YoungAchamian
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
7hr ago
But anger at this is either just TDS or weird edge case rules lawyering. People are "ok"* with the former ways of taking bribes so outrage over this new and improved way of taking a bribe (that is in some ways far more visible) is just special pleading
*: People are ok with it in that they accept that its a common practice, they might dislike it but because its accepted practice they aren't outraged by it. Having arbitrary rules on how a bribe can be taken is just that: arbitrary.
YoungAchamian
7hr ago
Sure, I've never been accused of having good phrasing. Other people always word things better than I can.
Are principles ever adaptive? A core part of the value of principles is that they act as a very costly signal. If it were easy to have them, or they are adaptive to an environment it wouldn't be a very good signal. People would adopt them for the adaptability. The value of having principles is that it communicates that people can trust you, and depend on you. Regardless of the shifting tides of the sociopolitical currents.
YoungAchamian
7hr ago
Yeah because MAGA folks are just tribal conflict theorists. Expecting any sort of nuanced or balanced take from them, any sort of principles, is something they shed long ago in their quest for vengeance and power. And the apple does not fall far from the tree here, the mirror behavior is the TDS or Prog folks who show volcanic rage at this but hardly care when its some progressive causes. Trying to hold either to a set of principles is futile because they have none.
YoungAchamian
8hr ago
What makes it hard for me to care about the meme coin is that crypto is inherently speculative. The coin itself is not worth anything, and in order to cash out for real money, someone needs to want buy the coin from the hold co. If stupid people want to give Trump money by buying his shitcoin that's their choice. I don't think the government needs to be in the business of telling individuals which worthless investments they can make. I've seen some reporting that its used as a monetized access channel but is that any different than normal political bribery, "donate to my super-pac, give my failson a board seat and I'll have you over for dinner"
YoungAchamian
8hr ago
I think your last part about regulation overriding the perverse incentives by making the punishment worse than the incentives to be basically correct. Combined with I'd say is an internal cultural cultivation of the medical field to attract those who wish to do less harm. But we actually do hear about medical professionals acting on profit incentives to the detriment of their patients. There was that whole Perdue scandal about Oxycodone and Doctors recommending it to patients who didn't need it for kickbacks, my memory is saying its not the only scandal where Doctors have recommended drugs that aren't always needed, or surgeries, procedures, etc.
Dating Apps being relatively new to the market, along with the government being a gerontocracy means that it will probably be awhile before regulation targeting markets, that exploit human desire for connection, that are destroying the fabric of our society is implemented.
YoungAchamian
8hr ago
The largest problem with matchmakers is that it is a niche system, and it doesn't scale well. Part of the allure of Dating Apps is that it is a mass-market computational algorithm. Whether that's the OG OKC style of app, with a search function and compatibility scores or the modern digital swipe style app. The assumption is that these algorithms are unbiased and "fair" by virtue of having to generalize across the population. Using a matchmaker feels scammier whether or not its true. It probably has to do with some psychology, algorithms/apps are "science" whereas matchmakers are guts and intuition. Certain ethnic groups don't feel that way but those groups have their own in-community matchmakers, so using the general populous ones is not on the table.
I agree with a comment below that a sort of life-insurance style payment might be better at aligning incentives. But even that has a large amount of friction with a general populous, which is the market apps target.
YoungAchamian
18hr ago
I have no idea what a shidduch system is. Why don't you explain it to me.
YoungAchamian
18hr ago
I was in Greek life, you don't need to explain the concept or the practicalities to me. And that's not quite how it goes for probably 80% of the Panhellenic community.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
But hinge is an app designed for relationships, their slogan is "made to be deleted" it still has the same problem in a nutshell that tinder does. But it's reputation is better. Btw the League made men pay and it didn't really work. For the most part, most dating apps make men pay in some way. So subsidizing the initial men actually doesn't really solve your problem. Which is by making men pay you hope to get relationship minded men of high quality onto the app, in order to attract women. It also doesn't follow that making men pay correlates with any of those things. You've just kinda re-invented something that has already been tried.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Lol if this existed it would make me regret being born a man even more, the sheer joy of being able to force all my suitors to compete in a tournament of Twilight Imperium 4E for my interest would be too fun.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Sounds like we are just reinventing pre-sale OG OkCupid. Which was great, so great they got bought and neutered.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
I get the vision, but i think the average user is going to use it to search for the hottest member of the opposite sex they can find in their radius (lets be real it will almost always be men -> women) that meets some of their criteria. This just devolves into the pareto problem again. If you are a hot woman you are going to get spammed with messages. Theoretically a good matchmaking app acts as a filter by preventing you from needing to see all the spam and only connecting you to mates that it thinks are comparable.
appeal of Keeper is the promise of basically "one and done"
That might be the sales pitch but is there any evidence of it? Thats essentially both OKC, Hinge, and hundreds of other matchmaking services pitch too.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Marketing probably, and giving me amusement. Gotta get on the AI grindset for VC funding.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Why would I a serious man pay for an app with no women on it, and why would i as a women waste my time joining an app with no men.
The entry barriers are already hard enough without first trying to filter at the very beginning.
If i am a man on the app, how am i paying? Subscription? Well the company now has an incentive to keep me on the app, if i match with someone i will leave and stop paying.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Would you pay 1k a year to give your daughter a better shot at marriage? Whats the upper limit you’d be willing to spend per year with a lump sum at the wedding? One really needs to think of the funding model of these companies they are VC invested short term companies where the goal is to hit a suitable critical mass of users and then ratchet the crank to turn a profit. And the barrier to entry is in the dirt. Their mercenary network of users is pretty much only the moat.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
How am i, the app company getting paid? I’m not making an app out of the goodness of my heart. I need to achieve network effects, i need to market, i need people to not be afraid to say they met on my app so i can get credibility.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
If it was so easy to create a company based on long term matching at scale, then where is it? Tinders been out for what 15 years, okcupid, match.com 30? 90% of datong apps/websites are owned by match.com
At some point you need to consider the systemic problems that incentivize dating app profitability. If matching people for long term profit made more money for shareholders then selling short term boost/matches then it’s likely we would see that sort of emergent behavior. It’s clearly not. The system is just not setup that way. Being known as “the app” only works if you have such network effects that you can get a large base of people so short term losses are offset by long term gains.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Because Dating Apps have perverse incentives. If a dating app is really good, it loses customers and since the goal of the app is to make money, losing customers leads to a bad revenue stream. Their goal is to show you matches that are close to what you want but that are incompatible, so that you feel like there is progress and then are willing to pay for upgrades to do better/be seen more/swipe more, etc. Realistically the only way to fix this would for a non-profit or for a government entity to create the "dating app" as they aren't required to be profitable and likely are more interested in the 2nd order effects of matchmaking/relationships.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
Are they even domesticable? Or are they just friendly
Kinda, my father raised a couple growing up in the backwoods, so I hear the stories. They are super friendly when young but become pretty mean and grouchy as adults. N of 3 so take it with some salt. But I agree they are super cute and adorable with their antics.
¯\_(ツ) _/¯
YoungAchamian
5d ago
I pointed out how that is an imposition here. The federal government explicitly defined marriage has heterosexual, it did not ban gay marriage de facto but it prohibited them from being federally recognized making it an explicitly second-class marriage. They are denying full federal legal effect to marriages that the state has validly officiated.
YoungAchamian
5d ago
I am just a legal layman, so I defer to you on some of the more technical minutiae. Many of these might be weaker because I personally agree with the red side of them. Trying to be fair forces me to argue for positions that I don't really agree with. But I do believe that this one-sided victimizing of Red-tribe belief is missing the forest for the trees.
DOMA only applied at the federal government level, and specifically didn't stop states from recognizing gay marriages locally
But it refused to recognize state marriages as marriages, creating a double tier scheme where you were married in NY but not federally. I think explicitly refusing to recognize an official state sanctioned marriage and conferring those benefits would be an imposition. I think my scaffolding around this is that if Texas doesn't want to recognize a NY gay marriage, that's fine, its their prerogative. But if the federal government want to say the NY marriage is invalid federally they are denying the state's ability to officiate legal marriages according to the state's-populations desire. That's a legal imposition of values from 1 tribe to another.
I think Masterpiece is a weak example.
303 Creative still functions as a federal constitutional carveout from Colorado’s LGBTQ anti-discrimination law. Even if it applies a formally neutral First Amendment rule. Colorado is requiring a business that sells wedding websites to sell the same product to same-sex couples that it sells to opposite-sex couples.
Espinoza was about the state is trying to keep public money from flowing to religious institutions, consistent with its own church-state separation rule. That is a neutral rule being violated by another neural rule: the Free Exercise Clause. But the outcome was that the Red-tribe favored rule over-rode the Blue-tribe favored rule.
Carson is essentially similar in that Maine wanted to provide the rough equivalent of a secular public education for students who lack a local public school via a tuition reimbursement. And the court ruled that that was discriminatory towards religious students and institutions. This essentially hits the feeling of "We are being forced to subsidize something we morally oppose." This is probably pretty neutral if there are equivalent examples of conservative states being forced to subsidize things they reject. But off the top of my head, no conservative state has been forced to fund Planned Parenthood with its own money. (Medicaid does not count as it is a joint federal-state program) I think this one is a pretty strong example.
I think SFFA gets more into the weeds on what constitutes "Blue Tribe", as its a liberal vs progressive ideological fault line. It's not as clean but progressives are not really the anti-discrimination party, they are a racial/minority-spoils party. So idk if you can argue that they champion the anti-discrimination laws unless you autistically adhere to the definitions. SFFA is more like “a conservative/colorblind theory" of equality imposed over a "progressive/anti-subordination" theory of equality. It's a good comparison to the Voting Rights Act imposition.
YoungAchamian
5d ago
Hmmm, I think I understand your point. But it is unclear to me how you arrive at this:
Your examples are also reds stopping blues
My examples are of Reds imposing on Blues. Unless you think Blue states wanting to recognize gay marriage is an imposition on Red states? DOMA is not stopping blues from imposing, it itself is imposing.
Could you clarify how those examples are of Red's stopping Blues from imposing on Reds?
The filtering sucks deliberately, that's one of the things they try to get you to pay for, upgrades to filter and wider ranges/efficiencies of filters.
No apps moderate bad behavior of the women or men. That alone would improve any app but its a feast or famine problem. In order to get more network you need more users, that includes prolific daters who are defectors. Banning defectors is good once you have enough of a network to do so but is counterproductive when you don't.
More options
Context Copy link