Thread

1. purplepatrick · 1790817358 · focus · HN ↗

   Cute. Of course, beyond basic deal breakers, neither do people know their preferences (but they think they do), nor do the majority of preference categories actually matter.

   This is a common problem with all dating apps. Specifically, interests, hobbies, daily routines, objectives, etc. have nothing to do with compatibility.

   “We like the same things!” is the compatibility signal of a naive 22-yr old…

   1. Gigachad · 1790819807 · focus · HN ↗

      IMO the largest problem is that there is an enormous amount of friction to go from getting a match on an app to actually meeting them in real life. Which means it just doesn't happen that often. What we need is physical spaces where people can meet in person for a low or zero cost. That eliminates the friction of actually seeing someone because they are already there in front of you.

      1. alexey-salmin · 1790831357 · focus · HN ↗

         This used to be the workplace: observing a big group of people over long periods of time when they don't pretend to charm you. Are they kind? How do they treat others? Are they secure? Are they ambitious? Are they hardworking? What do they talk about on the lunch break?

         Meeting people from dating apps is quite literally the opposite of that: one person at a time, extremely short period of time, they can pretend, no or little interactions with third parties (how they treat a waiter maybe).

         I honestly believe that making workplace dating something frowned upon (or even a terminable offence sometimes) was a huge disservice to society. People spends most of their adult life going to work but are supposed to squeeze the search for a partner into the little time and energy that remains outside of work.

         1. chii · 1790835175 · focus · HN ↗

            > This used to be the workplace ... making workplace dating something frowned upon

            because the owner of the business do not want relationship frictions to affect people's work.

            1. b800h · 1790847763 · focus · HN ↗

               That has nothing to do with it. It's due to legal liability.

               1. mrngld · 1790855273 · focus · HN ↗

                  No, that became a norm in management thinking back when HR was just a back-office role processing time sheets and punch-cards.

                  Even today, the primary concern when I'm talking to other managers dealing with job applications from family members (including kids) and even friends of existing employees is "How does the existing employee react if it doesn't work out and we have to fire their spouse/kid/best friend?"

                  Better to avoid that drama entirely. (edit: EASIER to avoid that drama, I should say, but perhaps not always better)

                  And if you don't think management isn't at least 60% drama control between team members you've never been in management of a diverse set of people, which is why the best engineer, the best electrician, etc doesn't necessarily make the best manager, etc. Different skill sets, different universe of concerns.

                  1. hnal943 · 1790860917 · focus · HN ↗

                     No, sexual harassment laws in the 80s and 90s changed the workplace dynamic because the company is liable for the behavior of their employees.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.