If you printed your own card and put a number for an issuer that you controlled I don't see what the difference is.

>The particularly stupid part was messing with their match algorithm.

You are making a false assumption because you are dealing with a biological system.

If you made a screen to sift sand, that screen will reliably sift sand of a certain size because they sand has no choice in the matter and does not evolve.

On the other hand if you make an antibiotic that kills bacteria X you will quickly find out that in just a few generations almost all of bacteria are resistant to the antibiotic.

Culture evolves, religious views change, human relationship standards evolve. 50 years ago it was probably a bad idea to pair a black guy and white woman, not so much so these days (in most places). Saying that a sorting process is going to stand up to that change, when that sorting process itself feeds back in to the system is pretty unrealistic.

>lying about compatibility on a dating site.

Here's the gist of it, they already were lying about compatibility, or at least what you think of as compatibility. Different cultures have distinctly different criteria for selecting mates and it evolves over time. There is no golden rule, no algorithm, no magic. They throw a bunch of different shit at the wall and see what sticks. Why they look so good at finding matches is not actually finding matches but weeding the unmatchable out. Take them out, and most other people can date a pretty wide range of other people with just a few points of similarity.

The fact you don't think that their matching changes over time boggles my mind. Culture evolves and changes, technology evolves and changes, communication evolves and changes, to think some kind of static algorithm could possibly work at matching people under those influence is insanity.

You must not have been online during those times, as SYSOP I trolled the living shit out of people I didn't like.

>OKCupid flipped bad matches to good matches

To be fair on this point is there any objective measure on what a good or bad match is? The entire system on OKCupid is made and defined by OKCupid, there is no objectivity. Therefore a good match == bad match == imaginary purple dinosaur. There are plenty of writeups online about just this subject. Human happiness in relationships is not as formulaic as OKC would like you to believe.

The FB thing is definitely more objectively definable. As in many bits of information was posted, only bits of information that fell under content X were shown to other users.

Is that you Rush Limbaugh?

Bottled water is many times from city sources, it has been filtered again, but is many times still fluoridated.

If you don't want chlorine, put your water in a non-sealed picture in the fridge. The chlorine will evaporate out.

>You could also live in a country where you could grow and roast your own coffee beans. There is always a price vs convenience tradeoff.

Growing your own will cost far more. Think economies of scale.

>Which is great reason to kick the caffeine addiction habit in the first place.

Mormons up in the house, I see.

I don't 'like' lima beans, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them. In this case your lima beans have been switched out with castor beans and you're dying. Pretty big difference.

Netflix uses http and https, mostly off of Amazon cloud services.

Sounds like bufferbloat from hell. Or a QoS rule from hell : /

>And they can't fake delivering the page more quickly, can they?

Well, possibly.

On non-SSL sites they can proxy content, which in general is a good thing. Trouble comes if they start gaming the system and not showing the freshest content to give a perceived gain in speed.

If the universe is isotropic, you don't have to check it all. A sufficiently large sample will show you all the universe has to hold.

There is also another saying.

"In the universe there can only be 0, 1, or an infinite number of something" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_one_infinity_rule)

>What does the format have anything to do with the content?

The part of not being able to view the content possibly?

>It's like saying "fuck classic movies because they're not 3D".

More like, shit I can't watch this because it's all on BetaMax.

I support the H1-b program, because I work place can not find qualifed c or c++ or c# and java developers (at the low ass rate we want to pay).

You trolls always forget that last part.