I bought :( Loved the thing, but yeah batter life wasn't the best. Also noticed that app developers would sometimes not take into account the smaller viewport on the Mini, and so app views would sometimes look too squished or out of place. That 's a minor grouse though compared to the subpar batter life.
The more you put yourself in social settings (online, offline, whatever), the more you increase the surface area for finding someone through "pure random chance". Just adding a more optimistic bent to things.
Exactly, dating apps are just one tool in the toolbox, and one that doesn't work well for a lot of people at that (in my experience, the types of people that I would be interested in dating generally aren't on dating apps, so I stopped using them.)
The trick is to find out where you're likely to meet the types of people you are interested in: interest groups, college campus, gaming Discords, climbing gym, etc. I think in dating, diversification is key, because the types of people you will find in any given environment can be highly autocorrelated in terms of preferences and personality.
The other trick is to actually flirt with people when you like someone. A minority of people might not take it well, but it actually brightens a lot of people's days when done respectfully and it's the only way to have a chance at getting somewhere.
You’re right. As a hetero man, I was not doing activities that included many women. But I still don’t know what I could’ve done differently, because doing activities involving women that I don’t enjoy, so that I can be on the lookout for potential dates… doesn’t seem very enjoyable, and also seems a bit creepy. On the other hand, going to activities I don’t enjoy and not looking for dates seems rather pointless.
You’re always going to be seen as creepy until some woman doesn’t. That’s just the norms we have in society right now. You’re a threat until proven otherwise.
Most social activities that involve strangers are also full of men. This is because most men aren’t interested in going out and meeting new people they have no social connection with. Women go to parties, outings with other friends, etc. Men go to things alone like bars, clubs, gyms, sports, etc. to meet new people and bond with absolutely complete strangers. Most women don’t do this at all.
I did that. I had plenty of friends, but no girlfriends ;)
I realized that increasing the surface area mostly only matters if you’re increasing the surface area of meeting the kind of person you want to date. As a hetero man, I was not doing activities that included many women. But I still don’t know what I could’ve done differently, because doing activities involving women that I don’t enjoy, so that I can be on the lookout for potential dates… doesn’t seem very enjoyable, and also seems a bit creepy. On the other hand, going to activities I don’t enjoy and not looking for dates seems rather pointless.
> Google will sell Google Cloud Services to Oracle to cut their losses
Now that is a hot take! I’d like to see this happen just to experience the meltdown this would cause in this community. If you thought the Sun acquisition didn’t go down so well…
I have grown to dislike "jugaad" solutions to problems (unless it is forced onto the problem through sheer necessity), mainly because -- if left unchecked -- it fosters a culture of doing just barely enough to meet minimum requirements and no adherence or even ambition to achieving excellence and craftsmanship.
I recognize that jugaad solutions are usually not what people necessarily want to resort to, but are frequently adopted because of lack of viable alternatives. In such situations, more power to us / them! I'd call that being resourceful though. Aspiring to arrive to the jugaad solution to problems when better ways of doing it are within reach though, that's where I draw the line.
```
... mainly because -- if left unchecked -- it fosters a culture of doing just barely enough to meet minimum requirements and no adherence or even ambition to achieving excellence and craftsmanship.
```
that is exactly my major gripe with TDD style development. It just seems too /incremental/ and smacks of prioritising getting /specific/ features done, rather than finding the best overall design. with this tactical style development, it is quite easy to end up with a mess.
That's why I like the other TDD, type driven development. Lay out all your types and make unwanted states literally unrepresentable. For example, if you're making an email sending service, you can have an EmailAddress type that is represented underneath by a string and the only way you can instantiate a new EmailAddress is via the constructor function which will take a string, parse it and validate it as an email, and if it works, it returns the EmailAddress type, otherwise it returns None (if you're using a Result typed language). And the sender function only accepts an EmailAddress, not a string, so if your EmailAddress constructor returns None, you literally can't send the email, by design.
> it fosters a culture of doing just barely enough to meet minimum requirements and no adherence or even ambition to achieving excellence and craftsmanship
This criticism can be raised against Agile as well, but I think this attitude ultimately comes from utilitarian (or MBA) perspective, which puts monetary profits above human or engineering excellence.
> I have grown to dislike "jugaad" solutions to problems
Maybe it takes an outsider's view to appreciate jugaad. I certainly didn't on my first encounter.
> no adherence or even ambition to achieving excellence and craftsmanship
I agree - jugaad isn't the place for planned evolution, so skills that transcend the immediate needs for delivery never form.
> Aspiring to arrive to the jugaad solution to problems when better ways of doing it are within reach though, that's where I draw the line.
I think that most developers in India aren't even aware of the jugaad methodology, it's just the way things are done. When I was first exposed to jugaad I mistook it for sloppiness, but it turned out that both deliverables and the organisational setup itself is extremely anti-fragile: it's always easy to add or remove a part, although refactoring is hard.
Heh, this is an interesting perspective and Im realizing some assumptions Ive come to rely on.
When designing a system or writing code, my instinct is to write it in a way that makes it clear, easy to work with and change down the road, because Ive seen code that is not structured this way and working with it is hell. I consider myself somewhat lucky to have worked in teams that allow for this.
If however I wasn’t fortunate enough, or just not paid enough even, or the work culture didn’t exist or was purely transactional, I would likely change my approach to fit that situation.
That's hardly a crazy stat, you're merely viewing it through a Western lens. In plenty of Asian cultures it is uncommon for people to have sexual experience before marriage.
Not necessarily western, dating an American girl can be quite special. Not only meant negatively, but it is something else. Different focus, different interests,...
Plus you can land in a situation where a user might associate bad experiences with an unofficial client with the actual service and thus leave with a bad impression overall.
Kinda going off on a tangent here, but it was a mild "ohhh" moment for me when I first realized that the company Cisco is actually named after San Francisco, followed by a second such moment when I realized that Cisco's logo represents the Golden Gate bridge.
The availability of cheap, unhealthy junk food is very high, and that combined with the force multiplier that is poverty is a core component in the obesity epidemic. If you are to draw a parellel to the topic at hand, availability of cheap, easy to use (?) guns combined with the force multiplier of mental illness…
That's not always the right way to go either. A professional using a particular device on the daily will be proficient in its usage regardless of how terrible the user interface, simply on the basis of how often they use the thing. On the other hand, how quickly an amateur can pick up a device and start using it will be heavily dependent on how intuitive and instructive the interface is. These two can often be conflicting, though not always. For a product that has a lot of "amateur" users (many home appliances), a touch screen can often be the right paradigm to choose.
A classic example of this is the situation where an experienced cashier on an "analog" system can just fly through the buttons and complete transactions in no time, while at the same time a rookie would take that much more time to ramp up, figure out, and internalize the various button mappings. A darker interpretation of this would be that the system is optimization for fungible workers, where swapping out one cashier at will for another has negligible impact on productivity.
It's not really cooking, but I find it useful to defrost frozen meat in the microwave if I have forgotten to leave it out of the freezer overnight. Defrosting in a microwave usually means letting it run at low power for a long time (> 10 minutes depending on the type of meat and weight). Of course, I use the presets that come with my microwave to figure out the right time/power combination, so I definitely find that feature useful.
