Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: "Productive" has a pretty clear definition (Score 1) 248

by holophrastic (#48151819) Attached to: Facebook and Apple Now Pay For Female Employees To Freeze Their Eggs

So, PRODUCING human beings isn't more "productive" than working, huh? Nice vocabulary you've got there.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If women want to take all of the jobs, I'm good with that. I'm looking forward to being a 1950's house wife in 2015 -- you know, with modern kitchen appliances, big-screen tv's, music in every room, and modern cleaning tools. I'll even throw in DIY home renovations if it means that I don't need to deal with commuting, clients, bosses, and, you know, actual work. We won't even discuss spending time with children.

Men, it's time to let women work hard and pay for everything. I'm ready to stay home and cook -- I love to cook.

Comment: That sounds like dating before dating (Score 2) 482

by holophrastic (#48050797) Attached to: Online Creeps Inspire a Dating App That Hides Women's Pictures

First, answering dumbass interview questions and showing hidden Seattle gems is actually dating. That's not finding a date, that's dating. Forcing guys to date a mystery woman before being able to see her only to then try to date her just won't work. You've done nothing but add another layer to the already-anonymous layer. Can you imagine even the most successful online dating guy, who engages ten women in a month, is now being interrogated twice each week, coming up with hidden gem videos and countless other things. Poor guy! That's a lot of work. Or would you accept a guy who sends the same videos and answers to every women he engages? That's called a profile. A big one. Which is creepy again.

Second, the definition of a creepy guy is one who is on a dating site. Every guy on a dating site is creepy. Quite frankly, so are women on dating sites. Welcome to the concept of a list of people looking for other people. That's creepy from the get go. If you're looking for not creepy, then you're seeking a guy who pretends to not be doing exactly what he/s doing which is exactly what you wanted him to be doing -- looking for you.

Third, 17 to 1. Because a guy will engage 17 women, whereas most women won't engage anyone. 17:1 is less of a message ratio and more of a browsing ratio.

Here's a solution: a site where guys aren't able to engage women at all. That'll solve your problem. then you can just wait for women to engage men. the species will die out, and this problem will be solved.

Glad I'm through with dating -- hope I never find myself back there, certainly not online dating.

Comment: Rembered vibrantly would be painful (Score 1) 478

Certainly I won't argue with the very-old being a drain on society reasoning. To some extent it can certainly be true -- e.g. workforce, taxes, economy. Whether or not that is countered in terms of wisdom, historical knowledge, and otherwise unobtainable perspective is a subjective matter.

I do, however, take umbrage with the idea that remembering someone as "vibrant and engaged" is a good thing. Everyone that I know who's died "vibrant and engaged" has been the result of some crime or major illness, and has left friends and family distrought to the point of needing some amount of psychological therapy to get over the loss, sudden or otherwise.

The idea of a very gradual decline, such that finally losing one's grandfather comes when one's opinion of that grandfather is at least somewhat "feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic" is a comfort. It makes the loss easier, understandable, and acceptable.

Moreover, I'm 35 now. I'm not feeble, but I'm not fit. I'm not inefectual, but I'm lazy. I'm not pathetic, but, well, to some I am. I'm a pretty relaxed, happy guy, with no problems and no ambition and a lot of personal hobbies. If I cared to be seen as "vibrant and engaged", I wouldn't be content as I am today. That would be horrible. I don't live for the memory of others; I live for my own joy of the day.

Comment: Re:One day, someone will explain it to me. (Score 1) 115

by holophrastic (#47930367) Attached to: Logitech Aims To Control the Smart Home

I think you've missed the earlier items in the sequence. The neighbour was the last item. First you need to be reminded that you left the stove on. Or you need to actively check. And with dozens of things to actively check, you're either a paranoid nut job checking everything every hour, or you check once, thoroughly, before you leave the house.

And if you don't have any friends who can check on your house while you're away, the nI refer you, again, to your homeowners insurance policy -- which probably doesn't cover anything that happens when you're away for more than 3 days in a row.

Oh, and good job turning off your stove when your phone says "stove on". Your phone doesn't say "kitchen cabinet on fire", so I guess you didn't type "use extinguisher on fire". Ok.

There's a reason that your insurance won't cover it. There's no substitute for walking around your house.

Comment: Re:One day, someone will explain it to me. (Score 1) 115

by holophrastic (#47930157) Attached to: Logitech Aims To Control the Smart Home

I live in neither of those zones. Like I said, it only applies to 25% of my year. So would you like me to ask again? How about solving a problem that I have, instead of trying to convince me that I have a problem?

It's not pretentious to ask for help with my situation. I'm not asking for help with yours.

Comment: Re:One day, someone will explain it to me. (Score 1) 115

by holophrastic (#47929487) Attached to: Logitech Aims To Control the Smart Home

"on occasion" I do stupid things. Consistently I do smart things that compensate for the stupid things -- like having a neighbour check on my house daily when I'm away. If you want to pay a dozen businesses to do a tenth of what a neighbour can do in 2 minutes, go ahead. I don't.

Comment: Re:One day, someone will explain it to me. (Score 1) 115

by holophrastic (#47929015) Attached to: Logitech Aims To Control the Smart Home

That falls into the category of saving a maximum of $2 per day in electricity, with huge and overwhelming consequenses that few people know how to see.

Hard wood floors change shape with even slight temperature changes -- because humidity is drastically affected, especially at floor level.

Fruit on the counter rots that much faster. Bread goes mouldy quicker.

I don't know what it does to the paint on your walls, but I do know that window seals degrade faster.

Think of everything that museums and art galleries do to preserve art. Odds are that you're running counter to everythign they do.

Oh yeah, you're probable destroying your art too.

And poor kitty, home alone all day, and it gets hotter too!

Got a computer sitting at home?

Appliances like your fridge work by exhausting heat. That heat exchange gets less efiicient for some model in a warmer home. So odds are that you save money on your air conditioner, and spend it on your appliances instead.

Oh, and if you've got real seasons like I do, this whole conversation is only relevant for 25% of the year.

Comment: Re:One day, someone will explain it to me. (Score 1) 115

by holophrastic (#47928587) Attached to: Logitech Aims To Control the Smart Home

So, basically, when you're too stupid to know how to leave your own house, for whatever reason, but damned lucky enough to be reminded later, and anti-social enough to not be neighbourly with any of your neighbours.

In my world, that's a call to the neighbours, who are already responsible for my house when I'm gone.

Wernher von Braun settled for a V-2 when he coulda had a V-8.

Working...