Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing”

Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by chrisseaton on Friday October 27, 2017 @05:10PM (#15572253)

Surely the only difference is you won't meet the people at work, but you probably wouldn't date them anyway would you. You'd still meet people at every other place people meet, which is where people look for dates anyway.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by babesh on Friday October 27, 2017 @06:21PM (#15572669)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_multiplier_effect

https://be.helpful.com/helpful-how-the-math-of-viral-growth-...

Transitive property of dating. You might not date your coworker but you might date their friend... or a bit less likely a friend of their friend. Etc...

Also known in social gaming as virality, a statistic you can measure.

Also applies to knowledge transfer which is a reason to live near a hub.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by kbenson on Friday October 27, 2017 @05:37PM (#15572425)

> Surely the only difference is you won't meet the people at work, but you probably wouldn't date them anyway would you.

Traditionally, work has been a very common place to meet future spouses. I believe the rate has dropped in recent decades, but I would be surprised if it was so low as to be inconsequential, especially when considering something as important as many people view this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by rovolo on Friday October 27, 2017 @06:10PM (#15572609)

According to 'Searching for a Mate: The Rise of the Internet as a Social Intermediary' (2010) http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0003122412448050 , around 10% of (hetero) couples met at work as of 2010, down from a peak of 20% in 1990. It is the fourth most common method behind friends, bars, and online.

Just the graph: https://cdn.technologyreview.com/i/images/internet-dating.pn...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by kbenson on Friday October 27, 2017 @06:28PM (#15572710)

I figured it was probably sub 20%. 10% is still quite high, in my eyes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by xapata on Saturday October 28, 2017 @12:42PM (#15575677)

There's some overlap, as one can be friends with coworkers and go to bars with them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Saving San Francisco goes deeper than “build more housing” by rovolo on Monday October 30, 2017 @01:04PM (#15586752)

The paper aims to categorize how people met rather than how their relationship developed. This is how they describe their criteria for categorizing relationships (the paper is focused on internet dating, but the same criteria would be used for coworkers):

>By meeting online, or meeting through the Internet, we mean that a couple’s relationship began with an online interaction and then developed into a personal and physical relationship. We coded couples as having met online only if the online interaction was crucial to their having met, regardless of how the couple communicated once they had met. … If the couple first met decades earlier, fell out of touch, and then rediscovered each other through Facebook, that would be “meeting online” for our purposes.

Based on my reading of their criteria, the relationship would be categorized as 'coworker' if they either knew the person at work prior to visiting the bar, they were introduced at the bar through a coworker, or a work event took place at a bar.

[ Parent | on HN ]