Well “blocking” isn’t the same as “not ringing”, right?

Sure. But it’s useful today. Are they going to continue the unicorn startup charade and ruin the product in the progress, like facebook? Or snapchat? Or even twitter! We’d be distinctly better off as humans without any of them.

Nobody is preventing them from offering either ads OR a subscription service.

Hey if they discover it too late, that’s on them!

At their size, there are few changes that will help user growth without improving content.... goood luck with that.

> pull water out of our ass

Feasible, but out of thin air is easier and less disturbing. Places in Arizona seem to have around 40 or 50% average air humidity.

And air conditioners are good at getting water out of air.

Frankly, I had no idea the humidity was that high in Arizona! Color me impressed.

In Arizona?

You pump the water from the sea. With free energy. I’m not the first to point this out. There are pages on it. Please google it.

Well, if history does repeat itself, we’re due for company towns and only a decade out from rampant abuse.

They're back already in the oil fields.

Mostly it seems like a barren wasteland for socialization, and I don’t follow brands. Whats left are christmas party invitations, baby photos, and messenger.

I find myself intensely disliking my neighbors if I’m on it enough. It feels dystopian.

Don't forget Birthdays! Make sure you give the smallest amount of effort to everyone to recognize their birthday.

> eventually to make the other group submit.

Does this ever really happen without complete extermination? I suspect this route is an illusion.

Verbatim has worked for many years.

both verbatim and the quotes don't act the same as the + operator did

Well, you start by valuing the humans over the corporations. Weird, I know.

How do you value the welfare of the people in those corporations, their jobs and prosperity? You start by valuing having a job and having new businesses and services that put food on the table. These are easy things to take for granted in the developed world with our dynamic economies, extensive social services, free basic education and in many countries free health care. You cant tax people and companies to fund these things if those people don't have jobs, or have only subsistence level incomes or the businesses never get started or are starved of capital so they can't grow or adapt.

Countries that tried to do without economies like ours though, such as Soviet Russia, China under Mao, Venezuela and Cuba today, etc didn't do so well. So how do you confiscate the majority of the capital in society that is used to generate all this wealth without killing the goose that's laying the golden eggs? But if you do allow the accumulation of capital so that it can be deployed efficiently, how do you prevent free people in a democracy from using that capital for other things too?

How do you restrict individual freedom for people like Zuckerberg while meeting your social engineering goals?

Still waiting for even a perfunctory attempt to actually answer my questions with anything other than meaningless platitudes.

I mean, i’m fine with trying for wealth redistribution again. Sure it’ll probably fail, but the current economy is not what success looks like either.

I’d rather have a worse performing economy with low income disparity than what we have, without a second thought.

I din’t see tinder winning so much as creating a new (and very psychologically exploitable) app market. It was not inevitable; many still don’t use tinder style dating at all.

I think you are focused on the style of dating (Quick hookups) where the person you are responding too is focused on the unique app feature that made tinder "Stand out" from the crowd (Swipe left/right).

It's that app feature which plays into the "exploitation" part of quick, responsive, immediate.

Right, but the feature only makes sense if the risk is low (quick hookups). There aren’t any meaningful signals; just photos.

Tinder is a "hookup" app isn't it, ie a way to find someone to have sex with; whilst OKcupid is aimed at "dating" ie people to have a longer term relationship [I know it has options for use in several scenarios, spouse seeking, dating, hookups, etc.].

I think that is the way it is framed, but as the OKCupid user base bleeds out those users are most likely turning to Tinder as it has more people. OKCupid has actually lifted some features off of Tinder which makes no sense as they're owned by the same parent company which is kind of shooting itself in the foot with this approach.

Anecdatally, I know people who have had long term relationships off of Tinder, some still together. I imagine that people will continue migrating over to Tinder from OKCupid.

> I think that is the way it is framed, but as the OKCupid user base bleeds out those users are most likely turning to Tinder as it has more people. OKCupid has actually lifted some features off of Tinder which makes no sense as they're owned by the same parent company which is kind of shooting itself in the foot with this approach.

Do you own index funds? I do. Which means I have stock in Coke and Pepsi both. But this is stupid because Coke and Pepsi are competitors, so my Coke returns are offset by my Pepsi losses whenever Coke wins and vice versa, right? Actually, no, because the beverage industry still grows in aggregate over time, and in exchange for not having to guess who's going to win the cola wars, I get to collect the benefits of both companies growing the overall market.

In this analogy, I'm match.com and OKCupid and Tinder are Coke and Pepsi.

This mostly makes sense but the ok cupid bleeding into tinder—the only part of okcupid worth reading was the fact that it was text centric rather than photo centric.

You can meet and keep anyone you like on Tinder. OKCupid is for people with dating anxiety, who need to distract themselves from talking to each other by filling out personality tests.

Okcupid was there first. Tinder was just more exploitative.