Right now the hardest part of online dating is just getting a conversation going. Women have far too many choices and men have none.
Women need AI to show them who they would best get along with. Men need AI to get women to talk to them.
How about this: people need to fucking go outside, get hobbies, meet real people in the real world.
I can talk untech and talk tech.
But what the hell am I suppose to do to meet those where I'm a goth who uses FreeBSD, goes for evening strolls picking up litter for enjoyment, cynical enough that wants to see the earth burn while an environmentalist who has a dream of opening an animal sanctuary? Goes to the gym, sword fences and finds most of life bullshit oh and also a sword fencer and fire juggler?
Has his shit together, mortgage and 35?
Next up: HN dating.
I'll be a little blunt. You're not (and almost none us are) as much as a special snowflake as you may believe. Nearly everyone has unique and niche interests.
But more importantly, your post seems to propose the idea that we should all be interested in the same things as our romantic partners. Where does this idea come from? Sure, I think it's important to share some things you like to do together, but I think it's much more important to share the same value system and ideals. Hobbies are just details. I don't care if my partner sword fences or not, but I do care that they can see it's important to me, and cares enough about my happiness to know that I should seek out and do the things I love.
I'm not wanting nor advertising nor where everything much match 100% in common. That would be silly.
I was just making a figure of speech that my interests, are those which are not topic of conversation that you would have at a bar or tavern nor really any other place were you would socialise to court.
If the other party cannot resonate with the other persons hobbies or interests than as much care and love you give, it won't last; I'm just happy with fun and personality if I were to scrap all above.
But I still hold belief that of if there are not mutual interests between one and another then the relationship cant grow.
I don't disagree.
Love and Care are ever so important; they are the basics to form the spark, to light the candle, however.
The other party are too needing to be ready to engage in the passions you enjoy and that to share my passions I would need to take interest in vice versa. Incompatibilities are true and its not a percentage.
Would you be ready to play with fire? Go out on cold wet rainy night with a litter picker and carry a dripping wet trash bag ring? Listen to me ramble on how I've configured vtnet jails which allows me to host jailed bhyve VMs?
Because for me, the personality type I am is someone who would like to do them with me. The same goes for me if I was to be in a relationship I would like to do what you would want to do too. Compiling kernels till 2am and then going litter picking is my idea of fun. If not dorky.
Not everything is going to gel but the comprise is to find an equal balance you both enjoy. That however only comes from an established relationship, which is hard when you don't connect and they don't give you the benefit of the doubt.
My gripe is that when it comes to IT unless your kitted in the IT world its boring as * to anyone else. Goth is a niche outlet, stomping boots and wearing black isn't everyones taste and fire spinning is out there but fencing is an commitment.
I don't hold the "woe is me, single forever" maturity. Life is too short for that. It will either will, or it won't. It's hard and depressing at times but hey, I'm proud of what I have interests in.
It's not talking, it's more in generalities of what I enjoy is what is the niche.
One story is that I was in Canada recently and was talking to a bloke on the bench listening to how he was kicked out and someone cheated on his wife.
Although, whether to believe these stories is another thing. Sometimes people just want to be herd.
The relationship isn't the problem. The meeting is.
in that vein, what you're looking for is like 0.1%, and they may already be married. you're better off learning how to relate to the normies than holding out hope for any of that.
The truth is most people are meeting their spouses in the apps, as painful as it is. Bars are far worse for most people, and many people don't want to get hit on at the gym, while running errands, or at their job.
So many of my girlfriends are single... this is not how I would phrase the issue. By and large, men are looking to get laid, women are looking to get serious. If a woman only wants to get laid, sure, the world is her oyster as long as she's young and conventionally attractive. If a man wants to get serious... he's gotta differentiate himself against the hordes of guys out there who just wanna get laid (many of whom present themselves as serious).
I've been doing this online dating thing since... well, I met my first romantic partner on a BBS. It seems to me that what men and women want has significantly diverged over time. So when you conclude,
> Women need AI to show them who they would best get along with. Men need AI to get women to talk to them.
I gotta say, nah. We don't "need" those things. Technology is not bringing us closer; I think that it is significantly responsible for this divergence. What we need to do, I believe, is return to meatspace.
When you have 2000 guys in your inbox, it's hopeless to try an find the right guy (who also isn't the "right guy" for every other woman).
I'm tellin ya, meatspace also has thousands of dudes, their number isn't the problem. It's the underlying premise, that we should rely on technology for matchmaking and socialization in general. If we go with your approach, prompt engineers will float to the surface. Which probably sounds great to so many dudes here, but it still ain't what most women want.
Is that what women need?
Here's an interview with the founder. (You have to fast-forward to the 10-minute mark.) https://abc7news.com/14425374/
Also this: https://abc7news.com/14426891/
The apps have done to dating what social media has done to attention spans.