I’ve been speaking with my girlfriends friends, about the paucity of eligible men in the SFBA. Most of them ask me to introduce them to a nice person. Looks aren’t as important, but having a decent job is. Maybe it’s the age, but I found simply being kind and knowing your target market (women who like kind guys, who are everywhere, and are often smoking hot) works.
Late 30s is a good time to date. I had the same issues as OP describes in my 20s, not in the Bay Area. It was all about how I subconsciously chose to approach things. I worked on myself, was genuine, and have had great success finding a mate up here.
(Not all that attentive, about 50 lbs overweight, fwiw)
I agree in spirit, but a lot of human behaviors, derived from decisions, don’t have consequences. Did Nestle face consequences for their decisions to promote formula, etc?
Let's not confuse accountability of decision making entity with consequences faced by the accountability. I was referring to the former, not the latter. The former is a case for law, the latter is a subject of law enforcement. In the case of Nestlé, you have a clear assigned accountable entity. We don't have that with algorithmic decision making (yet) where organizations wash off their hands saying "Oops! It was an algorithm, we didn't do anything!" Weak law enforcement is not a reason to not have proper laws in place.
Why would organizations not be responsible for decisions made by an algorithm? After all they are still the entity who decided to use that algorithm, and to execute the decision.
Sure, they say "Oops! It was an algorithm, we didn't do anything!", but is that any different than management saying "Oops! It was just a rogue employee, we didn't do anything!" For anything sufficiently consequential or systematic the second excuse doesn't work, so why should the first excuse work?
> We don't have that with algorithmic decision making (yet) where organizations wash off their hands saying "Oops! It was an algorithm, we didn't do anything!"
That's what individuals within companies do all the time.
You're onto something, form a limited liability company for your AIs and hire them as contractors. There, a clear assigned accountable entity :)
OTOH, if “we can easily look that up” is never said, it’s likely you’re not asking probing questions. Or that the other side is probably more confident than they should be.
This was my experience as a contractor for the Navy, years ago. We’ve had radar systems that can detect planes after a reflection on another plane, but the software is dogshit.
Someone once told me, it’s because generals and admirals can see hardware, and fell like they got value for their money. Software, not so much.
Perhaps it’s something innate in humans. Remember how Beats headphones used to add weights to feel more substantial?
"As a few folks have pointed out, the version of the headphones we tore down was likely counterfeit. We have posted an in-depth comparison of these and a pair of authentic Beats headphones here. TL;DR: the authentic pair is nearly identical to the counterfeit one."
This reminds me of when I gave an tour of the software development company I was working for (we had about 250 employees at the time) and his reaction was "so many people, but you guys don't produce _anything_".
Adding weight to headphones does have a practical advantage: it keeps them firmly on your head.
I had a relatively expensive - but very lightweight - set of headphones a while ago and I swapped them for a cheaper but heavier pair because they just wouldn’t stay in place.
That doesn't sound right to me. I don't think gravity is or should be the most important or even merely a significant factor keeping headsets in place. That, and less weight on the head should feel better to the head-holding muscles (not to your biased conscious self evaluating "feel" for the only brief time while you concentrate on it).
I would even say it is the opposite: The heavier the headset the tighter its grip has to be so that it stays in place during head movements. A tighter grip means more pressure around the ears, which for most people means less comfort.
I could see that while you concentrate on the feeling of headsets you may have that same bias as most people probably have that heavier equals better (quality, more solidly built), but I doubt that is true for the rest of your brain and your body.
I tried to find something, anything of substance on this concrete subject but this time my Google-foo failed. Links to research would be appreciated, if somebody else has better luck. A possible confounder is that heavier headsets - if it's not a cheat like in the discussed example - might indeed be better built, but I think we are talking about similar built quality here that only differ in weight, and objective criteria, not self-reported biased by already known to exist weightier-is-better value bias.
It seems the padding matters a lot more than the weight, but lighter headphones need less padding, so for a given price point the lighter headphones are more likely to be comfortable.
Not everyone agrees that intention is relevant. For me, it’s important to help while minimizing harm and trying to respect the agency and wishes of the recipient, which the fighting analogy violates. that is a challenging balance in practice, but we are talking about ethics, where there is more grey than b&w.
I suppose you could argue that religion is harmful.. but even as an atheist, that’s a stretch for me to agree with.
> I suppose you could argue that religion is harmful.. but even as an atheist, that’s a stretch for me to agree with.
How is that a stretch for you? Have you ever heard of conversion therapy. Do you know how that came to be and similar to slavery. I know a lot of LGBT+ friends that had religious parents throw them on the streets because of God wouldn't make them not be normal.
Let me guess, you also think that Muslims are terrorists? Why are we so found of generalisations? A number of individuals engaging in a horrible activity, doesn't make them a representative of the entire group. You can be religious without condoning any of those things because they don't affect your daily life, which is true for most religious people I'd argue. I am not religious but I can see why someone would turn to religion to give them a sense of purpose in their life. That doesn't mean that they have to convert people.
little of any modern decisions is based on what humans have experienced, historically. We have evolved a set of core emotional firings that do not have much to do with how we live.
Why start/stop at the initial decision, when these issues go so much deeper.
Late 30s is a good time to date. I had the same issues as OP describes in my 20s, not in the Bay Area. It was all about how I subconsciously chose to approach things. I worked on myself, was genuine, and have had great success finding a mate up here.
(Not all that attentive, about 50 lbs overweight, fwiw)