This probably sounds as quaint as arranged marriages nowadays.
She was a new PhD student, and I was the departmental sysadmin. To be fair to her, she knew vi just fine, but we had these messed up DEC keyboards with no ESC, where ESC was mapped to F11.
https://stackoverflow.blog/2017/05/23/stack-overflow-helping...
Glad it wasn't the answer in your case, of course. :)
> but we had these messed up DEC keyboards with no ESC
One of these things? https://deskthority.net/wiki/File:LK201AA_top.jpg
I'd have trouble getting out of vi with that too.
Online you get to learn a bit more about them before you invest your time: do they have similar values, similar interests, compatible lifestyles and socio economics? Not all of it is written as text, a lot of it can be easily inferred from the photos, which is why Instagram is so popular these days in online dating as a lifestyle resume. Yes, it's heavily edited to show the best parts, like a resume, but you can still draw some conclusions from it. Like with hiring for your company, the mode you do it, the better you are at guesstimating what that person is like from their profiles. Several hundred first dates and your model gets trained with a lot of data.
There's also a lot about attraction and compatibility that's not only nonverbal but inarticulable. "Chemistry", goes the analogy. The club environment is stacked in favor of the attractive, but chemistry usually wins the day.
I know this probably is somewhat less in other cultures. Certainly I seen no profiles with no picture in the USA but I still see 80% or so of profiles with no useful info in them, just generics.
Not suggesting a bar is better. I'd love to find and/or develop a better system that some how encourages better matches
It's the Red Army circa 1945 approach to dating. Throw enough bodies at the problem and eventually one of them will be the one that solves it.
If you want to make fewer higher quality matches don't go to a bar.
Which, as the non-photo portion of the prevailing Swipe-To-Date format shrinks, increasingly describes the problem with dating apps.
Similar problem with Instagram.
The interesting thing is that the success of these apps/media suggests they are how people engage and apparently behave as if they actually want, regardless of whether they might theorize something else would be better in some way.
The more you use it, the more it knows your type, the more it recommends them, then it dangles out more possibilities that are just beyond reach but could be accessible if you just throw money at it.
The prospect of matching with someone you find very desirable keeps you swiping, making you more likely to do it in the future.
I'm not sure if this is necessarily unethical, but it is clearly an example of a knowledge-based power imbalance. Because I am quite sure the majority of Tinder users are unaware of all the machinations behind the curtains.
As long as the gender ratios remain similar, I don't understand how a higher amount of users results in worse dating odds. Are you referring to the paradox where the same ultra-hot 100 people get all the messages, were the site's population 100, 100k, or 100 million?
Wouldn’t it make sense for the dating site to optimize it so that the women with the least matches get to the top of the queue, so you have a better chance of a mutual match?
Showing people with less likes would make it more fair, that is right. But the effect will be that a woman will see more „less attractive“ guys and will stop using the app. And women are the users all dating apos have to keep because of the large gender inbalance on dating apps.
Turns out that users stop noticing pretty if they only see pretty. Better highlight the contrast to keep users engaged.
I have met quite a few very pleasant people but we just mutually realized "not for me" after a date or two. We wished each other luck and parted ways. In the case of bumble in my experience there is an emotional maturity and interesting people. But apparently you are required to have a photo at Machu Picchu.
I agree, it does seem ridiculous: here in the DC area, it does seem that every single professional woman over 30 has such a photo.
But strangely, I actually have a photo just like that on my profile! It was taken at the NYC Natural History museum.
For women's profiles, the stereotypical photos are: 1) Macchu Picchu 2) at a bar with an alcoholic drink in-hand, frequently looking drunk 3) at a beach 4) in bed, cuddling with a big smelly dog 5) at a gun range These are pretty typical of 30+ white women in the DC area, though they're never seen all in the same profile (the women who like guns don't go to Macchu Picchu).
Also, you say that in your experience on Bumble, women are more emotionally mature. In my experience there, I'd say there seem to be more professional women there, but if you're not a big bar-goer and drinker, you're not going to do well there, at least in this city. Also, the women there seem to be almost all white and black; all the Asians seem to be on CMB, which is where I get the vast majority of my dates.
That's why you'd see so many great people and no match, they all left long ago. It's ghost town.
You probably get news matches when people sign up or come back, dating is very seasonal.
I'm actually surprised Tinder and co haven't started selling an option to bid money to have your profile be seen first in your city. Same as any other real time bidding in advertising. Have users try to outbid each other to be within first x swipes in the city, instead of "potential match in position 10574" that nobody will ever swipe to.
I realize it might mess with their products' Aha! Moment of seeing only super attractive members within your first few minutes of the user journey, but there's likely a ton of money in it, and a way to strike a healthy balance. I know I would probably end up using something like that.
On an unrelated note, seeding your app with "fake users" siphoned from your peer companies sucks if you're charging for the service. You end up having your users spend hours swiping or paying money to connect with fake profiles. Can't be ethical.