SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
No bio...
User ID: 225
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
7hr ago
I literally do not know anyone who has been to jail. Or if they have, they've never told me about it. So your dichotomy isn't accurate, because I don't fall into either group.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
20hr ago
It's on the "..." menu that appears on each post (the one you use to report posts). One of the options is to block the user.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
Ok, well one of my red flags is "this person judges people maximally uncharitably based on one liners in their profile". So if something filters out those people, that's a great thing for me! The point isn't to get dates, it's to get dates whom you actually like.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
I can't imagine giving someone dating advice that consists of "list all your fringe interests that won't impress women at best and turn them off at worst and plug away for years with little success in the hopes of attracting your one true love".
Nobody is giving that advice. They are saying "if you like something, it's fine to put it in your profile", because they believe (correctly imo) that those who are put off by that are people you don't want to date anyway. There's no need to obsessively list everything which might be a red flag for someone somewhere, the point is to just be yourself and not worry about those who don't like that.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
But it is adding extra meaning, is my point. "Optimal" does not carry an asterisk that says "given other constraints not mentioned here", you have to add those constraints if you intend to communicate them. As far as beauty goes that's subjective, but IMO obscuring meaning precludes beauty. The point of communication is to be clear first and foremost, and "the optimal amount of fraud is not zero" isn't clear (as proved by the very fact that this discussion is taking place).
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
They aren't at all synonymous imo (nor are the two you cited, for that matter). That bit of elision significantly changes the meaning of each variant.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
I just don't think that there's a loss here. Profile space is not scarce, so if you're worried that someone will find it a dealbteaker then put it in. It's better to go on zero dates than on one date which goes nowhere.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
Yes, if you're looking for someone who shares interests that 99% of women find unattractive (but not so unattractive as to be dealbreakers), and you aren't willing to date someone who doesn't share these interests, then just put it out there as a filter.
I think that's true, and there's also another filter aspect to consider. If you don't care whether a partner shares your interest in X, but you require them to be ok with your interest in X, then you should also put it as a filter. Doing so avoids wasting your time on a relationship that wasn't going to work out anyway as soon as the girl says "I think anime is icky, stop watching it" and you refuse to give it up.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
I understand that there are inescapable parts of the human condition which make it so. But I still think that by eliding that (very important) part of the argument, the phrase becomes incorrect as it gets stated. Something like "the cost of reducing fraud to zero is too high to be worth it" would be more accurate, and the extra few words is not really a significant amount of verbosity.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3d ago
I see what you're saying... I guess it just seems implausible to me that anyone except a diehard true believer is going to filter out even the most tepid signs of conservatism (as mentioned in the OP). And for someone like that, they aren't going to accept anyone less committed than they are. But if indeed there are otherwise moderate women who are filtering so strongly, then I agree that hiding your power level could work.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3d ago
For me, that doesn't sound more fun or mature. It sounds like an absolutely miserable way to experience art, and like it's trying too hard to be adult as with one who is insecure about their own adulthood (cue CS Lewis quote here). If you find it more enjoyable I can't really argue with results, but it isn't for me at all.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3d ago
There's a lot of good advice in here, but I feel like misrepresenting your politics would cause more problems than it solves. If a girl is so hyper-liberal she will reject anyone who has the faintest whiff of being conservative (even to the point she will reject people who say they are moderate!), I think she's going to leave you as soon as she finds out you aren't the liberal you claimed you were. Maybe not if you're Chad Thundercock and she just can't bring herself to give up the good D, but I also doubt that such a Chad needs advice in the first place because he's swimming in women.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3d ago
It's been a while since I've been on the dating market (10 years, yikes), but +1 to women love pets. My first profile pic on okcupid back in the day was a photo of me and my puppy the day I got her. It definitely helped me drum up interest that I don't think I would've gotten otherwise.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3d ago
Not the heroes we deserve, but the ones we need.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3d ago
I disagree that it's hyperbole, I chose that for a reason. You can't know what's going on in a person's life. Maybe they have an asshole boss who hates them and is looking to fire them at the first opportunity. In that case, interrupting their sleep may well be endangering their livelihood through no fault of their own. Thus the comparison I made.
If one has talked to all of their neighbors within range of the fireworks and found that they aren't causing problems (commendable if so), then fine. But realistically the people who set off fireworks until 2 am aren't doing that, they are taking the stance of "I don't care about the impact to you, I want to have fun". That is selfish and not ok in my book. Heck, that doesn't even accomplish social cohesion like you are arguing for - it causes divides between neighbors (because one of them is being an asshole to the others), not brings them together.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3d ago
Yep, alarm fatigue is all too easy to fall into. It's always well meaning - someone makes the case that X should be really important, and nobody wants to be the one to tell them "actually that isn't important enough". But when everything is important, nothing is, and so people start to ignore everything as a way to cope with the onslaught. It applies to the phone alerts of course, but I see it all the time in network monitoring systems too. Sometimes you even see people start to invent higher tiers of "high priority" in an attempt to solve the problem, but unless they solve the actual problem (no one is willing to say no/they aren't listened to if they do), such efforts go about as you would expect.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
4d ago
Not even close. A person's livelihood is far more important than any given celebration, let alone this one which isn't even that important.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
4d ago
To be clear I in no way support stopping municipal fireworks shows. I'm referring purely to people setting them off in the street in front of their house, which has a significant component of antisocial jerks in my city. Official fireworks shows (municipal or otherwise) are perfectly fine and need no action taken at all.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
4d ago
And yet people have jobs, which they very frequently have to be at the next day. July 4 doesn't usually fall on a weekend like it did this year. It's not reasonable to insist that people can't get sleep when they have to be up the next morning just so that people can get hours upon hours of fireworks. 11 pm, even in your time zone, would be over an hour of darkness. 10pm would be similar in places I've lived. My stated timeframe of 10-11pm is a perfectly reasonable one imo.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
4d ago
Well I envy you the restraint of your neighbors. I am not so fortunate.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
4d ago
I'm neither a veteran nor a dog owner, but I think we need to do something about fireworks because of the usual reason - jerks are ruining it for everyone. I would be perfectly okay with fireworks on July 4, stopping at a reasonable hour (say 10-11 pm) so as not to disturb those trying to sleep. Instead what we get is about 2 months of fireworks on either side of the holiday, frequently going past midnight.
I honestly don't know what to do - normally you might say "make it illegal", but the mortar fireworks are illegal in this state already. But since people can drive 4 hours to Wyoming to get fireworks there, the law doesn't accomplish anything. It's a shame, because I actually love fireworks and it would be really cool to have them in the neighborhood if people were responsible. And to be fair most people are. But as usual, the irresponsible minority is causing problems for everyone.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
4d ago
I can agree that the continued fireworks past midnight does get mildly annoying, but it is absolutely nothing compared to the year-round barking these dog owners inflict.
This is a crazy take. Fireworks (the mortar kind, which is what people around here do despite them being illegal) are an order of magnitude louder than dogs. Even if your neighbor's dog is barking a lot, barking utterly pales in comparison to fireworks in terms of how disruptive it is due to the massive difference in volume. It's made even worse by the fact that people choose to set off fireworks. At least a dog is an independent creature you can't control, but the fireworks people are deliberately choosing to be assholes disrupting their neighbors. Here people were setting off fireworks until 2 am! Fucking 2 am! Not only that, but people here start setting off fireworks 3-4 weeks before July 4, and continue for 3-4 weeks after, so it's not like it is just one night of this nonsense.
I would've had some sympathy for your argument if you just claimed that the two were equivalently disruptive. But claiming that fireworks are "absolutely nothing" in comparison to dogs barking is not the remotest bit reasonable. And it's not like most people have dogs that bark all the time anyways - I have had one neighbor, in my 40 years on this earth, that had such a dog. And yeah it's annoying. Perhaps one might even say those people are irresponsible and shouldn't own a dog. But they are the minority. Are you really trying to argue that fireworks are just desserts when they punish not only the irresponsible, but also the responsible owners and those who don't even have dogs? Because that would be completely disproportionate.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
5d ago
But there's literally no reason for it to be doing that, either, when there is definitive information, easily available for reference. Its information it should never get wrong, in practice.
Yeah this is something that gets me about the frequent code-based hallucinations too. The things will make up non-existent APIs when the reference docs are right there. It does seem like it wouldn't be hard to hook up a function that checks "does this actually exist". I assume it must not actually be that simple, or they would've done it by now. But we'll see what they can do in the future.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
5d ago
My point is not that the problems are unsolvable (jury's out on that), it's that "this will be good if we can fix the problems" isn't a very meaningful statement. Everything is good if you can fix the problems with it!
Sure, I'm not trying to say it's impossible that anyone I know has been to jail. My point is merely that if they never told me about it, then I can't possibly be classified as having mental blinders about the topic. Nor can I be classified as someone who knows someone who has been to jail on trumped-up charges, because there isn't evidence to say that. Thus, it's a false dichotomy.
More options
Context Copy link