Being "immune" just means your body can fight the infection effectively. It doesn't mean you don't get infected and can't spread the disease for a short amount of time.
The wildly unbalanced gender ratio makes men frustrated, which causes them to invest very little in reaching out to women so that they can reach out to dozens/hundreds/thousands, which makes an experience for women of thousands of dick pics/"hey"/etc, along with earnest high-investment outreach from men who are too ugly/poor/short/whatever to capture their interest.
If there was a system for people in the 25th to 75th percentiles of desirability to have a dating market where the men were only allowed to contact 3 women per month, I think it would be very popular among women.
Theres a dating app kind of like the idea you are proposing: Once.
You get one (!) suggestion per day and you can decide whether to like or dislike. The basic idea is quality over quantity. But as such an app is not good at guessing what you like, you mosten often just press the dislike button.
The chance that you'd want to date a given randomly selected person, or even an algo-selected person, is small. The "Once" app sounds like navigating deep space in hope of one day reaching a habitable planet.
If you don't expect 30 matches a month to include a reasonable flow of date-worthy people, I think you've encountered exactly the problem the app is trying to solve. Your standards have been skewed unreasonably high by the constant availability of one more match, and some of the people you're not willing to date would make you perfectly happy if you did.
I'd like to know more about your specific circumstances, as there is a lot that you have not said.
Are you getting dates via dating apps, and are those dates with people who's looks* rate lower than yours?
And lets take that further--have you found a long-term relationship through these dating apps, or is your goal casual dating?
Of your dates, how many of them lead to 2nd, 3rd, and 4th dates with the same person?
The original comment was creating an app for people who are effectively 3-7 out of 10 on desirability scale, because presumably dating apps only cater to 8-10/10.
Dating apps cater to men ~9-10 and women ~4-10. Many women would rather have sex once every two weeks with a polygamous man they consider a "9" than sex every night with a monogamous man they consider a "5". This has always been true but dating apps have enabled it at scale in society-transforming ways.
This isn't just speculation, it's from data that OKCupid blogged and then un-blogged when they were acquired by Match.
This was one of the early theories about how Facebook would monetize -- that your real-life friends would value their relationship with you too highly to recommend anything but truly great products to you. That hit the reality that people would squander most of their friends for their stupid MLM scheme.
To mildly humidify my baby son’s room without having to maintain a humidifier, I use a towel soaked in water, draped over a chair, with a fan pointed at it overnight.
I've used this in the summer to cool down in apartments with no AC.
But is it actually effective for humidification? The top comment mentions that it takes 5 gallons per day to humidify a small studio apartment under ideal conditions...
Well, 600 square feet can be a studio but it's by no means a small studio. It's enough space for a perfectly comfortable 2 bedroom apartment. (Or 3 if you squeeze.)
For a single room, if that towel holds a gallon it should work fine for an overnight humidification job.
It's very effective for humidification, the difference is immediately noticeable. The room is probably 100 square feet, I'm only humidifying it at night, so by your calculation it should take only about half a gallon of water which is probably what fits on a towel give or take.
It’s obviously not precise. But roughly after that you are making about a million a year minimum in cash flow and can think about spending $250k+ on custom software.
Tex is like a programming language, you have to "run" the program to generate output, and that execution is tightly tied to producing output on paper pages. This means it is extremely difficult to produce good looking HTML, or accessible output.
How is TeX terrible? I’d appreciate it if you could calibrate your response roughly to my level of discernment, which is to perceive LaTeX documents as better looking than Microsoft Word, but not be able to articulate why, or have much finer grained resolution than that.
Generally when you can’t discern the rational for a preference, it often means the underlying basis is associative rather than objective. That’s how most of us discern most things most of the time—a particular appearance tends to correlate with past performance.
You’ve probably read a bunch of very good papers typeset in TeX.
What I mean is that, with some things like music, I can say that this recording is better than this one because the musician is playing with better dynamics, or better pacing, etc, but with two chocolate cakes from a restaurant I can only say “this one is better.” I can’t give any advice to the chefs. Typesetting is like the latter, I can say “this looks better” but can’t say “it’s because the margins are wider” or the serifs are fatter.
That certainly has been how I've seen it play out. Which makes sense as easier to have one rule to fit all and if that rule is based upon the worst case of every countries data laws then you are somewhat more future proofed. After all, not many countries do laws than are demanding their citizens have less privacy - at least in the public sector remit of laws.
Pardon my cynicism if I think it's likely Apple and Netflix.
And they probably do that for everyone only because it doesn't eat into the main profit generators in their business models. Not many marketers paying Netflix to advertise their new natural soap line to targeted prospects I'd imagine.
I agree about the buzzword part, but the parent did specify two FAANGs. I'd think it would be interesting to hear which two since it's obviously not Google (as the article hints that they want to move data out of the EU).
Also, the FAANG expression didn't start around scale, if that was the case netflix wouldn't have been included as early as the expression was coined. The expression was about developer compensation. That seems to have changed recently(-ish) though and now the expression is more like "unicorn" instead of just the specific companies that make up the acronym.
Also Microsoft makes tens of billions of dollars per year from Excel and even if only 1% of that goes back into performance, that’s a lot of optimization.
We are in a thread about rendering an image by zooming out enough on an excel spreadsheet and then manipulating it in near real-time by applying a formula on the cells.
It's pretty damn impressive! I get it's 'cool' to hate MS but seriously...
I'm not trying to be rude to you. I'll believe you that you worked there, worked on excel and maintain contact with people still htere and that people are "working on performance" and you can believe me that we just can't see the results of that work.
But yes, I'm a bit jaded. I think you'll understand why that is too. The vast fortune in revenue that doesn't fix bugs put me off excel in a big, big way. That was 2008 or so.
Here's Andrew Gelman in 2013 on the topic:
"Microsoft has lots of top researchers so it’s hard for me to understand how Excel can remain so crappy. I mean, sure, I understand in some general way that they have a large user base, it’s hard to maintain backward compatibility, there’s feature creep, and, besides all that, lots of people have different preferences in data analysis than I do. But still, it’s such a joke. Word has problems too, but I can see how these problems arise from its desirable features. The disaster that is Excel seems like more of a mystery."
We've heard from microsoft so many times they have people working on all those bugs too. I remember the sheer disappointment in testing the newly fixed rand() function after all the fanfare by filling a page with =rand(), conditionally formatting when negative to be red and seeing the page turn largely red after a couple of F9 re-calculates.
I simply don't believe that excel programmers are idiots and have been for 15 years.
That leaves "they say they're working on it but they are not, not really." At the top of my alternatives. Is there a better one you can suggest?
Enlighten me please, how does this epic cluster of fudge happen? You were probably there while it was ongoing.
Parts of excel work well, /all/ the stats should have been removed 15 years ago as unfit for purpose and zero will or ability or effectiveness in getting a fix and making good.
Excel, just don't. That is a pretty reasonable response, don't you think? Yeah it's sad. I don't relish it but let's not pretend it's all ok, yeah? But I guess the masses of revenue keep coming in so I guess it is all ok from microsoft's point of view. Are you ok with that yourself?
Um, there isn't an easy way to say this, so I'll just say it: calm down.
I'm an Excel and VBA guy. The IDE hasn't been updated since office 97. It's not great.
But the thing that Microsoft understands iS that people buy your software if it doesn't break their workflow. Backwards compatibility is the most compelling feature when you've got an install base in the millions.
Now, they have fucked up. A lot. There is a bug that counts 1900 as a leap year. The statistical functions don't work. They can't dump VBA no matter how much they want to. They tried with VSTO and officejs but nobody is buying. I get it. They are stuck and the only real way out is to break compatibility. But haven't we seen what happens when you go down that road. Python 3. Perl 6. Acrimony. Discord. And for what? Your spreadsheet to break and you have to debug it? What if you have a spreadsheet that's never been documented with a million formulas. You probably have a day job, you need your tools to work and Microsoft understands that.
The 1900 leap year bug is for Lotus 123 compatibility. Nobody cares about that now but it was critical in the beginning - Imaging moving to Excel and all your dates are off by a day.
These days it sticks around because of compatibility with older versions.
Saying "calm down" like that is spectacularly rude and derogatory, did you mean to or was that an error? If you want someone to get angry that's exactly how you do it, fwiw. Anyway maybe you're not trying to just turn it into a flame war? Sure, ok. Let's just address those points as coldly as I can manage.
1. "The Ribbon" The most useless, workflow breaking, unwanted garbage change I've ever encountered. No exaggeration. A change microsoft dropped resources into instead of fixing the bugs, sucking time from users and upping their stress and frustration levels. It's the poster child for workflow breaking. Excel. A higher microsoft priority than fixing bugs. Contrary to your claim they clearly understood that they had enough market power to force it on users breaking their workflow and make the users pay for it.
2. Microsoft love breaking compatibility. Every damn upgrade of office somwhere else by some other customer meant you couldn't open a spreadsheet containing a single column of numbers because it was "incompatible." You had to request they convert it and re-send if they knew how and probably you or your employer would be forced to upgrade to avoid that hassle while get slugged with the ribbon you didn't want.
No upgrade treadmill anymore, now they can just charge you yearly without having to play that awful upgrade treadmill game. They don't have to fix bugs either, as we agree and they don't. They chose not to. So that needs to be pointed out every time it comes up to counter a little bit of the horrible stealth of it.
They did /try/ to fix rand() with much fanfare by breaking it different but no version issues. Was broken, is broken, never use it. The only stats function I'm aware of they tried to fix? Really? No? Like "sure, but maybe some people are dependent on getting wrong results and allocating resource based on error?" Is that really the excuse for not putting a tiny part of that mountain of money to stop kicking customers? It's objectively awful. Compatibility with utterly wrong that anybody relying on that wrong has a massive issue.
1900 isn't a leap year and dates are stored as number of days since Jan 1 1900 so fix it and every single date rolls back a day, hilarious and everyone forgives that including me. Stats functions are not like that at all and do not require version changes. Just the will and resource to fix them. What is needed is to actually care.
So that leaves your quote:
"They have fucked up. A lot."
That one stands up. But I don't think you've really embraced the depths of the disaster that is excel and why we should encourage everyone to avoid it. Because (to paraphrase) the error is quite deliberate. It's not worth it to them to fix. They know the bugs are there. They no the bugs are material. They no the bugs stop the software for being fit for purpose but they'd rather not spend the resource, which they could do quite easily. They give software a bad name with that attitude. Are you really happy with it? Really? How much harm do those bugs do every day, in your opinion?
Excel, just say no. Really. I'm sorry if you hate hearing that and you were proud of work you did there or whatever. I was pretty bummed when I came to that realisation myself.
Microsoft earned a reputation with regards excel and they maintain it, even if it seems they don't maintain the actual software.
This sounds a bit like Comic Book Guy. For every person who has the opinion that Excel is “so crappy” there are probably 100 like myself who place it in the highest category of application software quality, with applications like Gmail and Adobe After Effects. You can prepare a list of weaknesses of any of these, the same way you could write about all of the mistakes that Michael Jordan made in basketball games.
Accesibility has a quality all of it's own. Literally tens if not hundreds of millions of people can do computational tasks they otherwise would not be able to do.
Considering the "every(wo)man" approach it ability to be useful is near genius, but just because your volkswagon won't get you to mars, it doens't make it crap.
