I've held off on buying a Tesla because I don't know for sure if the company will be around in several years and I worry about maintenance. News like this obviously doesn't help, but it makes me wonder when is a "good" time to buy a Tesla where it seems like a safer bet?
My take is if you are going to be stodgy and practical wait two more years and pick what's available then. There are lots of electric car models in development. Also with battery prices falling the price differential will be nearly gone by then.
Having worked for both companies in my old career this is unsurprising. Marriott has a history of changing things for the worse.
One great example is when they bought Ritz Carlton. They said they wouldn't change much, and then did a sweeping rebranding (changing a lot of internal verbiage, changing the 20 basics to the 12 service values, etc). A lot of the veterans felt like the brand lost a core part of its identity then.
Starwood's rewards program was award winning and pretty much everyone I knew considered it best in the industry. It's unfortunate that they bought such a great program and can't even integrate it with theirs. It's really sad and I can't imagine them salvaging it.
It's the law! I'm not sure how you don't get that. People have to get explicit consent to Terms of Service and marketing. If you don't understand that times change and companies have to adapt to follow the law (with a popup modal of all things gasp) then I'm not sure what to tell ya. Good luck with that mindset.
Implying that white males don't care is not helpful and is both racist and sexist. I'm a white male and I care about abuse and all kinds of other things. Maybe you should do some reading on unconscious bias.
Because the scooters were already clogging sidewalks and aggravating people. The limit prevents that. Otherwise VC's will invest in ten of these companies like lemmings, kind of like how we have so many food deliver apps. At least this way we'll only have five. This doesn't seem too crazy to me but maybe that's just me.
> The Supreme Court, gave its opinion today on Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis and, in a 5-4 split, decided to uphold forced arbitration agreements that preclude employees from pursuing class-action lawsuits against their bosses in court
All dating should be like gay apps/dating... theres always someone wanting to talk to you, trade pics and try to hook up with you. At least if you have a nice body, decent face and are 20 to 40... unfortunately being white might help too.
Str8 dating app scams barely exist on gay/bi apps. There's no need for it due to how men are. Horny and looking 24/7.
What I don’t understand is why so many people (at least women anyway) come to dating apps and declare they are just “looking for friends”.
Is this really a thing or is it code for something else? Who is really so oblivious to think that looking for friends of the opposite sex on a dating app where people are there for more than just friendship is a good idea?
I would never go on a dating app to find platonic friends. That is exactly the last place I would go.
Some people are using "just looking for friends" as a filter. They want the person who talks to them to be ok with being friends first before they switch to being romantic.
There is often an element of self-deception too. "I'm not the sort of person who would use a dating app, I don't need it" You see a lot of "I'm just trying out this app to kill time" people too.
Other people use it as a built-in refusal. They can say "Sorry, I'm just looking for friends" when they are asked on a date by someone they aren't interested in. When someone more appealing asks them out no one will complain that they aren't following their "just friends" rule.
Dating is full of interesting meta-behaviour like this.
"Just looking for friends" is BS 100% of the time and "No one night stands" is BS 90% of the time. This comes from my personal experience. It's plausible deniability for the girl so if her friends see her on Tinder she doesn't get slut-shamed (Tinder has a bad rep).
People say that on dating apps to create plausible deniability. If a friend, family member, or co-worker spots the profile and says hey what were you doing on that app they have an excuse. That's doubly true for those that are "kind of" dating someone who might wander across the profile.
Is this really true? I find in my own experience that men want sex more than women is a stereotype of sorts. That women are more selective than men is a distinct observation but I'm not so sure how true that is either and how much of it is merely due to traditional gender roles.
The evidence of a stronger male sex drive is overwhelming.
”The sex drive refers to the strength of sexual motivation. Across many different studies and measures, men have been shown to have more frequent and more intense sexual desires than women, as reflected in spontaneous thoughts about sex, frequency and variety of sexual fantasies, desired frequency of intercourse, desired number of partners, masturbation, liking for various sexual practices, willingness to forego sex, initiating versus refusing sex, making sacrifices for sex, and other measures. No contrary findings (indicating stronger sexual motivation among women) were found. Hence we conclude that the male sex drive is stronger than the female sex drive. The gender difference in sex drive should not be generalized to other constructs such as sexual or orgasmic capacity, enjoyment of sex, or extrinsically motivated sex."
This kind of research depends on some degree of frankness that may not always be available due to social stereotypes, religious stereotypes and other traditional 'purity' and shaming constraints operating on women.
It would be healthier to assume both sexes have fully functioning sex drives, perhaps stronger in some individuals and discard the outdated notion that women are not as 'interested' in sex or need to be 'persuaded'.
These outdated notions introduce some problematic concepts, reinforce traditional gender roles and taint a mutually beneficial activity into an unhealthy construct of 'giving' and 'taking'.
There are differences. Testosterone makes makes men more aggressive and this may well show in all range of behaviors including sexual but must be tempered with the fact that human beings do have control. Men are also unlikely to be turned on by social status but many women respond to both physicality and things like status which complicates attractiveness and drive.
I'd say it's the opposite of naive. That boys are different than girls is taken as an obvious truth by young children. Believing otherwise requires advanced mental gymnastics. (Or advanced insight, depending on your opinion on the issue.)
We need new studies on the subject, but in the context of internet pornography. Given pornography consumption, are there changes in the relative sex drives of men and women?
Take a look at the number of gay-male postings vs the number of lesbian-woman postings on casual hookup sites. Neither of these groups fall into "traditional gender roles", yet males still post significantly more.
Gender is distinct from sexual orientation. Moreover, women in general feel societal pressures to conform to gender norms regardless of their sexual preference, and it's hard to disentangle whether that's innate or not, and if gender norms (and norms about sex) were to change if we'd see different behavior.
These aren’t just arbitrary “social norms” though. Cost of accidentally getting pregnant and child bearing is very high and it simply does not exist for men.
I think the point is that the pregnancy risk issues you pointed out do not apply to lesbians, therefore do not help explain the lower promiscuity of lesbians compared to gay men.
But it does, if you consider the evolutionary perspective. Biologically, women are far more careful about sex, for the reasons I described. Sexual orientation is not hereditary by definition, so the evolutionary imperative and cost benefit analysis both stand. This is also why women prefer older and wealthier men.
Making friends or long term friends with benefits on Grindr or Scruff is a joke. We are all distracted by something new and shinier. So it's a joke for building anymore then a sex buddy relationship where you see each other every month or so for a release.
Though that might be different for the really good looking to hot guys.
Can you elaborate? My reading of the top comment is about how tinder has radically different experiences for men as for women. What is the similar dynamic on gay dating apps?
Just read the article and LoL there's zero effort on bi/gay hook up apps... just post the hottest pic of your 20 to 40 (maybe on up to 50)yourself .. face or body pic and boom filter through to find the ones your into.
Another interesting thing you can become old news(after months of having the same picture in your town) yet if you travel 10 to 20 miles down the road your new hot news and the instant gratification of lots of prospects continues.
Hiring a ghost writer to do the work on a bi/gay hook up is laughable. Though wow str8 app dating has gotten so hard guys are hiring ghost writers and fakes of himself to chat up/seal a date. WOW thats ridiculous lets kill these apps and meet the old fashion way!!!
I'd be surprised if they did. It is extremely normal for forum software to only soft-delete posts — for one reason among many, it means somebody can't harass you while they know you're here but delete it before the mods can have a look.
It's moot if there's anyone or service doing backups of HN, whether for archiving purposes or other. I know Reddit has a few services doing that for threads -- which recently lead to evidence on /r/legaladvice that can be used against an employer as both the employer and employee posted separately, the manager essentially stating that they wanted to fire the employee in retaliation and for not participating (regardless of their cultural/religious practices, and having been told so prior to continued violations).
Unfortunately we don't have government organizations that help with moderating discussion (like a therapist would), such as a parent would help children learn how to communicate with others in difficult situations, to deal with emotions, etc; and if bad behaviour, giving someone time-out until they can "play nice" again.
We have to of course make an environment good enough, rewarding enough to be part of, that it's an incentive for everyone to want to play nice.
Perhaps we need to come up with a new system (separate from legal system, or part of justice-education system) for dealing with situations that teach compassion when compassion/understanding is missing, e.g. should bullying a crime, or who should we leave that up to - is it even required to bring all participants related to bullying together, parents of the perpetrator and the victim, and create a healing circle to uncover the deeper underlying issues?
The whole point would be to rally support, so we can build stronger, deep community - and society could, like with criminal law, have fines or other limitations created if people decide to opt-out of this system.
We really need to become more comfortable with accountability, that our actions have consequences - though we also must support a practice of learning, mistakes happen during learning, etc; there's pretending to have learned, and genuine change/evolution in a person's thinking and behaviour, difficult to perhaps tell in some cases online.
Even if they did I doubt Facebook has enough of a handle on their data to avoid the fines for GDPR. They're infrastructure must be massive, and they have a big target on them. I can't say I feel bad for them.
