491–500 of 570 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
When you frame it that way, you're setting it up to fail, asking "everyone else" to pay tax dollars to support "one". How about instead: one of the population (namely ultra-wealthy people and businesses) subsidizing everyone else. Now, it's the larger "everyone else" who is benefitting, at the expense of a small group who should hold less democratic power due to its size.
I'm not saying you're doing this but phrases like the one quoted above are sometimes used to divide the "everyone else" group against each other, in order to erode support for programs that ultimately benefit them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Considering that what people want from dating apps is sex and partners, and that both are easier to obtain from people of matching attractiveness. But people don't have an accurate perception of matching attractiveness. The average person is a 5 who thinks they're an 8. And they've been looking at celebrities rather than average people, so if you match them with a 5 then they'll think that's a 3.
You're defining attractiveness like boomers handing out grades where in real life that's not how the 10 scale is used, it follows video game review rules where 7 is middling. And this is right to happen with humans same as video games. It's not centered at average it's centered where 5 is "not quite unattractive." And because the typical human is attractive the average sits at around 7.
Most people where I live are overweight, and even higher if you're only looking at women (my dating demographic).
I don't think my standards are very high and I'd say 5 is high for the average woman I see, just because of weight alone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've thought for a while now that it is a matter of national interest that your population couples up and has children. It's immensely important for the success of a nation and it's odd that the majority of how people meet now is through data apps and that there is no oversight over these at all. They have every incentive to match you with someone you are more likely to have a short term relationship than match you w…
It is socially corrosive. However, "family values" have traditionally been framed as a conservative value in the USA/UK/AUS at least. So, how do we move "love and human relationships" back into a progressive position in a time when entrenched power profits from lonliness and division?
When you tell people that they’re unique individuals and self actualization is the highest virtue, there’s little room for family.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not wrong, but I believe there are things people can do to find better "fishing holes" if they think outside the box. I grew up in Los Angeles and have never actually felt at home here. Should it be any surprise that my experience dating here has been poor? I'm certainly not a hottie, but I am pretty sure I'm not ugly, either. Given all the examples of male attractiveness I've seen, I think I'm a low 7 on the…
I did similar census research back in my early 20's (more than 10 years ago at this point) and concluded that certain parts of D.C. are the best place to be if you're an 18-34 single man. Then I happened to meet someone randomly (now married) before I had a chance to put this plan into action. I'd be fascinated if someone who couldn't get a date in LA moved to DC and blogged about the results.
I moved from the bay area to Manhattan. It didn't improve my dating success at all. I've blogged about it a lot on private spaces to friends but it's not as happy go lucky as you might imagine.
I think the odds will improve in your favor if you live in small towns with better ratios but those basically don't exist in the USA. Once you live in a big enough city, it seems like most women's bar for physical attractiveness quickly rises above that of what your average man can hope to pass. That said, I would never move to a small town because the amount of single professional working class women is exceptionally few.
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?
> What tax rate do you think would be required to support those programs? I guess the middle class needs to pay 45% effective tax rate on all income. And, upper incomes would need to pay about 55% effective tax rate. > How much would you have left over for raising children? How much more do you need if you have all of those benefits? Not much.