Generally I'm okay with this idea, but considering the audience, I'm particularly curious about the background of the owners and staff. The Catholic Schools stamp in the footer does not instill me with confidence.
There's someone on imgur who's been offering a similar service for fellow imgurites, but I believe they've actually been offering a go at actual translation. (Approximations necessary by the nature of dead languages and the lack of words like "smartphone".)
Because we’ve allowed it to be an investment—there’s no take-backs now. Entire swaths of the population (including Joe Homeowner) have built their financial picture around this model at this point. To unwind it now would eliminate the greedy investors, but with vast collateral damage of the nest eggs of millions of people who have borrowed against home equity based on a valuation with rental potential priced in.
I’m not saying this is a good thing, but we can’t just wave a wand and make housing-as-investment go away without creating real hardship for people (whose lives we are trying to improve with these measures, running counter to the goal).
Housing is and always has been an investment. I think you are objecting to the rate of return on that investment and incentives.
Even homesteading a log cabin on free land or building a mud hut is an investment. Houses take significant labor and materials to construct and there is no way around this. Add and land which can either be created nor destroyed and this only becomes more obvious.
dawn of everything or their academic papers expand on historical social freedoms when it came to living under abundance or scarcity, housing and mobility, resource sharing, lack of hierarchical structures even at scale and after discovering agriculture
I obviously havent read it, but I beleive my point is more general.
Housing is an investment because it represents significant input in material and labor which only returns ulity slowly over time. It doesnt matter if are living in a commune, capitalist society, or alone. That only changes who invests in it.
If everyone could accessibly own a home free and clear, there'd be less incentive to work; it's a household's largest expense. That and employed-provided health care coverage.
What about just affording a mortgage or rent without college education, dual incomes, moving away, having few or no children, plus receiving an inheritance?
Social housing is a thing in much of the world. Housing is cheap in many countries around the world as well. Healthcare is free in most of the world and good standard in majority of the developed world.
> ...if they keep their hands to themselves and make no unwanted advances, what exactly do you find indecent about this?
It's likely that they are bothered by heterosexual males who might have any situation or opportunity (among adults of similar age and agency) that can be perceived as advantageous to them or contributes to their happiness.
You're in a couple of these threads stanning for these creeps. As a mental exercise: why do you think several of the women are demoralized by this environment if there's nothing going wrong here?
Why do you think anyone, female or otherwise, being demoralized means something “wrong” is occurring? So silly to form a moral/ethical framework on something as intangible, fickle, and culturally influenced as people’s feelings.
Also, comments like “stanning for these creeps” are disrespectful and have no place on HN, imo.
> You're in a couple of these threads stanning for these creeps.
Well, how about you explain why you are equivocating "no unwanted advances" to "creeps".
I'm in a couple of these threads because a) I have some free time now to read, and b) there are way too many people demonizing males attempting to find a partner.
Like you are doing.
> As a mental exercise: why do you think several of the women are demoralized by this environment if there's nothing going wrong here?
Well, the women who are dating are specifically not complaining. Who are you to tell women where and when they may allow courtship?
Fortunately we don't have to speculate because the professor herself explains why:
> Some of the young students in my class take up these offers, and this further demoralizes other female students seeing this happen (i.e. only attractive women being offered tutoring sessions).
The more attractive women are receiving all the positive attention, and the others are hurt by this. Which is completely natural, but...welcome to the world. Life is unfair, and being attractive opens doors that aren't available to others. Are people obligated to show equal interest in everyone, regardless of their actual feelings towards them? Men who expect this from women are usually derided (and rightfully so) as "incels".
Because they are, in fact, decent, and find going to frat parties to engage with a drunk girl who can't properly consent, or hiring a prostitute, to be reprehensible. Online dating doesn't work unless you're in the top X% of attractiveness, so what's a college student to do? They're not generally rich enough to garner the attention of women that way, and they're competing against a larg pool of older men who are.
You hit on a major point, that many don't realize or the more misandric minded purposely overlook. The vast majority of young heterosexual men (arguably 80% or so) simply do not have the same opportunities with the opposite sex, as do most young women in the reverse. This is a matter of both biology and society.
Young heterosexual men have to also compete with older men, who may be already established in terms of socioeconomic position, maturity, knowledge about women, and focus. These attributes, of what older men can bring to the table, can be very attractive to younger women and severely reduce their availability.
Young heterosexual women are often massively focused on and only have eyes for the top 20% to 10% who hit the genetic and/or socioeconomic lottery and mostly have it all in terms of looks, style, build, height, innate charisma, popularity, and/or family wealth. Even when such woman are in the lower rankings (though may refuse to acknowledge reality) and have little chance to realistically get or hold on to such men. Which by the way, can lead to them taking their anger and frustrations out on men not in those positions that don't engage in nor have the opportunities to act in such ways.
Many women, in general, are not even looking or care little about younger men who are not providing any obvious benefits or are as popular. The further the young men are from the top, the harder their struggles with the opposite sex can be. And dramatically way more so, than their female equivalents.
This can be why such young heterosexual men (outside the top 20%) can be resorting to seemingly extreme measures that are incomprehensible to females and non heterosexuals. More so, many women have little to zero sympathy or empathy for the harsh struggles of such young men, and even to the point that such women have misplaced or unreasonable disdain and contempt of males that need to or have to make such an effort. Which can be combined with the ignorance to the realities of the opposite sex, and the arrogance of their position, as women with an easier path in such particular matters.
Many women take attention, sexual choice, and sexual opportunity for granted. It's something they can choose to indulge in (particularly as young women), almost whenever they feel like or the mood hits them. These are options that most young men do not have whatsoever. Which is why some kind of app, doing auditing, or tutoring are even seen as helpful possibilities.
> to engage with a drunk girl who can't properly consent
Shouldn't we disallow girls from drinking alcohol, then? It's rather weird to allow parties with alcohol, and then claim that rape occured "because someone was drunk and so cannot be held responsible for their decisions".
What if the man was also drunk? If a drunk person can't be held responsible for their decisions, well...
I don't understand why is it always about guys supposedly taking advantage of girls.
The real source behind this statement was that Ok Cupid once published a blog post with some analysis of their data. They found that the average man on the platform was rated as bellow average attractiveness by woman while the average woman was ranked as average attractiveness by men. There were some more related stats in the same post.
This of course exploded and they deleted the post.
This one?[0] It's funny it's always cited with the reversed finding: while men were more fair in rating attractiveness, they then only target the top most attractive females, completely oblivious of where they stand. OTOH women were more harsh in rating but they are then able to shift their expectation to realistic ones. By these data dating only works if you are in the top X% of attractiveness if you are a woman, but it works better for the average man.
Nice shade. But if someone is able to meet people in-person and get dates from people in that top X%, then the conclusion that it's the online component of online dating that's at fault doesn't seem unwarranted.
Really? It sounds like some of them are lacking self awareness, and maybe representing themselves poorly. But is what they are doing really on the level of disturbing?
People need to learn how to interact with each other, possibly by failing like this. College is one of the places where that is supposed to happen.
If it's such a big deal, maybe we should just go back to separate schools for men and women.
If you happen to be an intelligent and decent young man from a male-dominated major who legitimately likes helping others who are struggling to learn the subject you're passionate about, how would women in your dating pool, who find those personality traits attractive, discover those things about you?
And, you will likely never get answers from the other side about how to do such, outside of: do nothing, consult zodiac sign, hope for magic, fate, luck, or a shoulder shrug response.
Maybe they would notice you help whoever asks for it, not just attractive women, and by contrast they would think, "Hey, he seems decent, not like those creeps that only have tutoring sessions for hotties."
And how would she notice if you weren't in her class? The chances are extremely low compared to if you joined her class and made an effort to socialize with her.
In this age group the ratio of <gender you prefer> who are not assessing dating partners based almost purely on physical attractiveness to those who are is tiny.
That being said, this is appalling, predatory behavior on the part of the students using the app. These are vulnerable people that the app users are taking advantage of and trying to manipulate into an intimate relationship.
> These are vulnerable people that the app users are taking advantage of and trying to manipulate into an intimate relationship.
Of course. Men should just stay alone, unless they are hyper attractive. Because _attempting_ to get to know other people is "manipulation into intimate relationship".
I guess they're cheating because they don't know their place? Predatory behavior, lol.
It comes off as very misplaced to categorize the app, by itself, as predatory and appalling. These are adult men and women. Why would it be such a surprise for intelligent young men in college to create an app to better determine the ratio of males to females in a class? This has long been done, by both sexes, way before convenient apps.
I'm sensing there would be no disdain or accusations of predatory behavior, if a female student created an app or openly expressed her intentions for picking classes where she is more likely to find dates and marriage prospects among the opposite sex or even the same sex.
I'm almost quite sure, the same appalled people, would have no reaction or even state this as acceptable or categorize her as being smart. It seems that if male heterosexual students, are doing something that would circumvent their supposed ranking based on innate attractiveness or better their odds in any artificial way, then it's something to be villainized and criminalized.
> why are they relying on such disturbing tactics to meet women in the first place?
Seems rather ingenious, frankly. What tactics should they rely on, exactly? "Intelligent and decent" alone aren't traits that are necessarily attractive anyway.
A "processed" food is simply one that has any amount of added salt, sugar, or fat. Many snacks include seed oils, I'm sure, but "nearly all" processed foods certainly do not.
sure if that's a technicality you want to call out. What I meant is -- go down the grocery store snack aisles. Look at the chips, popcorns, cookies, etc. Anything in a brightly colored box in those snack aisles. 100% of the things I'm talking about have seed oils in them.
I don't feel that it's a technicality when the distinction is between a single aisle in the grocery store and a vast swath of foods. Bread is processed, some yogurts and cheeses (although fermentation alone might only qualify as "minimally processed"), many canned foods which add only salt to otherwise unprocessed foods (vegetables, beans, fish, chicken, etc).
By all means, focus your ire on snack foods. Or seed oils. Or whatever the latest trend says is unhealthy.
My point, every time this comes up, is that "processed" is uselessly vague, unless you really do believe that adding any amount of salt/sugar/fat is harmful to human health. I believe that many people using the term do not actually know its definition and merely use it as shorthand for some nebulous set of foods they believe are "too artificial", without seriously considering which aspects of those foods should qualify them for inclusion.
Whatever technical merit the rest of the rant may have had, screaming that long lines killed puppies certainly burned a lot of provisional credibility.
California allows for initiated constitutional amendments to pass with only a simply majority, and those amendments can appear on the ballot after gathering a relatively small number of signatures. The signature requirement weeds out a majority of initiatives, whether amendment or statute, but the quality of the remainder makes me wish it were more stringent.
I dislike that California's process for citizen initiatives is quite so open as it is. For example, 2022's Prop 29 was a third run of a measure that also failed to pass on each of the preceding two ballots, with 59%+ of voters opposed each time. The topic is sufficiently narrow, and would benefit from expert input, that I don't feel it belongs on a ballot at all.
I question, as well, the inability of the state legislature to amend or repeal anything initiated by citizens without sending it back out onto the ballot.
That's all there is to it. Bread is processed. Putting salt and pepper on your steak is processing. If you drop some food coloring into the icing for your Christmas cookies, they're heavily processed.
Now, I'll grant that these meat alternatives have a truckload of sodium, in the ballpark of 20%+ of your recommended intake. And while the subheading complains about the saturated fat, the following paragraph admits that Impossible and Beyond are both comparable to a typical beef burger, then argues for minimizing saturated fats. That's not an unreasonable course of action, but I think there's a disconnect in claiming that they're high in sat fats when the context is a comparison against the traditional burger—in that arena, they're neutral.
And, it sounds like Impossible may have made a conscious decision to minimize isoflavones in their products. They have a page dedicated to discussing the safety of soy, and yes, an Impossible Burger contains "under 2 mg of isoflavones" whereas a "traditional soyfood" of the same mass might contain 25 mg.
> one serving contains less than 8% of the isoflavones found in one serving of whole soy foods (one serving is roughly a quarter of a block of tofu or 1 cup of soymilk)
Which is still better than 0. The article also doesn’t bother to mention that the meat burgers have substantial cholesterol, while the meatless burgers have none
For most people, dietary cholesterol only has a minor effect on blood cholesterol.
> The biggest influence on blood cholesterol level is the mix of fats and carbohydrates in your diet—not the amount of cholesterol you eat from food.
> The types of fat in the diet help determine the amount of total, HDL, and LDL cholesterol in the bloodstream. The types and amount of carbohydrate in the diet also play a role. Cholesterol in food matters, too, but not nearly as much.
> The discovery half a century ago that high blood cholesterol levels were strongly associated with an increased risk for heart disease triggered numerous warnings to avoid foods that contain cholesterol, especially eggs and liver. However, scientific studies show a weak relationship between the amount of cholesterol a person consumes and his or her blood cholesterol levels
> Meatless burgers are heavily processed and high in saturated fat
That just means it’s “keto friendly”. The same way my generation (millennials) like to make fun of boomers for being fat phobic, someday our kids will make fun of us for unwittingly clogging our arteries.
