Recent submissions

Comment · 12 years ago
> We just want to be with white people.

I don't know. If someone told me "I just want to be with white people", I would think they were racist. That said, the word racism definitely has multiple and nuanced meanings at this point, so it could be more a part of my interpretation than the more established official definition.

Comment · 12 years ago
I'm not sure what part of my link talked about being white.
Comment · 12 years ago
No, I was just trying to point out how racist you sound. Saying things like "my white friends"? Seriously? I now just realized that you are a very stereotyping person and exactly the kind of person that makes these okCupid releases dangerous. Yikes.
Comment · 12 years ago
Comment · 12 years ago
Comment · 12 years ago
This has nothing to do with my "fantasyland" or wanting everyone to be equal. Its about making racial and other generalizations without publishing the full data with it. Racial and gender generalizations are dangerous things for a society. If you are going to go down the road of pointing out these things, you need to do it with extra caution and transparency.
Comment · 12 years ago
No, I think if they are going to make the generalizations, they need to publish the data they used to make those generalizations. Its the fact that okCupids data is private and proprietary combined with the publishing of correlations that is unethical.
Comment · 12 years ago
So while its fun to play around with data, these are not real insights. The very idea that they can think some metric you've gathered via an online app can determine whether someone finds someone else attractive is goofy. But then publicly publishing that narrative, which is straight up pseudo science, is dangerous as people in the general public will use this kind of thing to say stuff like, "I read online that they did this study about Latino men and it said that they all think black women are ugly".

Grow up and take some responsibility for the world around you.

Comment · 12 years ago
When you publicly disclose the results, without any way for the data to be peer reviewed? Absolutely.
Comment · 12 years ago
The spookiest thing is not the data or the experiments, but the off the cuff conclusions.

For example: > As a group, for instance, Latino men rated Latinas as 13 percent more attractive than the average for the site, while they rated African-American women 25 percent less attractive.

That is an insane generalization going on.

What metric are we using to determine this? Is it possible that people who tend to participate in the rating of the looks of potential mates are more inclined to align with race? Not purely Latino men. Which is an enormous initial generalization to be making at the outset.

> Witness the actions of 35-year-old heterosexual men on OkCupid. These men typically search for women between the ages of 24 and 40, Mr. Rudder reports, yet in practice they rarely contact anyone over 29.

Again on this one, was age the only possible metric that caused the under 30 to be contacted more by 35 year old men? There isn't anything else that might be different about an under 30 profile that causes more communication to occur?

This is the actual scary stuff to be publicly releasing as real science. Just as the general public is ill informed about the experiments going on, they are also not aware of what metrics are used to determine these results. In my experience, many of these metrics are not as concrete as the appear and full of pushing the data to fit a narrative etc.

Combine that with the fact that most of this data is proprietary and private with no way to be peer reviewed. Dangerous stuff.

Comment · 12 years ago
Not to speak for the comment you are replying to, but in my experience it likely means that those that worried more about the startup than themselves ended up worse off than those that looked out for there own best interests first.
Comment · 12 years ago
> even if your company isn’t tech-heavy (such as Dinnr).

I feel like this would be a giant red flag to me. You are essentially a logistics startup, and you believe this is not "tech-heavy". Logistics is likely one of the most complicated tech-heavy problems being solved right now.

Things like pricing(30% margins in grocery food sounds very high), recommendations etc. Was there ever a way for food bloggers to have their recipes automatically pulled into Dinnr for readers to purchase?

This is almost a 100% tech company. I wonder how much of underestimating that, combined with the founders possible(I'm guessing) lack of tech knowledge contributed to the failure.

Comment · 12 years ago
It isn't a ponzi scheme because Amazon isn't dependent on new share purchases to keep running. It is a fully functioning operation that is in the black. It just isn't generating any real profits above its costs.

Amazon is worth money right now. Just like a lawn mower doesn't turn a profit on its own, but it is still worth something.

In the long term view, which Amazon definitely takes, this current process is just there to fund the final business. Which is providing infrastructure. It uses its current operations as a way to fund the build out of that infrastructure. The future of Amazon, in my opinion, is not selling books etc, but providing someone with the infrastructure to sell books. Its using its current book sales etc to fund that build out.

Comment · 12 years ago
So were political activists and other people "forced" to go to the Gulag? Or, like US citizens who live in poverty for being artists, did they "choose" to do something the government did not want and faced a punishment for it?

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton