YoungAchamian
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
5hr 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
6hr ago
Sounds like we are just reinventing pre-sale OG OkCupid. Which was great, so great they got bought and neutered.
YoungAchamian
6hr 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
6hr ago
Marketing probably, and giving me amusement. Gotta get on the AI grindset for VC funding.
YoungAchamian
6hr 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
6hr 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
6hr 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
6hr 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
6hr ago
YoungAchamian
7hr 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
1d 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
4d 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
4d 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
4d 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?
YoungAchamian
4d ago
Mate, no offense, but from my observations you are the definition of a partisan tribal warrior. Discussing anything with you is an exercise in intellectual mutual masturbation. The only exercise being left to the reader here is whether engaging with you is worth the effort.
I'm not that interested.
YoungAchamian
4d ago
I'm not clear on what your argument or point is or if you are just being nitpicky.
FCFromSSC's argument was explicitly that Blues impose on Reds: gerrymandering and Roe vs Wade. This imposition is Blue-tribe forcing Red-tribe to not outlaw abortion, and forcing them to create districts for Black-Majorities
My corollary is that Red-tribe also imposes on Blue-tribe. I gave examples of Red-tribe forcing Blue-tribe to not recognize homosexual marriage, forcing them to allow denial of service based on speech grounds, forcing them to fund religious schools, forcing them to outlaw mandatory union participation, and forcing them to "outlaw" racial spoils based admissions
Both sides are preventing each other from disallowing actions via laws and affirmatively forcing the other to take actions that they don't agree with. This is the same thing as the original argument. Your argument appeared to be that one is not the same as the other. But your justification was to ignore half of the examples of Blue-tribe imposing on Red-tribe to make some weird argument that imposing by forcing a positive action is not the same as forcing a negative action (prevention of laws from disallowing). Not only is that cherry picking and nitpicky but its also incorrect.
If you argument is that Red-tribe ended Blue-tribes impositions, well, Stonewall was clearly ending Red-tribes impositions as well. Both sides end each others' impositions and both sides impose. Like I said, really not understanding your argument, I'm trying to be charitable here.
YoungAchamian
4d ago
Your own argument is nonsensical
They mandate that states cannot do something that restricts other people.
and
it also involves telling the states to refrain from doing something to other people
Are the same thing...
Both are telling the states not to do something. Both are by definition, an imposition: the action or process of imposing something or of being imposed. The Federal government is imposing laws that affect the states to deny them ability to govern how their populous wants to. It is one Tribe, "imposing" on the other.
YoungAchamian
4d ago
Only so much as the original argument makes any Blue-Friendly ruling applied in a Federalist manner an “imposition” on the Red-Tribe.
YoungAchamian
5d ago
never had Red constitutional impositions on Blue areas
While I broadly am inclined to agree with the overall thrust of your argument, this is not true. If you want to split hairs on "constitutional" then we'd have to agree on a definition of that to create a boundary of what counts. But off the top of my head of Court Cases, and Federal laws that Reds have imposed on Blues, there are many:
- Janus v. AFSCME regulated public sector unions and was imposed on pro union-labor oriented states
- Masterpiece Cake shop enforced conservative views on the freedom of speech/religion on Prog states
- 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, same thing
- Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC, Progs clearly want to engage in race-conscious affirmative action,
- Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and conferring the benefits of marriage
- Don't Ask Don't Tell federal stature 10 U.S.C. § 654
- Espinoza v. Montana and Carson v. Makin, vaguely forces Blue-tribe states to fund religious schools, by preventing the states from exempting them from school-choice or public aid programs
The Red tribe is not some innocent victim in this arena, the give as good as they get.
YoungAchamian
8d ago
Dean realistically is the major proponent of this going down hill, he really showed his ass making an accusation and being unwilling to back it up with evidence. MKC should have just stopped responding, something you need to learn in online discussions.
YoungAchamian
9d ago
My current investment thesis, while still recuperating capital after selling most of my portfolio for a house downpayment, is a mix of ETFs and mutual funds. I really like this SHLD ETF I found which is all the major international Defense companies. My theory is that as we move to a multipolar world, weapon sales will go up. I just don't feel like tracking individual winners, especially since the Defense Industry in general has a lot of graft.
YoungAchamian
11d ago
Could you explain the connection?
You see a black box, you observe inputs and outputs empirically and you derive an explanation for what is inside the box without actually being able to check.
Something that is simpler than the actual thing being modeled, but which can be used to help make predictions about the actual thing.
I’m understanding your definition as:
- compress structure from the environment/domain
- support prediction about that domain.
Does that track?
If so we have wildly different definitions. I would say your definition is very very broad, something like logistic regression or a kalman filter would have an internal model.
My definition is is very RL/latent space/World Model-esque: an internal model is a learned or encoded internal structure that represents the state and transition dynamics of an external system sufficiently well to support counterfactuals, simulation, planning, or action prediction.
Which is why your ball throwing example confuses me, under my definition, yes kids clearly have an internal model for catching a baseball but it is very controversial/not settled that an LLM has an internal model for chess. I think saying kids can catch a baseball using essentially a compressed predictive statistics process is cognitively incorrect.
An example of what you are proposing as evidence: we have an indestructible radio, you can’t open it. It does radio things. You are proposing that empirically since a voice comes out of this radio then it must have a tiny man inside of it. There is no other “evidence”. And the proof? Well its empirically observable, what do you mean there is no tiny man inside the box??
It’s a bad argument and bad science
EDIT: What are you actually using as a definition of internal model? It is imprecise in casual conversation but very specific in technical ones.
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.
More options
Context Copy link