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

561–570 of 570 posts

Re: The dating app paradox

#561

Post by margalabargala »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #201
margalabargala wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This actually opens up a lot of opportunities. With the existing hegemony of Match, a new company doesn't actually need to worry about becoming profitable; if they can be good enough at matchmaking that they start to catch on, then they can rely on a buyout from Match. Much like how a decade ago, "getting bought by Google" was the business plan of a lot of companies, many of which did get acquired by google.

This probably works once. I'm sure Match's buyout terms will include a non-compete agreement, so you can't keep repeating this trick until they run out of buyout money.

Once per person.

Re: The dating app paradox

#563

Post by blendo »

blendo wrote: post #62

For a straight male, you’ll see a surprisingly large number of fake profiles. Anecdotally, women seem to report this too. (Reddit has MANY such posts!) So identity verification is a real problem. As an iPhone user, I’d seriously consider using a dating app that ONLY allowed you to “Sign in with Apple”, in the belief that it’s the “best” way to ensure a real human is behind the sign-in, more-so than email/pwd, or even…

btw, I'm just throwing out that "Sign in with Apple" is "best" only to challenge "Sign in with Facebook" or "Sign in with Google" folks to explain why not.

At the very least, it's nice to have Apple whip up a random email address for you every time a site asks for one.

Re: The dating app paradox

#564

Post by _heimdall »

ethbr1 wrote: post #555
_heimdall wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ask because, to me, the idea that we should be heavily subsidizing the removal of parents from a child's life while considering parents being more involved a luxury feels very backwards. You seem to have a base assumption that most people are bad parents and kids would be better off being raised by professionals. You also seem to have an assumption that both you and the state have the right to decide what is best f…

Respectfully, I think the line of questioning is a bit off. There are two components of this problem: (1) allocation & (2) efficiency Substituting others (or parents) for child care services is a reallocation. E.g. 1 hour of parent time instead of 1 hour of day care worker time. Efficiency is instead looking at the "How many person-hours does it take to support 1 child in this way?" metric. Blending them together mud…

Homeschooling can be pooled similarly to public schooling though. Historically it has been commonplace for a local community on the scale of a neighborhood to have their own schoolhouse run by parents in the community. This definitely falls outside of the modern public schooling model but handles the concern of an extremely low student to teacher ratio.

Is it fair to say you'd be on board with this kind of setup, where its effectively home schooling pooled to free up more parents to enter the workforce?

Re: The dating app paradox

#565

Post by _heimdall »

skissane wrote: post #529
_heimdall wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Radical gay liberationists argued (and still argue) that same-sex marriage was always conservative rather than truly progressive, since it is trying to co-opt and tame gay radicalism into sustaining traditional social institutions such as marriage, rather than what they argue would be the truly progressive approach, which would be to dismantle those institutions entirely. And I would argue that is an unnecessarily…

> The concept of marriage can't be dismantled, at best we could remove any state concept of it and get rid of any legal protections, tax benefits, etc In Australia, unmarried couples (what we call de facto relationships ) have essentially the same legal rights and benefits as legally married couples. In fact, Australia extended de facto status to same-sex couples before it legalised same-sex marriage, rendering the l…

I generally agree with what you're saying here. I'm all for less regulation and smaller governments, that would include removing the legal definition and any legal accounting for the concept of marriage. I think you would still need to get rid of any benefits unmarried couples would be offered though, otherwise you really left all the government programs in place and did nothing but abolish a single term from the laws.

> You can define words to mean whatever you want. The problem is, different people define words differently, and if definitions disagree, what makes one person's definitions objectively superior to another's?

As far as I see it words are entirely arbitrary, there is no objectively superior definition. The only important factor is that definitions are shared. If everyone makes up their own definitions for a shared set of words we'll never understand each other.

I think we get into problems when people begin refining terms like "progressive" or "conservative" when people start adjusting their understanding to allow themselves to fit into one bucket or the other. I.e. people don't learn the shared definition of each term and decide if they fit into either bucket, the find themselves wanting to fit into one bucket or the other and redefine terms to reshape their reality. Tribalism at its finest, basically. The idea of not fitting into either category is a bit scary or stress-inducing, people want to fit in and it is easier to change definitions rather than to change their opinions or beliefs.

Re: The dating app paradox

#566

Post by escapedmoose »

hbn wrote: post #494
Spivak wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> And because the typical human is attractive 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.

Your dating standards are high if weight automatically makes someone a sub-5 in your eyes. I’m not saying that’s morally wrong—you like what you like. But recognize that it’s a high standard and will make dating more difficult.

Re: The dating app paradox

#567

Post by devilbunny »

ed_balls wrote: post #472
devilbunny wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fascina…

Oh, sure.

Pics like that really are a “best foot forward” approach. Mediocre photo, casual dress, nothing remarkable about setting? Not going to get a lot of attention. Wearing a wetsuit on the beach with a surfboard or SCUBA gear will also get a lot more attention. Or t-shirt, but while you’re sitting in the pilot’s seat of a private plane (preferably while in the air).

Re: The dating app paradox

#568

Post by anon78901 »

jstarfish wrote: post #171
Qem wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's much easier to naturally meet people in real life through work/school. It was. Nowadays people including the office in their dating pool face a high risk of harassment claims.

I investigate these complaints for a living. Please don't date anybody you work with. We'll both be happier for it. The fun always starts after a breakup and the other party doesn't want to see you at work anymore. There is usually no penalty for falsely reporting anyone to HR for harassment "in good faith," and there are likely anti-retaliation policies protecting malicious claimants from punishment for "misrepresen…

Happened to me. Utter, utter nightmare. As she seemed to winning she got overconfident and started making claims that were easy to objectively disprove. She was thrown out. She broke down and confessed, after it was too late. Not a work situation though. I don't know why she did it, we weren't on bad terms or anything, I guess she just felt like it. Just a total psycho. It really turned my life upside down for awhile. I wanted to quit anyway, to get away from the whole thing.

Re: The dating app paradox

#569

Post by quickslowdown »

carlosjobim wrote: post #46
pgsandstrom wrote: post #2

I have a somewhat unrealistic dream that someday dating apps will be viewed the same way as roads: Essential infrastructure that needs to be handled by the public. A government developed dating app whose only goal is to help people find healthy relationships. All my american friends balk at this. But as a swede, I dont think it is completely impossible. The completely impossible dream would be that we as a society st…

> A government developed dating app And there it is! I think I have never ever seen an article posted on HN without somebody in the comment advocating for a government takeover. Even for dating apps now! If you examine official policy of the Soviet Union, not even Lenin was _that_ communist. Tomorrow's article on HN: "How to make my three year old eat his vegetables?" In the comments: "The government should mandate t…

Calm down there, friendo, nobody's saying the government should take over dating. What everyone here is talking about is an alternative to the current match.com-owned, for-profit state of affairs. A public option without a profit motive.

It doesn't hurt to have that alongside competition, for those who would want to use it. I personally would not use a service like that, but some governments could be sane enough to implement it as a service to the public.

Re: The dating app paradox

#570

Post by jstarfish »

anon78901 wrote: post #568
jstarfish wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I investigate these complaints for a living. Please don't date anybody you work with. We'll both be happier for it. The fun always starts after a breakup and the other party doesn't want to see you at work anymore. There is usually no penalty for falsely reporting anyone to HR for harassment "in good faith," and there are likely anti-retaliation policies protecting malicious claimants from punishment for "misrepresen…

Happened to me. Utter, utter nightmare. As she seemed to winning she got overconfident and started making claims that were easy to objectively disprove. She was thrown out. She broke down and confessed, after it was too late. Not a work situation though. I don't know why she did it, we weren't on bad terms or anything, I guess she just felt like it. Just a total psycho. It really turned my life upside down for awhile…

Sorry to hear it buddy. Not the first time I've seen that.

I'd say it gets better but it is genuinely traumatic to be attacked out of nowhere for no apparent reason. There's literally nothing you can do to avoid random acts of violence. Even becoming a hermit isn't a solution; now you're that creepy guy who lives in a van by the river who gets blamed for diddling all the kids.

Nomadic life is safer, as long as you don't draw attention and move along before anybody learns how to exploit you.

I hope you find peace and have since landed on your feet.

> I don't know why she did it, we weren't on bad terms or anything, I guess she just felt like it. Just a total psycho

Also not the first time I've seen (or experienced) that either.

I'm seeing more instances of this sort of behavior exhibited by the borderline personality disorder crowd without consequence in popular media. Awkwafina does it in one of her shows, Pete Davison does it in "King of Staten Island," both in relation to getting rid of potential step-parents in publicly-humiliating manners. It's happened to me too in this context. It's really disturbing behavior to see promoted, and now I see it being leveraged at work too as a means of eliminating undesirable colleagues.

Acts of social terrorism, we grant the euphemism "cancellation." There's really nothing you can do but live in fear of it, because there are no rules and our institutions have no integrity.

Post reply on HN