Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | chongli's commentslogin

“Your transfer has expired, civilian, you’ll have to pay another fare!”

Said the bus driver in the mirrored shades.


That's not true. Plenty of Discord communities have dozens of channels with long-running post histories, pictures, FAQ content, beginner guides; server roles and titles, permissions, custom emoji, stickers, etc.

Migrating all of that stuff to a new service (which may not even support it all) would be a huge pain.


Yeah, Steve would've smashed that phone on the floor if that happened to him in rehearsal, and then fired the whole team responsible.

autocorrect suggesting words that I've never typed before

Ahhh yes, there's nothing like when autocorrect turns because into Decatur!


That's because "matches" are the wrong criterion to look at. In aggregate, matches don't matter. What matters is the population of marriageable (or otherwise amenable to long-term relationships) people. And that's what the dating app calculus works against. Every time 2 marriageable people get together, they remove themselves from the pool. If there is not a significant influx of new marriageable people then over time the marriageability of the pool will decline. As it drops, the concentration of "serial daters" goes up.

In a high concentration of serial daters, no one wants to pair off because there isn't anyone worth pairing off with around.


> If there is not a significant influx of new marriageable people then over time the marriageability of the pool will decline

That seems to be extremely unlikely, people have finite lifespans and are only in the marriage pool for a small fraction of that. More importantly your website could easily be targeted to an even smaller pool say 25-45 and ignoring deaths and divorce your already ~10% turnover per year if you own 100% of the market. Actual numbers depends on what percentage of the pool starts married, becomes a widow etc but their’s plenty of new people to make up for any couples. Further, happily married couples are great advertising.


1 The number of people using these apps. 2. The age group using the apps 3. the type of people using the apps 4. the culture that it has replaced and infiltrated 5 It is the social norm by now to be asked if your on TiXXXr or some other app

The modern interaction have eroded, it is awkward or weird to be approached in public, every middle aged woman or elderly woman has her purse on while shopping at a grocery store, locking the car 6 times and looking back while doing it as if its a James Bond movie. I live in middle class neighborhood and this is the things i see on a daily bases. it is sad.


> Every time 2 marriageable people get together, they remove themselves from the pool. If there is not a significant influx of new marriageable people

But there is. It's all the people aging into the dating apps. That's how it works. The rate of people leaving is balanced by new people arriving.


No, they aren't. If you're in your 40s you aren't looking to date people in their 20s. Where's the influx of other people in their 40s to date?

> If you're in your 40s you aren't looking to date people in their 20s.

My building is full of divorced 40-somethings dating younger. You see it all over media too. Leonardo DiCaprio is famous for this, and he's hardly the only one.

Women date younger too. My wife's TikTok is full of women empowerment videos; the number of videos on her feed that talk about this is not inconsequential.

Plenty of people to date.


What do you mean? From recently divorced people, of course, if you want to look at that age bracket. But it's the same principle.

Younger women wanting older mature partners is as old as time.

There is even a subgenre of romance writing with this as a theme .. age gap.


But where’s the growth?

It's a truly sad state of affairs that human relationships are reduced to this clinical technobabble.

Technology was promised to solve our problems, yet it has created so many more.


It's just a reinforcement loop where the more of something you have the more it accelerates. It happens in many places: bank runs (as soon as people start taking money out, more start doing so), the dead sea effect (where the best people leave and people start leaving as the median quality of coworker drops), hiring (where the more capable you are the more likely you are to get hired, so it gets harder and harder to hire the later you are to the game - most obvious with when you're interviewing interns or whatever), and so on.

I've never been comped at any restaurant or bar.

I always thought that was a casino thing (to keep you drinking so that you gamble more) but I've never been to a casino. I live in Canada though, so we might have laws against that sort of thing.


Have you tried being really, really, ridiculously good looking?

Ahhh, I see. So the GP's whole spiel was just a humblebrag.

you don't have to be good looking. you just have to go to the same place frequently, and be friendly.

You don’t have to be, but it helps not to be bad looking.

i think it is truly irrelevant

like, a good looking person will get the occasional comp on the basis of that, but you'll never be friends with the staff on the basis of that. whereas anyone can be friends with the staff, if they are friendly and earnest about it.


I guess you missed the part where I talked about being friendly (or friends) with the waitstaff. Nice to know that you think I'm good looking though!

You don't need tiny apartments to have density. You can do it with smaller single-family houses on smaller lots, narrow one-way streets, and alleyways for parking instead of driveways and garages. This is how the pre-war streetcar suburb of Riverdale, Toronto is designed [1] and it has much higher density than the rest of the city.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0


> You don't need tiny apartments to have density.

Sure, it starts with "just do row houses" and "missing middle" and in two generations it becomes "we should allow SROs".

> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0

That's a propaganda channel that "conveniently" ignores everything against their narrative.

These kinds of density still require cars. Unless you want to have a stay-at-home spouse who can do full-time housekeeper duty (like in that Toronto neighborhood).


It’s the same story as the Casio F-91W as well as the AK-47. Terrorists (or just any armed paramilitary group) who live in the back country far from common supply lines have a great need for standardized, rugged, reliable, and repairable technology. By living that life, they’re basically forced to think about these issues as a matter of survival.

Well I think the F-91 is durable, it’s probably not repaired as much as discarded as it is cheap. Disposable is likely the advantage there.

I've read that it's quite usable as a spare part itself, in order to make a cheap and reliable time-bomb IED. It has a built-in alarm and it's apparently not too difficult to use the alarm's beeper signal to set off the bomb at an exact time of day. This would otherwise be quite difficult and time-consuming to build out of a box of off-the-shelf electronic components (not to mention a UI for setting the alarm).

The fact that the watch is so ubiquitous means the paramilitaries can write and distribute a standard field manual explaining how to do this, knowing that anyone wanting to build an IED ought to be able to acquire some of the watches on their own.


What do > and < mean in the context of an infinite 2D plane?

Typically, the order of complex numbers is done by projecting C onto R, i.e. by taking the absolute value.

Yes I’m aware. It’s a work around but doesn’t give you a sensible ordering the way most people expect, i.e:

-2 > 1 (in C)

Which is why I prefer to leave <,> undefined in C and just take the magnitude if I want to compare complex numbers.


One is above the plane and the other is below it. ;)

If you take this tack, then 0 and 1 are not numbers either.

i is not a real number, is not an integer, is not a rational etc.

You need a base to define complex numbers, in that new space i=0+1*i and you could call that a complex number

0 and 1 help define integers, without {Empty, Something} (or empty, set of the empty, or whatever else base axioms you are using) there is no integers


The simple fact you wanted to write this:

i=0+1*i

Makes i a number. Since * is a binary operator in your space, i needs to be a number for 1*i to make any sense.

Similarly, if = is to be a binary relation in your space, i needs to be a number for i={anything} to make sense.

Comparing i with a unary operator like - shows the difference:

i*i=-1 makes perfect sense

-*-=???? does not make sense


i is a complex number, complex numbers are of the form real + i*real... Don't you see the recursive definition ? Same with 0 and 1 they are not numbers until you can actually define numbers, using 0 and 1

  i*i=-1 makes perfect sense
This is one definition of i. Or you could geometrically say i is the orthogonal unit vector in the (real,real) plane where you define multiplication as multiplying length and adding angles

There's no issue with recursive definitions. That's how arithmetic was original formalized by Peano's axioms [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms


i is also a quaternion. So by this logic we could say complex numbers are made up of quaternions. But we don’t say such things because they wouldn’t be a good mental model of what we want to talk about.

> i is also a quaternion

Yeah, so ?

The fraction 1/2 is a rational and also a real and also a complex numbers and also a quaternion also an octonion ....

We use a number along with the minimal abstraction that is sufficient for our purpose.


i=0+1*i =0+1*(0+1*(0+1*(0+1*(0+1*(0+1*( ...*

... = -2 - (-3) = -1 - (-2) = 0 - (-1) = 1 - 0 = 1 = 2 - 1 = 3 - 2 = 4 - 3 = 5 - 4 = ...

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: