘community policing’ depends on the degree of intended mutual benefit in it.

Women are more used to the how and why behind false allegations and have the social tools to deal with it better, where most men are going to be powerless except in specific circumstances (Cops, and gay men, maybe - depending on the venue).

There is a reason society has been shitting on cops lately, btw. It hasn’t escaped their notice, I assure you.

Look at how much of the population supported amber heard during the trial if you don’t believe me.

Usually they’d just ignore it after it was obvious what was going on, and threaten the false accuser with a criminal charge - but not actually charge her.

HR is used to more ‘active’ management than the gym. If they’re under a lot of public pressure though, they might want to burn you even worse to appease the folks squeezing them.

Depends on the leadership incentives, and how much ‘force’ the other party wants to apply.

Google, for instance? Oh boy.

Re: The dating app paradox

#474

Post by [deleted] »

watwut wrote: post #412
throw310822 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange analysis. Considering that what people want from dating apps is sex and partners, and that both are easier to obtain from people of matching attractiveness. As a former dating app user, the possibility is something I never cared about: I cared about a date, there is a marketplace and- while I will try to find someone acceptable - certainly I'm not wasting my time chasing people out of my league. That produces…

The idea that real world couples necessary match attractiveness is kind of incels invention. And then they get angry whenever they see a couple with one person super attractive and other .. normal.

[deleted]

Re: The dating app paradox

#475

Post by BurningFrog »

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

The median net worth of Americans is solidly in 6 figures.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/28/americans-median-net-worth-b...

Re: The dating app paradox

#476

Post by fnordian_slip »

morsch wrote: post #400
pertymcpert wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need consensus since consensus is impossible with a large population. You just need a vast majority and the vast majority agree on the winning condition.

The average marriage in the US lasts 8 years.

Isn't this (heavily?) influenced by a small amount of people who marry again and again?

Re: The dating app paradox

#477

Post by [deleted] »

drooby wrote: post #447
alickz wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I see posts like this, I really wonder if men like you just don't know how to write a decent profile intro/bio and post some good photos. Do you ever wonder if your experiences are just not reflective of the majority? Could be they make all the right moves and still lose, it happens more than people are willing to admit I think

Ask your female friends to show you their tinder or hinge apps. Take a look at what most men's profiles look like. It is shocking, funny, and a little bit sad. At least it was for me. Maybe it's because I live in a big city? Idk. Tons of mirror selfies, car selfies, low quality photos, weird forced smiles (no offense - smiles can be improved), red flag prompts, etc. That's most profiles.. the next percentile is avera…

[deleted]

Re: The dating app paradox

#478

Post by Gormo »

Exoristos wrote: post #115
not2b wrote: post #103

The fact that one company repeatedly bought out its competition and now owns, according the the article, 45 dating apps probably has a lot to do with why they suck. Instead of competing by trying to be better, just buy out the rivals, gut them, and make everything worse. As long as the dominant player has lots of capital to buy any upstarts and the regulatory environment lets them do it, it can be an easier way to ma…

As well as regulating them, Western governments might want to actually fund high-quality, not-for-profit dating systems of some kind. Improved health for citizens, lessened extremism, not to mention possibly boosted population growth could result.

Sure, let's put the political state in control of people's direct interpersonal relationships. What could possibly go wrong?

Re: The dating app paradox

#479

Post by Der_Einzige »

rightbyte wrote: post #180
autoexec wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't looked but I suspect that people in happy loving relationships are less likely to be extremists/terrorists than unhappy people without close ties or people in their lives to check in on their mental well-being.

Having kids makes you soften up alot too. Which should probably decrease the lure of war or other terrorism alot?

Why is the comment below mine dead? It’s truthful and factual

Re: The dating app paradox

#480

Post by swozey »

sublinear wrote: post #401
swozey wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the sheer number of interactions that lead to nothing is much higher and more quantifiable than IRL I've done tons of online dating and used to bartend so I'm around single IRL people all the time. I absolutely have far, far more "successful interactions" in OLD, unless you're also referring to chatting, which is pointless to even discuss. I'm referring to actually meeting the person and whether that turns out…

> I have no idea if she's attracted to me, nor single, etc. I've probably spent thousands of hours casually talking to someone I may find interesting only to find out before they leave that they're either not interested or not single or not hetero, whatever. This sounds very off. It's extremely common for people to overshare when drinking. If you can't figure things out in that environment I'm not sure how much lower…

Well, I didn't say "I can't figure out how to pick someone up at a bar or IRL," I said- in less words, my ratio of successfully picking someone up via OLD is higher than my IRL pickups. You have no idea if that's 20 or 300, I can easily say 80-90% of mine, and I think ALL of my last 5-10 serious partners all came from OLD. People IRL, especially frequenting the dive bars I worked at, were't very much out there to get married.

I can open up tinder right now and go grab coffee with a match. I can also go to a coffee shop or bar or game alone and sit there for hours speaking to nobody because literally nobody in that shop is remotely interested in me Vs OLD where I know the person at least at some degree finds me attractive and we HAVE to interact with one another. I also absolutely would not sleep with bar patrons no matter how many passed me a number behind bar, that meme is kind of offensive to bartenders who take pride in their work and value their regulars/customers.

Like calling a massage therapist a masseuse.

Post reply on HN