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. Gareth321 · 1790842120 · focus · HN ↗

            It's just another example of social change which was made for good reasons but has resulted in negative outcomes. Companies wanted to reduce the risk of accusations of workplace misconduct in the wake of #metoo. This reduced misconduct, but at massive social cost.

            Another example is that most economists admit that as women entered the workforce en masse, prices settled higher for the same goods and services. Now survival requires two incomes instead of one. It was a massive net loss to society, but we also agree that women should be free to work if they would like, without barriers. We see similar things with women becoming educated. The more educated women become, the fewer children they have. That's really bad for society, but we also want women to be free to become as educated as they like.

            Sadly I see no easy solutions here because it requires weighing individual and societ-wide rights. Companies aren't going to risk higher rates of misconduct to benefit society broadly. These are collective action problems, and unless we find ways of individualising the problem, they're only going to get worse.

            1. neuroticnews25 · 1790848806 · focus · HN ↗

               >It was a massive net loss to society

               Yeah if you totally ignore the unprecedented crazy high standard of living developed over trillions of work-hours.

               1. Gareth321 · 1790850894 · focus · HN ↗

                  This is easily refuted. [In 1950, food, transport, and housing consumed 70.3% of median working household expenditure. Today is it 63.3%.](<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bls.gov&#x2F;opub&#x2F;100-years-of-u-s-consumer-spending.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bls.gov&#x2F;opub&#x2F;100-years-of-u-s-consumer-spending....) In 1950, 87% of family households were married couples, and only 21% of married women participated in the labour force. Today, 62% of cohabiting couples have both partners working. Households are earning more, but prices rose almost commensurately. If you were correct, the proportion spent on necessities would be far lower.

                  I will concede that luxury goods are far cheaper, and perhaps one could make an argument that cheap TVs are a reasonable concession for expensive food and housing. I would not agree with that.

                  1. hollerith · 1790865802 · focus · HN ↗

                     The housing is better. Square footage per person for example has approximately doubled.

                     Also, in Chart 1 on page 6, &quot;expenditure share for non-necessities&quot; in the US goes from about 32.5% in 1950 to fully 50% in 2002-2003.

                     It would be nice if you told us the page from which you got your, &quot;in 1950, food, transport, and housing consumed 70.3% of median working household expenditure.&quot; Searching for your text verbatim fails, which is not particularly surprising because PDFs cannot be searched reliably.

                     Also because 1950 is considered by some to be a particularly prosperous time in the US, some might accused you of cherry picking. For example, in 1918-1919, the &quot;expenditure share for non-necessities&quot; was about 22%.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.