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

Cat People vs. Dog People

research.facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 93 posts

Re: Cat People vs. Dog People

#51

Post by xanderstrike »

honkhonkpants wrote: post #29
asdfologist wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? This is orders of magnitude better than selling private data to ad companies, which is FB's main business. If of all things you choose to be outraged by aggregate statistics about cat vs. dog people, you may want to reconsider your priorities.

Is that what FB does? Or do they just use their data internally to target ads, without handing the data to the advertisers? I honestly don't know but I do know that people are always saying that Google sells your information to advertisers, and they don't. So I'm skeptical of this claim. Anyway, maybe this whole analysis was based on public profile data.

If either of these companies actually sold the data they've collected they'd hurt their own competitive advantage.

Re: Cat People vs. Dog People

#52

Post by CM30 »

I wonder how much of this is an introvert/extravert thing? I mean, the article already points out that dog people will likely have more friends and cat people are more likely to be single, so I suspect the difference in preferences may depend on that aspect of someone's personality.

Cats are perfect for introverts; they look after themselves, don't tend to do much in the day, don't need walks and hence can be mostly left alone (or left to sit next to you) while you browse the internet or work at home.

Dogs require more excercise, commitment, etc. So if you gain energy from being around others, what better way than to go for two walks a day round the streets/local park?

So extraverts likely choose dogs, and introverts likely choose cats.

Re: Cat People vs. Dog People

#53

Post by beefsack »

whateveracct wrote: post #37
honkhonkpants wrote: post #16

This seems like quite an intrusion into people's private data. If certain other large companies decided to crawl all over your data for shits and giggles, I'm fairly sure HN would have its pitchforks out.

> To answer these questions, we dug our claws into aggregate, de-identified data from a sample of about 160,000 people in the United States who shared photos of cats or dogs (or both) on Facebook. How is looking at aggregate, de-identified data an intrusion into people's private data? ?? ?

This article is interesting, but it alludes to the level of profiling they do on their user-base, and that part is scary.

Re: Cat People vs. Dog People

#54

Post by saghm »

auganov wrote: post #39
bluejekyll wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously? you won't accept derivatives that disagree with your statement. Also, see the response about the spanish usage of 'gata' edit: this is much too serious of a response to this funny of a thread, I should throw some humor in here somewhere ;)

Of course not (which I indicated fairly clearly too). To make a fair comparison you want to consider what kind of a feeling or connotation "You're a dog" vs "You're a cat" invokes. Variations on the sentence are okay too, like, say "You're such a dog" or "Come here dog". I didn't contest 'gata', gender specificity does make it non-ideal, but I'll take it.

By "gender specificity", do you mean the word itself, or the people targeted by the insult? Using the word "gato" to describe a woman would be nonsensical, and I don't think that a word predominantly being used to insult only one gender (such as "bastard") makes it any less of an insult.

Re: Cat People vs. Dog People

#55

Post by Cogito »

auganov wrote: post #39
bluejekyll wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously? you won't accept derivatives that disagree with your statement. Also, see the response about the spanish usage of 'gata' edit: this is much too serious of a response to this funny of a thread, I should throw some humor in here somewhere ;)

Of course not (which I indicated fairly clearly too). To make a fair comparison you want to consider what kind of a feeling or connotation "You're a dog" vs "You're a cat" invokes. Variations on the sentence are okay too, like, say "You're such a dog" or "Come here dog". I didn't contest 'gata', gender specificity does make it non-ideal, but I'll take it.

"You're such a pussy" or "Don't be a pussy" can definitely be used in a derogatory fashion, especially in groups in which social status is dominated by masculinity.

It can mean, for example, variations on "Don't be so timid", "Stop expressing your fears", and "Take more risks".

Indeed, I have heard "Don't be a bitch" be used in almost the exact same way.

Re: Cat People vs. Dog People

#56

Post by saghm »

honkhonkpants wrote: post #29
asdfologist wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? This is orders of magnitude better than selling private data to ad companies, which is FB's main business. If of all things you choose to be outraged by aggregate statistics about cat vs. dog people, you may want to reconsider your priorities.

Is that what FB does? Or do they just use their data internally to target ads, without handing the data to the advertisers? I honestly don't know but I do know that people are always saying that Google sells your information to advertisers, and they don't. So I'm skeptical of this claim. Anyway, maybe this whole analysis was based on public profile data.

In this case, I don't think the distinction is really that important; I think checking if someone is single or in a relationship to target them with an ad is more intrusive than checking if they're in a group of a few dozen thousand people who are single and like cats.

Re: Cat People vs. Dog People

#58

Post by gwern »

NeutronBoy wrote: post #33
honkhonkpants wrote: post #16

This seems like quite an intrusion into people's private data. If certain other large companies decided to crawl all over your data for shits and giggles, I'm fairly sure HN would have its pitchforks out.

You'll probably find that they didn't use any data that's not available to 'public' viewing. (Would be interesting to hear about their sampling methodology)

I'm not sure about that. The sentiment analysis in particular sounds like it might be using private updates.

Re: Cat People vs. Dog People

#59

Post by dav43 »

Here is Australia, I don't like cats because they kill the native wildlife. They're a pest.

I have also seen what cats can do after travelling to some Greek islands. Almost zero wildlife on lands. No prevelance of birds. You wake up to silence.

For this reason, I'll always be a dog person.

Re: Cat People vs. Dog People

#60

Post by crispyambulance »

Meh.

There really is only one thing that makes me cat person: Cats don't need someone to take them out to POOP.

Somehow, cats made the intellectual leap that dogs can't seem to grasp. That is, shitting in a box and covering it up. Brilliant.

Post reply on HN