I haven't used dating apps in a few years but I stayed away from tinder and preferred Hinge and Bumble because I was looking for LTRs only. The most interesting and compatible people i've met (and in my friend groups, the longest relationships I've seen) have been from Hinge but I liked the idea of Bumble as it meant I could reach out to matches with my own timing and try to craft something interesting to say - there was no pressure to reply to simply whoever had messaged me first. I also think it's a bit of a filter for my own preferences which is for men who prefer a more progressive woman and/or don't fall into traditional gender roles, so in theory Bumble should've been perfect for me.
Bumble as a whole went downhill before this - I'm not sure why. I think (at least with hetero matching), men swiped right on everyone to try to turn it into a numbers game (since they otherwise couldn't reach out to anyone themselves) then women would get overwhelmed with the number of matches and the ticking time-window and then would send out generic 1-liners just to get the conversation started and remove countdown timer. I think the time-window was too short - you could swipe on ~10 people, decide that was enough and put the phone down for a few hours, and then later get flooded with notifications when those people in turn swiped on you and then that was when the count-down window started regardless of if you had the time to open up the app and start a conversation with 10 people. I usually gave up because I'd run out of time to message people and the matches would expire. I think extending the window is a good move but making it so anyone can message first basically takes away the point of bumble and what made it different from Tinder. This feels like a deathblow to Bumble.
I wonder why there was a time window at all! that sounds like a horrible user experience - at the least they could have told the other person that you didn't respond but left their profile sitting in your inbox somewhere so you could choose to message them later.
My guess is unnecessary surgeries which isn't an unreasonable concern. Something like 40% of MRIs showing spinal disc herniation are asymptomatic and the rate of surgeries to fix can be a coinflip.
Having a diagnosis doesn't mean we have to treat. If we find something minor with no symptoms we can ignore it. However there are things with minor symptoms people ignore to their harm. I wish I had my MRI a decade sooner, but the symptoms were the same thing everyone else has that is self treatable and comes and goes over time. When it finally got bad enough that I demanded help the normal help didn't work and only then did they find something major and rare.
is this your book? thanks for sharing! This isn't at all my domain of knowledge but I have a little unexpected free time on my hands and am excite to learn something new. Your book Internet Daemons looks interesting too
I'm grateful for you mentioning this. I grew up with ibuprofen as my default painkiller without really thinking of it too much but am about to do PRP which requires no NSAIDs for a week prior and 3 months after - but they do allow/recommend Tylenol as an alternative, especially for the post-procedure pain. I just would've assumed it was a sufficiently good substitute that I could treat them equivalently but now i know to be very careful about tracking how many I'm taking each day
What a weird article. As an avid cyclist, I would love self-driving cars to eventually take over the roads as I do believe they will eventually be safer than the humans with phones in their hands.
But I also think Tesla has singlehandedly wrecked the public perception of self-driving cars with their recklessness and disregard for human life, and faking statistics to try to legalize their self-driving mode: https://www.reuters.com/world/tesla-presented-misleading-ful...
Separately, I'd be pissed if my lawmaker tried to make this argument:
> New York state Sen. Luis Sepulveda (D–Bronx) wants a law that says motor vehicles for hire "shall not be…operated by an automated driving system without a human driver…seated behind the steering wheel and engaged in the task of driving."
> He says the state must protect immigrant taxi and Uber drivers who live in his district.
> “I’m curious why this had to be posted. Especially on the company account. On the practical level every time stuff like that gets posted it gets harder for us to sell the software outside of the US (for sure in the current political climate), and I doubt we need this in the US?” wrote one frustrated employee. The message received more than 50 “+1” emojis.
> “Wether [sic] we acknowledge it or not, this impacts us all personally,” another worker wrote on Monday. “I’ve already had multiple friends reach out and ask what the hell did we post.” This message received nearly two dozen “+1” emoji reactions.
> “Yeah it turns out that short-form summaries of the book’s long-form ideas are easy to misrepresent. It’s like we taped a ‘kick me’ sign on our own backs,” a third worker wrote. “I hope no one who decided to put this out is surprised that we are, in fact, getting kicked.”
entirely possible they're phrasing their concerns on the corporate slack to be 'pro-company' so they don't worry about getting fired for their views but it doesn't actually sound like they're wondering anything, they're just bothered that it's being brought to light.
I wouldn't say they necessarily aren't personally concerned as well. I think quite often if people disagree with their employer but don't want to lose their jobs, it's more amenable to phrase disagreement like they have there. Yes it would be braver to just come out and say "I really don't like this", but at least it's braver than saying nothing at all.
Sounds like they're having a 'NSA Moment'. After the leaks, there was a Bunch of high profile stories about employees leaving after their neighbors/friends/normies found out the sorts of stuff NSA was up to....
Bumble as a whole went downhill before this - I'm not sure why. I think (at least with hetero matching), men swiped right on everyone to try to turn it into a numbers game (since they otherwise couldn't reach out to anyone themselves) then women would get overwhelmed with the number of matches and the ticking time-window and then would send out generic 1-liners just to get the conversation started and remove countdown timer. I think the time-window was too short - you could swipe on ~10 people, decide that was enough and put the phone down for a few hours, and then later get flooded with notifications when those people in turn swiped on you and then that was when the count-down window started regardless of if you had the time to open up the app and start a conversation with 10 people. I usually gave up because I'd run out of time to message people and the matches would expire. I think extending the window is a good move but making it so anyone can message first basically takes away the point of bumble and what made it different from Tinder. This feels like a deathblow to Bumble.