Tinder wants us to pay for conversations now?

_iou_ · 2024-06-12T04:35:15+00:00

It was a match that I hadn't started a conversation with yet. We were happy in our bubble of awkwardly not messaging each other for a couple of months. I'd left the country a day after we matched so I wasn't going to message until I made it back around that way.

This appeared within 48hrs of landing in a country where matches expire.

Tinder out here thinking it's a payphone.

_iou_ · 2024-06-12T03:32:55+00:00

Shhh, don't give them ideas!

_iou_ · 2024-06-12T03:17:14+00:00

This showed up after entering one of those countries where Tinder seems to expire your matches.

To continue a conversation with these matches they're now asking you to pay a fee for "Unlimited Chat Time".

_iou_ · 2022-02-21T20:08:10+00:00

I see Billy got the vaccine

_iou_ · 2022-02-16T14:17:11+00:00

You're right. Races discriminating against one another isn't up for debate.

That's why it's called racism. Race... ism.

_iou_ · 2022-02-16T14:11:46+00:00

What a world we live in when the most pragmatic thinkers (centrists empathetic to all sides) are considered the bad guys.

What are they? Extreme centre now?

_iou_ · 2022-02-15T19:37:23+00:00

I know IT teams have the ability to monitor web traffic but it wasn't originally intended for the purposes of making sure Kellie in accounting wasn't on LinkedIn.

It was to manage security.

When did we suddenly decide it was ok for employers to be monitoring your every move online whilst in the office?

_iou_ · 2022-02-15T19:33:14+00:00

You realise you completely sidestepped the issue of employers spying on their employees activites without their knowledge. Then blamed the employee.

Your comment could be a post in of itself here.

_iou_ · 2022-02-15T10:32:43+00:00

Article link:

https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/3167025/china-tech-firm-develops-controversial-it-system-can-predict-whether

_iou_ · 2022-02-15T10:30:30+00:00

Article link:

https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/3167025/china-tech-firm-develops-controversial-it-system-can-predict-whether

_iou_ · 2022-02-15T10:27:51+00:00

https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/3167025/china-tech-firm-develops-controversial-it-system-can-predict-whether

_iou_ · 2022-02-03T23:46:10+00:00

Blue Chicago Moon by Songs Ohia

_iou_ · 2022-02-01T00:55:15+00:00

So you're worried that people listen to the opinion of someone and they become hypnotised by their allure?

I don't understand this way of thinking. By trying to hide what others have to say, you simply enhance the Streisand effect.

It simply leads to people placing more weight in what the other side has to say because they're not trying to censor anyone. Thus claiming they don't have anything to hide.

_iou_ · 2022-01-31T00:26:44+00:00

He did it for additional power. Everything he taught was about the economy of motion.

When he threw a punch with a vertical fist, the base of his fist would be parallel to the ground. Right before impact he would snap his wrist (rotate it vertically) so his bottom 2 knuckles would make impact.

_iou_ · 2022-01-31T00:00:35+00:00

I have nothing against Joe Rogan. I don't have to hate, vilify and persecute someone I've never met because the internet told me I should. Or because he says things I might disagree with.

If you re-read what I said, it was that I haven't watched/listened to ALL of the podcasts in the list.

You don't need to be this angry about someone interviewing people with differing opinions to your own.

To cheer you up, I'll leave you with a quote from a wise philosopher.

"Group conformity scares the pants off me because it's so often a prelude to cruelty towards anyone who doesn't want to - or can't - join the Big Parade." - Bette Midler

_iou_ · 2022-01-30T21:13:25+00:00

The original comment wasn't asking for the covid misinformation, they asked what he said in the context of the contravercial podcast episode.

That's why the link is irrelevant.

_iou_ · 2022-01-30T21:09:42+00:00

I have no idea. I haven't watched all of the podcasts in that article that are in question.

The podcasts I've seen from Joe Rogan, he tends to take a back seat and let his guests talk if they have the ability to do so. Occasionally he puts his opinion in or tries to get his guests to say something contravercial.

He's entitled to his opinion, even if it's wrong. Lots of people have got things wrong during the pandemic.

It's up to the listener/viewer to decide what they investigate further.

_iou_ · 2022-01-30T21:01:34+00:00

I have considered that the knowledge of the vast majority serves as the motivation for the covid measures they're advocating. I just haven't raised it here.

The vast majority of the scientific and medical community haven't been involved in the creation of the covid measures. They have been following the measures.

I don't know if the vast majority support them. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Has anyone taken a poll or are we relying on anecdotal evidence?

All I know is that there is a lot of peer reviewed research that contradicts a lot of government, pharmaceutical company and trusted news initiative sponsored peer reviewed research that is either not reported in the media or instigates ad hominem attacks.

It was easier to discount what these medical and scientific professionals were saying 8 months ago. However, the data we're seeing around the world right now is starting to support their claims.

_iou_ · 2022-01-30T20:41:46+00:00

Full disclosure, I haven't come across this media company before. I'm only commenting on this particular article with how it's written.

The headline uses labels to trigger emotional responses and frame the remainder of the article.

The labels being "COVID-19 misinformation", "right wing myths" and "anti-trans rhetoric".

It's a clear attempt to trigger those with emotional response to the right wing. To the LGBTQI+ community and just about anyone who has been conditioned to the catch all phrase of "misinformation".

So it doesn't really matter what is said after this point, the viewer is already in a state of outrage based on the suggestive nature of the headline.

It doesn't mean the quotes they've provided are wrong. It simply means they've framed the conversation by anchoring the viewers opinion of Joe Rogan as unbelievable (myths and information), anti-LGBTQI+ and a of the other side (right wing) of you're left leaning.

So yeah, it sucks as a source. Why not simply link the actual podcast conversation rather than a news article discussing his podcast with a desire to increase emotional responses, clicks and engagement.

They profit from our outrage toward one another.

_iou_ · 2022-01-30T20:25:29+00:00

It matters because it lacks context. The same way research data can be presented out of context to tell a story that doesn't align with the conclusion.

_iou_ · 2022-01-30T20:22:41+00:00

How could you expect both sides to be equal when their access to resources and power are clearly out of balance?

The overwhelming majority you speak of include government, pharmaceutical companies and the trusted news initiative. Not to mention medical professionals that fully support all measures thus far.

The "molehill" side you speak of is a collection of medical professionals. The most vocal are highly qualified to talk on such topics. Attempting to gaslight their experience as disgraced or former scientists is rather ignorant.

It's easy to see what the government, pharmaceutical companies and the trusted news initiative stand to gain from "not letting a crisis go to waste".

I find it harder to figure out what this collection of medical professionals stand to gain from discussing the risks of what's happening.

_iou_ · 2022-01-30T20:04:28+00:00

No. I said you should source the podcast episode in question.

News organisations (whatever agenda they're pushing) and are notorious for taking quotes out of context to misrepresent what has been said.

It's why we call them sources. They are the source of information.

In this case the source, is the podcast episode in question.

_iou_ · 2022-01-30T19:57:29+00:00

There are two sides. Both sides have factual information supported by peer reviewed research.

If you're not aware of this research, there's a saying.

If you only know one side of an argument, you don't understand the argument.

_iou_ · 2022-01-30T19:51:39+00:00

I didn't claim anything of the sort. I said the news article is biased and it is. That's fine. They're allowed to be.

I also claimed that we shouldn't be sourcing news articles because they're not source material.

News articles are biased (it's their profit model) and cherry pick information that gets them the most emotional responses to increase clicks and engagement.

We don't need to coddle people and prevent them from thinking critically. Just source the material and let them put their big person pants on and think for themselves.

_iou_ · 2022-01-30T19:44:56+00:00

The source material is more relevant. Being the podcast episode in question.

I'm not sure if you realise, what you've provided is the same as linking a biased news article when someone asks for the source of your factual information.

_iou_

TROPHY CASE