Dating ring funding

---

Youth is good for its zeal, but corporations should generally not be run by zealots, they should be run by mature, calculating, and sensitive persons and very few young people qualify. Zealots belong in the marketing and sales departments. By the age they become founders, I think most people have had most of the child-like wonder beat out of them, and in fact I think the early and mid 20s are a dark time for a lot of people, with the pressures of exiting the scholastic world and entering the professional world, frequently with a beast of debt on their backs, and the rejection and failure incumbent in trying to date and find a lifelong companion.

They are typically post college graduates. And they typically must include one that has an engineering degree, hopefully with some pedigree to it. Microsoft invested in Facebook 3 years after it was made at a 15 billion dollar valuation and everyone laughed. I feel that pain. I just spent months building the alpha of my own software, making no money with grownup expenses.

Then my wife got laid off, so I had to jump in and get another dayjob so someone would be making money.

I don't really have access to any sort of a larger war chest. What I do have is a much better idea than Snapchat for Drunks, because I have a lot of real-world professional experience, and I know how to actually build complex software, because I've been doing it for decades. My killer is overcoming the cautious nature of too many years in the enterprise. It's easy to overbuild and not be lean. JonFish85 on May 26, Transportation is fairly heavily regulated as well. Someone could probably do an Uber for old folks that ignores laws and pushes the liabilities onto "independent contractors".

TheOtherHobbes on May 26, But a few scandal stories will kill that idea. Everyone wants a cab.

No one wants a geriatric care home - not even when they're living in one. Having said that, I recently discussed some possibilities with a couple of local care home owners. Currently there isn't enough smartphone take up to make some obvious ideas viable, but that will start changing soon, and then there may be some very rich pickings to be had. This is the real reason Apple etc are piling into health apps.

Hey, I'm interested in chatting with you about the opportunities you see What's a good way to get in touch with you?

I'll gladly chat about that market over email. It's always interesting to learn about such things.

Dating start-up crowdsources funding to fly single women to San Francisco

Where should I email you? Not only that, it's very tiring being an old fart and being told that you don't "get it" by a 27 year old VC who does want to fund an app. Maybe even a dating app. OR being told you don't "get it" by a young Stanford grad that really thinks it would be cool to rebuild an entire 3M patient record data set in MongoDB and access it with something written in Javascript on NodeJS.

Why investors don’t fund dating | Hacker News

I remember some years ago, talking with a couple of experienced co-workers about a young and frustrated manager we worked with. He was very talented, but also hotheaded.

Someone suggested that what he needed was a good death march He's since had a failed startup, which I hope tempered him some. So very talented, but not sufficiently scared. Most dating sites also end up being a very one-sided battle. That is, most of the women are sitting around waiting to get a torrent of messages and most of the men are sending messages to basically every girl that they see. They play the numbers game, and it's all about how big of a net you can cast. I don't foresee any dating site being more successful than the current heavyweights until they can get rid of "fishing" so women aren't unmotivated to go on the site and men aren't wasting their time sending the same message to 1, different people.

And at that point, they're competing not against automation, but the very human process of "Wouldn't those two make a cute couple? Lots of people do. I've had some success at it, too a couple of marriages, even. And I suspect, although I have no evidence, that friend-driven setups and blind dates are more likely to succeed than dating sites are.

But that's a large niche, really. Beyond the problem of men drowning women in messages, there's a question of the quality of those messages. The crap I see my female friends get online from dating sites is appalling. So many men have no idea how to approach women and make themselves appear attractive - and many of them have no idea just how much competition there is.

Matchmaking as a service

Meanwhile, women have to plow through dozens of dick pics, hoping to maybe find one guy worth talking to. Their odds aren't any better, but for different reasons. Kalium on May 27, I am a male. I have seen how abysmally low the typical message quality a woman receives is. I learned from it.

Sad to say, what I learned is that given the sheer quantity of low-quality messages, investing in message quality is a poor decision. The quality may be significantly higher and there may be an elevated chance of a response The chance of an unread message getting a response is, obviously, zero.

Well I wish I had a friend who tried to set me up. Instead I spent about 6 frustrating years getting nowhere with online dating, then eventually lucked out with the right girl, and only now do I get the 'cute couple' comments. There's a wrinkle that makes it worse. Specifically, sites that deliberately invert the power dynamic run into the problem that when women must initiate all communications, you don't get a lot of communications. Tinder avoids this by requiring blind consent from both parties. What do both have in common? Women feel they have the power.

In the case of Tinder, women have the power, don't get spammed, and men devolve to the common case of spammy behavior. It's the best of both worlds. Or worst, since users tend to be exactly as shallow as their technology allows. I'm sure you could solve that by "spam filtering" people's inboxes, just with a slightly tweaked heuristic model.

People would get fewer messages but they'd be of a much higher quality. To be honest I'm surprised sites don't already do this. Co-founder of a relatively new service http: OKCupid tries something similar with its filters. Men lie their asses off to get around it.

Dating Ring

I'm talking more about filtering on the message content than filtering based on account settings. Users would quickly learn that a cut'n'paste approach gets rapidly diminishing returns. That alone would slow down a lot of the men who just spam messages to every woman on the site, improving the experience for them while leaving the genuine men on the site unaffected. But I'm sure OKCupid could do much cleverer things. Users would quickly adapt.

Something simple like spinning syntax would address that. I agree, OKCupid could be more clever, and build systems much harder to get around. That said, I don't think the incentive is there for them to do it. If we assume that skimming a profile and writing a personalized message takes five minutes, a "genuine man" user is able to churn out a dozen messages an hour.

Women would get less than the hundreds of messages they get today, but still far too many to work with. From what I've seen, there's a basic contradiction at the heart of online dating.

In general, women only want to be contacted by men who they are attracted to and interested in. Also in general, men live in fear of being ruled out and missing their chance with a woman they find interesting. No spam filter can help you there. Do you mean the multiple choice questions?

• confident with curves online dating
• cosmo magazine dating tips
• korean online dating toronto
• free prison dating site
• autism dating tips
• new dating apps march 2020