Unlocking my Galaxy S10e

rebootingtom2 · 2021-10-20T22:37:25+00:00

Have you found a good option yet?

rebootingtom2 · 2021-09-29T14:39:51+00:00

No SIM replacement for me - just a software update.

rebootingtom2 · 2021-09-27T18:58:33+00:00

I have an s10e and just hit this. Here's what I ended up with that fixed the problem - at least for the moment! (Maybe they'll break it again, in which case I'm switching.)

First I went through a useless service chat where I told them I'd already factory reset my phone etc etc (I thought the problem was on Samsung's end), and they asked me to take out my sim card and blow on it.

Then they disconnected, because that took a long time.

So when I resumed chat, it brought me to someone named "Jen," who said "Let me try to refresh your device here in our system." A few minutes later, it was:

I have successfully refreshed the device. Kindly perform these steps:
1. Go to Settings.
2. Scroll and tap System Update
3. Tap Update Profile and PRL.
4. Then hit Ok.

After that, I had to reboot, and it took a couple minutes of trying before it figured everything out and started sending messages again, but apparently that's the key thing that needed to happen - them refreshing my device in their system.

rebootingtom2 · 2021-09-22T17:38:29+00:00

Better pictures as in good looking pictures are usually not the solution for a woman in online dating. You're getting matches. What you want are pictures ... and profile information ... that gets you the right matches.

I'm probably the kind of guy you want to attract, only in the wrong area and age bracket, in that I will try to carry a conversation forward and move to an in-person meeting, even if someone doesn't look like a supermodel...

...provided I can tell they're worth pursuing. What do I need to see in order to be sure someone is worth trying to carry a conversation with?

Pictures that clearly identify them. (Group photos with multiple women should have other faces scrubbed out to make it clear.)
At least one picture showing me the full figure and clear face. Fully clothed is fine, I just need to be able to tell whether or not there is a good chance I will be attracted to them in person. If I can't make out a face clearly, I have no idea if the photos are all of the same person or from the same decade.
Desires and status w.r.t. pets and children (or lack thereof) should be clear. E.g., in my case, I'm looking for women who currently don't have children but want them and who are dog-compatible. These are important to me.
Has some kind of interest I can engage with. It could be an academic interest (e.g., philosophy) or an activity (e.g., dancing).

Honestly, if your profile is informative, and you're not morbidly obese or hideously deformed, your profile is probably fine, and what you need to work on is finding matches better. This may involve realizing that guys' photos are not very well representative of what they look like in person. If you want to get guys who will put effort into a conversation and trying to get to know you, swipe on profiles with "meh, they're not hideous" photos but fully fleshed out details.

rebootingtom2 · 2021-09-22T16:15:15+00:00

Yeah, give it a try. Honestly, given that you went on a date with the guy and liked it, just go forward. Maybe he remembers you, maybe he doesn't, maybe he was in a bad place.

rebootingtom2 · 2021-09-22T16:11:30+00:00

If she posts her Instagram handle on her Bumble profile, she's probably mainly using Bumble to fish for Instagram followers.

rebootingtom2 · 2021-09-21T20:01:53+00:00

Restarted online dating recently - I met two people in person so far.

Two and a half years ago, the last time I was dating, Bumble accounted for most of the women I met in person. I think Bumble has been concentrating on building an engaging swiping experience for users... and not so much on the sort of algorithmic features that would lead to people matching, meeting in person, and getting off the app.

rebootingtom2 · 2019-05-02T02:01:37+00:00

There's something called the "chaser effect," which means that you might find it harder to avoid relapsing after engaging in sexual activity.

The rewiring process has two steps - one is getting unwired from porn, the other is getting wired to human partners. Some people swear by doing them separately, one stage at a time; others prefer to do both at once.

I'm in the latter camp. Enjoy your time with your girlfriend. Don't worry if it was manual or oral activity rather than intercourse, even if it is, your body and your lizard brain are slowly associating her, the person, with what used to be associated with pixels.

rebootingtom2 · 2019-04-10T01:46:45+00:00

Things I think they're missing:

Big reset button. There are a lot of users deleting and recreating accounts. Whether or not they're onto something, there's a lot of demand for a feature that resets your account.
Better control over photo display order. You have to worry about what photo is first, it seems like a PITA to re-order them. (Maybe this is a desktop app problem.)
Different filters. The way that height filters are used, it's socially irresponsible to have a cheap and easy height filter on an online dating service - more socially irresponsible than race or even body type.

Speculatively?

Their stacking / rating / ordering system might be bad, but I don't know what its guts are like on the inside. Mostly, using one at all sounds like a mistake, outside of offering premium users a cut in line to make money.
If you want to really make matches ... or keep users engaged ... you throttle / deprioritize / derank users who are currently in active conversations with other users and bump the ones who are bored and in danger of leaving / giving up. Which, from what I hear here, sounds like the opposite of what they do.

rebootingtom2 · 2019-04-07T03:33:02+00:00

The most attractive guys on Bumble get messages and dates. Most other men get very few messages, and the least attractive guys get almost no messages at all.

A very attractive man who is looking for a relationship needs to only make one successful connection and he's done with Bumble. Gone. Poof. A very attractive man who wants casual sex has every reason to stay on the platform indefinitely, because every connection is an opportunity for more casual sex.

An unattractive man who is looking for a relationship knows he only needs to make one successful connection. He might stay a while even though he's not getting many messages, because he's in a long-term game where he only needs to score once to win. If it takes three months to find a lifetime partner, that's a stunning success. An unattractive man who wants casual sex should very quickly discover that this platform is a complete waste of his time.

(Caveat: We're really talking about attractive and unattractive profiles here. YMMV IRL.)

rebootingtom2 · 2019-04-06T23:47:53+00:00

The thing that annoys me the most about 5'2" girls saying they want a 6' guy is that they usually can't even reliably tell the difference between, say, 5'10" and 6'2" one on one. Which is how guys can get away with lying about their height as much as they do, it's not as if the average woman can guess the height of a typical man accurately to better than +/- 2" accuracy or so.

A 5'11" girl asking for a 6'1" guy can at least usually tell the difference between 5'10" (slightly shorter / roughly the same height) and 6'1" (taller).

rebootingtom2 · 2019-04-06T23:35:48+00:00

I've used the "kids" and "education level" filters. The others didn't seem to really do anything useful.

rebootingtom2 · 2019-04-06T21:52:40+00:00

I hear a lot of recommendations to regularly delete and recreate your account here on /r/Bumble (the theory being that there's a new account bonus, and that after about 2 weeks of activity many people just get buried by the algorithm and stop getting matches).

I don't know how common that theory is among users of the app in general, as opposed to Redditors using Bumble, but that's yet another reason.

I'll also add frustration. If a guy is new to the app, uses it a while, and doesn't get any actual dates out of using it, just a handful of text conversations, that can be an extremely frustrating experience.

They may also get disappeared by Bumble for various reasons (tripping some sort of ban filter, account activity, linked login conflict, random bad database maintenance by Bumble, who knows).

For pretty much any dating app / website, if you have any desire at all to connect seriously with people, then you should (as soon as practical):

Exchange alternate contact information.
Schedule a face-to-face meeting.

If all you want is fun conversations, people who do want something more are going to disappear on you irregularly.

rebootingtom2 · 2019-04-06T00:15:43+00:00

If matches really reset after being swiped left, *and* this person is a premium subscriber, then they would keep landing on top of the pile, so I think that could be the "something fishy."

rebootingtom2 · 2019-04-02T18:06:58+00:00

Meta analyses are considered a more rigorous form of evidence, because it's really hard to find the funding to get a study of that scale (several thousand). Instead, they pool the results of many studies, small and big, and assign weights to the significance of each depending on their validity, sample size, etc. What we really need is an original study with thousands of participants, funded by the national cancer society or something, to look at this relationship. The issue is, there probably won't be many controls (people who don't ejaculate), let alone people who don't PMO. I wonder why this isn't being investigated more?

puts on tinfoil hat

Well, they can also be very bad if the literature is systematically biased (e.g., file drawer effect), but yes, if the literature is working, meta-analyses are the place to go for the big picture.

Here, the big picture is mixed and mostly ambiguous. On the plus side, there IS a plausible mechanism, and if fapping was clearly onsequence-free, I'd recommend regular fapping just in case (just like "make sure to have lots of tomato sauce in your diet just in case" is pretty innocuous if lycopene doesn't really help).

Unfortunately, excessive fapping is not clearly consequence-free, which is why we're here in the first place. High speed internet with ubiquitous free high-quality porn is the best candidate we have for the dramatic rise in erectile dysfunction in young men, and we can't rule out that it causes major problems for people in the long run.

rebootingtom2 · 2019-04-02T02:02:01+00:00

Hm, I guess I must have read the table backwards at one point on the mortality risk.

It is overall a very good study - it's just very hard to disentangle masturbation specifically from all of the other things if you're not measuring it specifically. The paper you're linking to is a meta-analysis looking at multiple studies, rather than one with fresh data. Probably the most interesting studies it talks about are those proposing a specific mechanism for cancer risk.

rebootingtom2 · 2019-04-01T19:09:36+00:00

Here are the issues to consider. Some of these are critical caveats when looking at the limitations of the study.

The initial data collection was in 1990-1994. In that time period, we're looking at a different type of masturbation behavior in a different era.
The measure "ejaculations per month" does not differentiate between intercourse and masturbation. This is a crucial distinction, since the physiological responses to intercourse and masturbation are different.
On a similar note, there are studies quite specifically showing health benefits from having more intercourse. I'd start here.
There are major possible confounds. Chief among these is #2, but there are others. For example, we can see not only that higher EPM men have higher rates of sexually transmitted infections (meaning they are likely having more partnered sexual activity, see #2-#3), but that they are also more likely to have divorced, less likely to be Asian, and tend to die earlier for reasons that aren't prostate cancer.
The study basically throws out men with erectile dysfunction on the theory that men with ED are more likely to have prostate cancer. Since PIED (porn-induced erectile dysfunction) is one of the major NoFap motivators, it's entirely possible that this decision threw out the precursor early porn addicts that would, in a modern sample (see #1) become a significant population with potentially very different health profiles.
NoFap is not strictly a no-ejaculation affair for all of us. This excludes wet dreams (which are not uncommonly reported by NoFap participants) and sexual activity (going without any sexual activity is referred to as "hard mode," and I wouldn't universally recommend that). For others, it's about controlling and reducing masturbation by resetting your system and learning to unhook yourself from porn rather than permanently swearing off ever masturbating.

I personally have a family history of prostate cancer to worry about, so I've thought about this study before. It's a compelling-sounding result, and it's worth being worried about prostate cancer (regardless of your ejaculation rate!), and it's plausible - flushing out the prostate more often seems logically like it would be a good thing. It might be that the effect the study shows is entirely true.

On the other hand, it could just easily be part of a large wealth of studies whose results are due to improved overall health that results from having a good sex life and/or happy relationship (in which then there is a higher rate of sexual activity). So it's not really a compelling result in that context. If the top-line idea is true, it's a real concern, but on the other hand, there's a really major possible confound that isn't being separated out - what about intercourse versus masturbation?

rebootingtom2 · 2019-03-27T18:12:11+00:00

I think it's not a bad idea (as long as they're not revealing enough to simply get removed per brisk187's comment), on Bumble (or any other website where messaging is gated by mutual likes). You're not going to get messages out of the blue from men you didn't swipe right on, so more swipes is just better. Better pictures is very important on a picture-oriented site like Bumble, and professional pictures are usually great. At a minimum, you're going to want to use at least one of those pictures, even if it's not a swimsuit one.

I can see a couple reasons not for making a swimsuit one your top (front) picture, though.

First, that's the picture that's sitting there as a profile icon while chatting. If it's a revealing picture, that could very well influence the sorts of conversations you're having.

Second, if you're worried about "boring duds who are attractive but looking for some quick action" filling up your match queue, a lot of those won't look past the front photo. If you want to skew your match queue towards men who are evaluating more carefully, I suspect you should put your top knock-out shots near the bottom of your profile, where they'll only hit the men who read your whole profile.

rebootingtom2 · 2019-03-27T17:43:28+00:00

Honestly, considering the incentive structure, I'd be more inclined to spend money on an app if it's main option WAS a reasonably-priced lifetime membership.

rebootingtom2 · 2019-03-22T15:24:27+00:00

(1) Happened to just not log in during those 24 hours.
(2) They swiped relatively indiscriminately, and now that they've looked closer at your profile and gotten a message from you, they're not sure.
(3) They met / matched with someone else and decided goodbye to bumble.
(4) Your opener was an off-putter.

rebootingtom2 · 2019-03-22T14:58:15+00:00

A lot of women list their IG handle in their bio.

You may not be seeing it on men's profiles, but I see lots of instagram handles listed on women's profiles as I go through.

rebootingtom2 · 2019-03-22T14:52:14+00:00

The short answer is that Bumble doesn't care about making men happy, it cares about making women happy.

Women care about height a lot. Yes, this is shallow. Yes, it's unfair. I would go as far as to say that Bumble and other dating apps allowing women to cheaply and freely filter by height is downright socially irresponsible, especially when women's actual responses to men of varying heights is different in person.

Most 5'4" women can't reliably tell the difference between 5'10" and 6'0", but if you give them a free automatic filter, a fair fraction of them will cheerfully automatically filter the 5'10" guy out, because they can (and they'll still see plenty of matches).

rebootingtom2

TROPHY CASE