Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by lsy | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

lsy

I am more than a little discomfited by what the author seems to want here:

- “Reduce competition” by making online dating exclusive to those who can afford $100+/mo

- Obtain potential match’s sexual history prior to conversation to use as a proxy for promiscuity

- See all social media of potential matches

- Ratings hit for people who decide not to meet with you after chatting

- Interface for quantifying the multiple human beings you are talking to as “leads”, CRM style

- Automated reverse image search / face recognition for social media

- Random bonus: ability to filter Instagram messages by male/female??

Leaving aside the basic disrespect for the people on the other end of the chat here, who actually thinks women would participate on a platform where they are being cyberstalked by, and pressured into meeting with, desperate men who are tracking them in a spreadsheet?

View on HN

> “Reduce competition” by making online dating exclusive to those who can afford $100+/mo

Suppose you wouldn't need to pay more than $100 if you'd find your match and leave platform. Serious goal = serious price. Marriage will cost much more anyway. Marriage with a wrong person will cost 10x again.

One can buy flowers, pay a cute kid to surprise a lady with them and point at you for a 100 bucks irl, and there's still enough for a drink or two. Hell, 100 bucks is enough for 1 more & refined attempt.

For homo sapiens women make the mating decisions. Unless she immediately judges you as a good genetic fit, she will feel you're stalking her and call the police or something. (Yes, it's mostly genetics. Women have a gut feel for genetic fitness in mates.)

If this is what it all boils down to then we should just skip all the bullshit and go straight to DNA sequencing and checking for autosomal recessive diseases and the possibility of genetic diseases for a given DNA pair.

sounds like Elisabeth Holmes pivot strategy but she didn't get to ^^

Yes they do, but

- having fun,

- needs,

- desire to gratify received interest,

- desire to return the favor of raising ones attractiveness,

- desire to reward a diverse range of behaviors (some hard-coded into genes as well!)

CAN & often will override anything "fitness", and much more often than not, not only temporary!

Then she says "Sorry I have a boyfriend" lol. Dating sites are useful for reasons...

You are like me, go all in one choice and then suffer when it doesn't work. Apparently strategic people go for quantity and try thousands of people in which case a site is much cheaper:)

15 years together, 2 kids, $0 on marriage (Canada has laws for that. After 1 year living together, it's equivalent)

15 years together, 2 kids together and you’ve never bought anything together or planned shared costs? What?

I was referring to the wedding

> $0 on marriage

I didn't mean literally pay to marry. Let's just say your kids and associated expenses is included in what I meant. Do the math:)

I see. Well of course, but supposedly as long as you are buying stuff together, you are enjoying the marriage. The cost comes in case of divorce

So you value such enjoyment at more than 109$ then evidently the price is acceptable:)

I don't value dating the same as marriage though.

If your end goal is serious marriage then $109 is insignificant change if it gets you there.

> Suppose you wouldn't need to pay more than $100 if you'd find your match and leave platform. Serious goal = serious price.

Go read the site and tell me again you still believe they have the “serious goal” of finding you a partner. The first thing I saw on the homepage was “experience hypergamy”. Then a bunch of entries on luxury, spending money, and how everyone on their website is somehow beautiful, successful, and intelligent. All the while using the same two actors for everything. In one of the fake exchanges, one of them (presumably the man, judging from the rest of the copy) invites the other to the Maldives, who immediately agrees.

They’re selling bargain bin fantasies. It’s drivel for men and women who think of themselves as the protagonists of 50 Shades type books.

I had the same thought but a split second later I remembered why I'm sitting on the couch with a screen in front of my eyes on a freaking Sunday morning.

There's probably something around two dozen better options where I could "speed date" (talk to/flirt with) a bunch of people who will share some space & time on a sunny Sunday morning.

And since I know people with money, I know that "being able to afford xyz" doesn't mean shit. Even fuck you money doesn't. Sure, some "chicks" roll with it, but I never heard or read words from one of those chicks (traveling, Dubai, family, friends of friends in theater) that resonated with me or made me think: "potentially a good enough Mom."

But then again, a 100 bucks isn't that much for a working, single dude.

The need to know so much about a person before a date is just another sign of subliminal depression, mania and obsession.

Maybe they should start putting dating profiles into captchas or something.

Is this a human? Do you like her looks? Do you like her last tweet? No? Based on our data points, you should. Access denied. Let's try again.

I recommend that "busy"-no-time-people find some way to prime their brain for exploration of humans and characters.

Instead of methodological fault finding you simply make it methodological traits-that-I-like finding.

How does it work? How does _she_ work?

> And since I know people with money

It's not about "rich people must be good" but rather "most poor people are bad"

> "most poor people are bad"

That made me chuckle and reminded me of how the YouTube algorithm kept recommending that I watch 'Peter Singer - Ordinary People Are Evil for years.

I still haven't watched it but life experience does tell a somewhat fitting story.

> Instead of methodological fault finding you simply make it methodological traits-that-I-like finding.

That's an interesting pivot.

With this mindset, how do you distinguish settling from a reasonable compromise?

Women absolutely would participate on a platform that is free to use and has a high enough barrier to entry that they can select out all the scrubs and they can freely get what they're after without all the mess. Have you seen online dating today? It's a dumpster for both men and women. Men get a better shot at what they want for a higher fee, women get access to men they'd actually want to meet with.

- men who can't afford that are already scratching the bottom of the barrel on dating sites and feeling like total losers because they have no prospects they're happy with

- most people would show you a picture of their butthole as long as they knew it would be kept confidential if that meant they'd have a better shot at finding what they're after

- information source aggregation, analogous to meeting people in more places than the singles bar

- wasting peoples time is an undesirable trait

- youre using an app to find sex and/or love, the interface changes nothing about this

- the last two are the same as number 2, just analytics for the algorithm.

When you're designing an algorithmic solution to mate pairing, you have to treat it like a meat market and gamify it for best results. And the current incumbents are absolutely doing that, it's just that their interests do not align with their users.

Do you have any supporting arguments for your claims?

Are you serious? Have you used an online dating app in the last decade? Do you know any men or women who have? Do you want me to link a source for "wasting people's time is an undesirable trait"? What sort of supporting arguments do you need?

worrying. the data suggests 80% of the women are in contact with 20% of the men. so the weighting on these apps is not reflective of the real world.

There are four times more men than women on the apps. The moment a women sorts by almost any criteria, 80% of the men will be filtered out purely because of that.

what data? I've only heard this from the "manosphere".

OkCupid posted some stats in a blog post years ago which was pretty enlightening. They since deleted it, and I don’t think any dating company would dare make a similar post with the data they have these days.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com