High Frequency Dating
robrhinehart.com
robrhinehart.com
Just measure how far you had to read before thinking "ok, I get it, he is joking".
I had to get to the part about the Odesk virtual assistant.
I could conceivably see someone utilising OpenCV to "try" to measure attractiveness. I could also see someone trying sentiment analysis with NLTK... but farming it out to a low paid worker is just insane.
OKCupid used to have a feature for "choose my best image". Users submit two images, then rate other people's images. One of your images is presented alongside one other image from some other user, and someone else has to pick which one they like most. OKC then used their stats to give some analysis to it.
It was sort of great, except there were usually too few people to get any kind of sensible results.
It's easy to see that this could be a useful approach.
I'd hope that is the furthest anyone would have to go to se the absurdity. I'd be interested if anyone made it past that before noticing it was a joke.
Like people say, "I created a presentation on my Macbook", as opposed to "my iPhone".
Agreed, the tendency of people to refer to their phones/computers by their marketing names is much, much higher among Apple consumers.
The internet already has no small part in satisfying most of
my other needs.
Aaaaand that's one more tally under the "women can be rather objectifying and crass themselves" column. Keep it classy.
Pro-tip: It's rarely idiomatic English to call someone "a female," unless you're purposefully trying to compare her to an animal.[1] Female is a species-neutral term (like "breeding"). When talking about humans, it's proper to use the anthropic term "woman."
[1] My observation is that women refer to men as "male" much less often than the reverse, but when they do they often intend the comparison to animals.
I'm also surprised about how often I see English-speakers talk about "females" rather than "women". I vaguely suspect that might say something profound about an aspect of American culture that's deeply wrong about how it views women.
For female, it's less clear. Calling a 20-something a 'girl' might be viewed offensively as diminutive. Calling college students 'women' can also seem awkward casual contexts (it's perfectly fine in most).
I'm pretty sure that was the whole point.
Since when? All the women I know use "man" or "men" (or informally, "guy"), correctly when referring to a male member of the human species. My wife might say: "my supervisor on this matter is a man." A disproportionate number of men I know incorrectly use "female" when they mean "woman." E.g. one might say "my new boss is female."
> There is no female analog to 'guys'. Males under age 18 -> boys. Males 18-35 -> guys. Males over 35 -> men.
There isn't an obvious alternative to the word "female", as calling a, uhm, "female" of younger age a "woman" can potentially be awkward, so referring to her as a female is simply the next best option. I suspect that it's because of this reality that the word "female" is increasingly more accepted as a safe and normal pronoun.
I'm 30 and I haven't seen this be the case anywhere ever.
I have encountered some people who condescendingly use "boys" when they want to disparage adult men. It's always bugged me even when I was a teenager, although for some reason all the gay men I know use it. I think a similar dynamic exists with women and "girls".
I find myself using "female" occasionally, not to refer to women I would date but because English doesn't have another good word for "feminine humans of an indeterminate age". I occasionally use "chicks" for similar reasons.
I would infer it more as a sign of pseudoscientific language than as a comparison to animals, and the pseudoscientific tone is appropriate in the context of TFA.
The male gaze.
Protip: the male in the story became the robot. And critiques of language usage is the first step to oppression.
On the one hand high frequency dating is a good thing because it adds liquidity to the market.
On the other, it raises the risk of of increased volatility and flash crashes (when your partner finds out).
Ewwwww.
The door to a whole world of truly unsavory double-entendre has been opened.
You'll have to finish it off for yourself.
I don't know why women feel entitled to my money. I was on one date, and when the waiter brought our two separate bills, she looks at me like I'm retarded for not paying for her meal, an $80 steak dinner. She then proceeded to lecture me on the "rules of dating" and the role of Men in society. I threw $100 down and left mid conversation. If you're looking for some chump to be your chauffeur in exchange for your pussy, look elsewhere.
Dating sites give women the illusion that they are superior and guys should be fighting for them. One girl literally said to me "If you're not paying for me and picking me up/dropping me off, I have a ton of other options that will". Wow, so you're in it for the free ride instead of meeting another person with shared interests, thanks for letting me know!
Guess I should probably apply to YC, get some funding, and start funding dates!
Dating sites tend to give women the advantage though (that I had to finally make my okcupid profile only visible to women interested in women due to too many guys messaging me is unbelievable to a lot of my guy friends) so I can see why some women would see things that way. The guy that goes the extra mile to do something...kind of unfair and terrible...stands out more than being just one among many half interesting conversations there.
Not that that's right, but a lot of women rather enjoy it. :/
Apparently splitting the bill has even had its own term coined! "Going Dutch", an event that so rarely occurs, it has even earned its own definition!
If by simply not having a car and paying for their dates leaves me in the dust, then I don't want to date.
How hard can it be to find like minded people? My god..
When you go against a social norm you have to set expectations early on. Ideally before you even go on a dinner date. None of the women I know have a problem going Dutch; all of them would be really offended if you took them to a fancy restaurant and then when the bill came you expected them to pay half. You have essentially tricked them.
Here is a hint: If you want to go Dutch then take a girl for coffee or on a picnic ("you bring the bread and dips, I'll bring the drinks and cheese" etc) at least until you get to know her better.
Perhaps to you $80 is nothing. In my early 20's it would have been 8 hours work. Why would I spend a days hard work to have dinner with you when I can have dinner with another guy, who has just as much chance of being a great guy, without the expense?
However you seem to act on your own assumptions, so save your judgement for when it matters.
You mention several qualities that are generally perceived in a positive light, but one of these is also a willingness to to share resources, especially in a male/female relationship, as far as I understand it.
EDIT: Not all women of course, I have few really smart female friends who don't fall into that category.
Other possibilities exist, but you shouldn't be surprised by the generally-accepted standards or you're going to continue having "bad experiences."
That's ridiculous. Here's a real source:
http://blogs.chapman.edu/press-room/2013/08/12/research-on-w...
The self-reported study indicates that around 40% of women split the costs of dating, and 44% of men say they would end a relationship if the costs were not shared. This is increasingly true of couples in their 20s. Your statement that "anything else is just two people hanging out" irks me and is not true for 2/5 of couples (in the US, I presume)
I'll relate my own situation. I am an American living in Cambodia. I started dating a local girl about a month and a half ago, and we split the expenses for everything. She has a relatively good job by Cambodian standards, but I have to be very cognizant that she has less money than I do, so we choose restaurants and activities that both of us can afford. She is clearly proud of being able to pay for herself, partially I think to distance herself from the stereotype of Cambodian girls marrying for money and/or being prostitutes.
If we decide to get married, then sure, my money is her money and vice-versa (and who knows maybe she'll end up being the breadwinner). But as far as dating is concerned, I will forever take a hard line on splitting the costs (or at least contributing in amounts proportional to our income) and if a girl isn't down for that, I'll find someone else.
Good book. HFT gives the illusion of liquidity - can dry up real quick and if things go wrong, well, as suggested below, you get the Flesh Crushes ;)
And, why not? The pieces were believable: OpenCV, NLTK, some scripting and API twiddling. The virtual assistant wasn't much of a stretch either.
Especially if you're familiar with modern online dating sites now. Still thinking that online dating is like browsing an organized list of potential dates where an online host helps you with searching is naive. Craigslist personals are still like that, stripped down, no profile, anonymous and no algorithms.
OKCupid, like other dating sites, makes money via ad revenue, not by connecting you with a partner, so what's their priority? Who knows if your experience is affected by: - how often you visit the site - if you use an adblocker (they know, and they let you know they know) - if you're on a free account - message response rate - if you use their features (quickmatch, etc.) - how many questions you've answered (at a tech talk recently, Sam Yagan co-founder said answering more than 10 questions was pointless) - your quantcast/cookie/tracker profile - sentiment analysis of your profile/messages
Here's a fun anecdote: As a new user of their iPhone app, I was interested in using the Locals feature (to see who was available on short notice for a date). The first day it worked, let me see those in my vicinity. The next day it was completely removed from the app. No warning. Something (I was a new user) must've decided that that feature wasn't for me.
This goes beyond dark design patterns which attempt to influence your behavior (i.e. on another dating site, you have to pay to send messages, and attractive people send you collect messages, that you have to pay to read.). With dark design, if you're aware, you know what the site wants you to do. If your online dating success is controlled by black box methods without feedback, they silently judge.
So, how soon before hackers decide they're tired of being gamed and start using tools they're familiar with defensively? Could this be the start of a new arms race?
I on the other hand get a warm, smug feeling from knowing that if my girlfriend decides not to see me anymore (or I get bored, whichever comes first), new prospects are a walk to the nearest club/bar away. Good luck to you too.
One of the biggest advantages of living in a time of so many people is that the number of great people, in absolute terms, is also greater
Most people want the same things, it is not hard or unique to find someone compatable, no matter how much we tell our partner how special they are, and they say to us.
did you ever consider that some (many, actually) people are not optimizing for long term mating strategy, and are rather playing the game to maximize short-term sexual rewards?
or does that simply not exist as a valid goal in your worldview, because you refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy?
anyone who harbors views dissimilar to mine = crazy
especially in manners of sex, love, etc.
But I think we can take this further, surely she's into automation too? So he-bot and she-bot are the ones that actually get together.
But then why bother with the physical world if it's all software? The entire exchange can be virtualised and simulated at high speed, then you only need to actually bother the meatspace human if the whole thing has been electronically predetermined to be acceptable to all parties.
That way you can find the perfect match in seconds. Unless, of course, they were a little creative or devious in their parameter settings, but nobody would ever do that, right?
Must work, guy goes on 2-3 dates a week.
I had originally thought that the below post was a parody. I'm told it wasn't, though in my defense it definitely reads like a parody... I mean the perfect cutlery... the most meaningless item in anyone's house??
This reminds me of another parody post here a while ago about someone who said they'd bought the perfect cutlery.
They went a bit further and beat the joke to death talking about the difference between several cutlery sets. It was bit better because it started out with some good points bout optimizing your life and buying the best and then it jumped into how to buy what is probably the least important thing in anyone life...cutlery
I think this hacking your life is starting to jump the shark:)
Here is the other parody post:
Yanagi designed his flatware to stand the test of time. He died in 2011, but his design lives on.
However, having finished the post, I now think that a long term relationship leading to marriage and children would be possible. Some tweaking might be required. Ideally, a long and meaningful relationship could develop with 0 physical contact.
[1] http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~neeraj/publications/base/pap...
"I guess I see what’s supposed to be funny here, Rob, but I don’t think everyone will. As the man behind an awfully high-profile startup, I don’t think this is likely to attract any beneficial attention to you, and may very well attract some negative attention. Even if this is meant in good fun, I’m not sure it’s in your best interests."
Jokes are funny when they punch up [at people with more power/status]; they're asinine when you punch down. This is an excellent satire, which should have become obvious when the robot shows up...
He's neither punching up nor down, but in: the optimal direction to punch.
This post, however, does seem almost too good, as if it's the greatest PR coup of all time.
He's pretty much parodying himself here, which is what makes this so effective.
She was a yahoo or aim chatbot (can't remember which) that pretended to be a slightly flirty teenage girl but logged all her interactions to the author's website. There was some great material in there.
- Once the simulation gets sufficiently advanced, it will want to pass the buck to another simulation, because that's what you did.
- In a world where many people do that, if you find yourself on a date with someone, that raises the chance that you're a simulation. What you do with that knowledge is up to you :-)
Amy Webb: How I hacked online dating
http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_webb_how_i_hacked_online_dating...
Additionally, the robot self destruct seems like overkill. It would be better to simply wipe them and start over. After all it, it wasn't a hardware failure that resulted in a bad date, but a software problem!
I actually know a few programmers, who are also pick up artists, that do something similar but less complex.. they write scripts that spam msg to girls on dating site and just shot gun approach.
I think I've found my next project...
You misspelled misogynist.
If you intend to spend any amount of time together, what you hear is just as relevant as what you see.
Question: how many messages iteratactions we need to have a 90% confidence of a good face to face date for both?
The people who drop out after that second message are probably the real keepers. The ones that stay apparently didn't say anything worthy of a response anyway.
http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_webb_how_i_hacked_online_dating...