Landrin201

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Could be worse

She could add corn to it

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Oh wow boo hoo, they have so much risk πŸ˜” they have an entire house that they can sell at any time, who someone else is paying the mortgage of. Oh, the horror! If the market should crash they'll lose the equity another person paid!

Really the landlords are the victims here, not the tenants paying their mortgage for them plus a little extra for profits. Clearly the tenants have committed the crime of not having good enough credit for a loan, or the crime of not having enough for a down payment, so they aren't worthy of owning property.

No no it's the landlord who has the real problems, because they could ein a shaky financial situation of "selling the second house iown" if the market dips!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In my experience (I'm a few years out of date with how the app works now, keep that in mind) it's like 90% looks. You CAN build up a profile, but IIRC only the first sentence of it shows up on your picture. A person has to see your picture and that tagline, be curious enough to actually go to your profile before swiping, then read your profile if they're going to use it to judge you on.

Most of the people I know who used tinder, myself included, didn't really do that much. We just swiped based on looks, and if someone was borderline then we looked at the profile to make a decision. But that was pretty rare, most people it was a pretty clear yes/no based on looks.

The apps is designed to encourage that behavior. When I used it profiles were REALLY not being encouraged, IDK if that has changed (I would guess it hasn't).

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree, but that just makes this even scummier on Tinder's part. The people who own and make the app know that, they're doing this anyway. So they're targeting people who are already desperate and lonely, and giving them what they will inevitably see as a "lifeline" which actually may make their chances worse.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No, you just heavily implied it. If you didn't mean to then you need to edit you comment. And I laid out how I clearly disagree with the idea that this is "aimed at creeps," because it's aimed at people who have been made desperate by the predatory nature of Tinder's algorithm. Desperation doesn't necessarily make someone creepy, but it does make Tinder a lot of money.

Also, why are you making it seem like someone sending a message to someone else on a dating app is somehow a kind of, like, assault? You're using very aggressive language to describe normal behavior by people trying to date, AKA talking to other people who they may be interested in

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Why are you assuming that men who can't get matched are automatically creeps? That's not at all a good assumption, and is a BIG part of the problem with tinder.

Back before I met my now fiancee, I never got tinder matches. I only got matches on OKCupid, back when you were allowed to message people before matching with them. That's how I met my now fiancee, too.

Tinder is incredibly toxic by design and is designed to damage people's mental health. They've taken dating, something that requires a lot of human interaction, and reduced it to a literal slot machine which tinder can rig however they want. They've reduced finding a partner to "does this person look attractive to you?" which is NOT how dating works IRL. I know a lot of people who met their partners IRL and were not attracted to them until they started getting to know each other as friends, then fell for each other.

Tinder not only exploits the problematic beauty standards in our society, but actively makes them worse. If you're not getting matches you feel unattractive, because every piece of feedback the app gives you says you are. It doesn't matter how charismatic or interesting you are, it doesn't matter how much you and a potential match may have in common, all that matters is the pictures you put up, and maybe the first sentence or two of your bio.

The whole system is designed to make people using it feel desperate, men and women both, and this $500 to message first thing is incredibly scummy. They suck you in, kill your self confidence, depress you, then offer you what seems like a lifeline.

This is like a casino offering you a slot machine with a 50% higher win rate for a monthly subscription.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 1 year ago (13 children)

This thread is full of people laughing at people who would pay for this, but I actually kinda empathize.

I got REALLY lucky and met my now fiancee on a dating app. It took about 2 years of trying to meet her, and in that time ithink I had maybe 5-7 dates. ALL of those were on OKCupid, back when it let you message people without matching. I am not the most good looking person, but I could get a good first impression through a message.

Tinder though? It killed my self confidence when I used it. I never got a single date from tinder. It is designed tonot get you dates, unless you're SUPER attractive, especially if you're a man. A lot of it is that there are so many more men on dating apps than women, I know that objectively. But it SUCKS when you're actively looking for a partner and swiping every single day to either never get matches or get matches who are bots.

For a lot of guys like me being able to get a good first message in feels like the only chance, and if you're seriously looking and starting to feel desperate (and these apps are designed to make you feel desperate) then dropping $500 for a month of being able to get a shot may not actually seem crazy.

These apps have designed a "dating economy" around themselves that tells people that they are not attractive or a desirable partner if they aren't getting matches, then deliberately tailored their algorithms to manipulate people into coming back every day for a chance to meet someone. It's slot machines, but with romantic relationships, and it convinces people that dating is like gambling. And these apps want you to feel like they are the only way to date, and if you're not "winning" and getting dates they make it clear that it's YOUR fault, and if you drop a little money you'll get some matches.

Yes, some creeps will pay for this to send dick pics, but I think most people who will pay forthis are actually desperate and convinced that it's their only chance at getting a date. It's disgusting these apps are allowed to do what they have done. And I say all of that as someone who won the damn slot machine jackpot and came out with a long term partner.

I personally think these apps are doing some serious harm to our society and need to be regulated but that's a different discussion

[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 year ago (32 children)

I hate the crypto market so much, but ESPECIALLY nfts.

Nfts were blatantly a scam. It 2as a very in your face scam, it was giving money to someone else for literally nothing. It was obvious time from day 1 that it was just an avenue for rich people to launder money and have it look legit.

But the media fell for the new trend hook, line, and sinker. Instead of telling people it was a scam from day 1, which it *obviously was," the major news networks (at least here in the US) talked about nfts as if it was a legit new type of cool investment. They stopped short of telling people to buy them so that they couldn't get sued, but they hyped the fuck out of NFTs. CONSTANTLY. Any time I listened to any cable news for more than 30 minutes around mid 2021, I heard NFTs get mentioned at least once, and very rarely was that mention skeptical or a warning.

And now all the people who bought into the hype are left holding the bag, as always, a d the rich people who scammed them get to keep all the money, as always, and the media is facing no repercussions for their contribution to the scam, as always. It's so frustrating to watch

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (9 children)

I disagree that this is unambiguous, I was also confused reading this headline. It's odd wording. It may be technically correct but that doesn't mean it's unambiguous.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

You actually believe that? The people who claim that people like Werner von Braun didn't commit any crimes are the CIA and Braun himself. All of the records from Germany were destroyed. It's essentially just taking his word on it to believe he was only involved because "he had to be."

He was literally a member of the SS, the wing of the nazi government that was directly responsible for the Holocaust. He was photographed repeatedly with himmler himself, in uniform. He claimed that those were just ceremonial photos that he had to participate in the keep his career. He also claimed not to agree with the Nazis politically.

Why would you believe anything that a member of the SS said? Especially one as important to the Nazis as von Braun was.

Of fucking course he was never found guilty of any war crimes, the US was actively trying to recruit him. They didn't want to prosecute their newest asset, a man who directly led to the US becoming the globally dominant force it became during the space race. He was useful so the US government deliberately didn't investigate him seriously, took him at his word that he totally wasn't a real nazi, and then used him to invent more rockets for them.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Because Google has gotten the law steuctured such that THEY aren't liable for false advertisements they host and serve.

If I posted an ad that was blatantly false on Google, legally I'm the one liable, not Google.

It's ass backwards, Google should be on the hook for this and should have to curate advertisements. Especially when so any of them are not just fake but are openly malicious

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is the "commie" in the room with you now? This is an unhinged level of angrv to get over a really quite tame comment.

 

Hello! I stumbled on a post a while back about privacy tools. I can't seem to find it again. I had bookmarked a few sites it linked to and finally got around to looking at them

One of those websites was Safing. I hadn't heard of it before. The website says that it's a firewall tool, but I can't seem to figure out why it's better than the Windows default firewall. Does anyone here use it? What does it provide that Windows doesn't have built in? Is there an avantage to using it if I have a PiHole on my network/use a VPN? Is it meant to be a single-machine firewall or a whole-network firewall?

 

I switched back to firefox last week because I wanted to get away from Chromium. I was previously using Brave.

I have been having a MULTITUDE of issues with FF this week, and if I can't figure out how to resolve them I'm going back to Brave. I've tried everything I can think to do to fix it, and nothing has worked. I've never seen any of these issues on any other browsers, this is 100% a firefox problem.

I'm on the latest build of FF on Windows 10 and have the following plugins:

  • Bitwarden
  • UBlockOrigin
  • Simple Login
  • Multi-account Containers
  • ProtonVPN
  • Old Reddit Redirect
  • RES
  • Enhancer for Youtube

The issues I'm having:

  1. Occasionally FF just hangs, won't respond to inputs, and the only way to recover it is to kill the process via control panel. When FF crashes like this I NEVER see the crash reporter, it's like FF thinks nothing happened and everything is fine.
  2. Sometimes my tabs just don't work. Like, I'll open a tab, type something in to search it, and it just hangs. I had this problem for YEARS when FF was my daily browser before switching to brave 2 years back because it got too annoying. This issue is COMPLETELY RANDOM, and happens within 1 minute of making a new tab- sometimes it will happen when I first try to navigate anywhere inside the new tab, sometimes it happens after I'm in a website.
  3. Sometimes FF refuses to start. I'll turn the computer on, click FF, and nothing will happen- then I'll go into control panel, kill the FF process, and try again until it works- usually when I do this the browser crashes at least once when it starts.

I can't make any sense of why this browser is so unstable for me, but it is SIGNIFICANTLY worse than it was last time I abandoned FF. I actually have FEWER addons than I did when I used FF as my daily driver before. If I can't figure this out this time I'm just not going to look back.

I have tried:

  1. Safe mode. This seems to fix it for a bit, but eventually either tabs stop working or the browser crashes. I'm pretty confident this is NOT an issue with any of my plugins- I'm using either official FF ones (multi-account containers) or very reputable plugins from good sources.
  2. Turning on/off hardware acceleration. This has no impact whatsoever
  3. I have repeatedly deleted all cookies, history, and cache, and reset the startup cache.
  4. Clean install FF
  5. Refresh FF
  6. Last time I tried to fix FF before switching to Brave, I found that having the FF Profiler running AT ALL TIMES actually seemed to make things a little bit better- but the profiler never once turned up anything useful.

I'm at my wits end here. I really want to be able to move off of chromium but FF is so incredibly annoying to use in its current state that I simply can't do that until I find fixes to these issues. Has anyone here got any clue what else I can do to try to diagnose this?

 

Why does every small appliance or useful home electronics item have the BRIGHTEST LEDs in them?

I bought a new fan for our bedroom Sunday. It has 4 speed settings, and LEDs to display which setting you're on.

Just like every other electrical device in our bedroom, I had to cover the LEDs with electrical tape because they are TOO DAMM BRIGHT. That one light was more than bright enough for me to see in the room with all the lights off.

I can't sleep well if there's a lot of light like that, especially blue light, and it's like every fucking electronics manufacturer used the same extra bright blue LEDs.

All of our power strips have them. Same brightness.

The fans have them.

Don't even get me started on digital clocks and the plague of bright LEDs that they bring about

Many charging plugs have them built into the plug itself.

Even some fucking light switches have them now!

I have about 6 different things in our bedroom that have electrical tape over their completely unnecessary LEDs.

Why has this become such a common thing? Is this really something most people want? To have a room that is never actually dark even with the lights turned off?

view more: next β€Ί