So, you, ah, busy later?
So, you, ah, busy later?
This is the problem of big numbers. You're multiplying a really big number (number of solar systems) times a really big number (time) times a number of unknown smallness (chances of life emerging from inorganic materials). We only know it's happened once. We haven't seen it anywhere else in the universe. We've tried our hardest and never seen it in a lab. So we have no idea what order of magnitude that chance is. A few orders of magnitude in one direction and there's life everywhere. A few orders of magnitude in the other direction and there's life in but a handful places in the universe. Maybe even only here.
We need more data to help pin down what order of magnitude that really small number is. One thing that would help with that, though, would be what these researchers propose to look for. Once we can detect signs of life on an exoplanet (like the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere...a very likely sign of organic processes under way, because oxygen does not stay free for long), how uniformly is it distributed in the galaxy?
If life is likely to arise, like your hunch, then life in the galaxy should look pretty uniform. It's everywhere. But if instead it's clumpy (or more likely smeared as stars move relative to each other) then that indicates life is very rare, and spreads instead by panspermia.
Uniform distribution of life in the galaxy: life is likely to arise, and may or may not spread via panspermia, too.
Clumpy/smeary distribution of life in the galaxy: life is unlikely to arise, but likely to spread via panspermia.
Ice. Water is very good at stopping radiation. There's lots of ice in comets. One RNA strand, encased in ice in a comet, ejected from a solar system.
Chances are tiny. Number of trials is huge. Time span is extreme. Need more data.
"It looks like healthcare IT has the same attitude towards its quality that George W Bush had towards 9-11."
What are you talking about? Healthcare IT is a disaster, but 9/11 was a smashing success for Bush.
"But I want a lasting relationship from the app that requires users to make snap judgements of people based solely on appearance!"
Dude got nerd sniped. I wouldn't be able to resist. An interesting puzzle mysteriously shows up? Yes please. Basically how I got into programming and math in general.
Of course all they're going to get are people who aren't savvy enough to use ad/tracking blockers and duckduckgo...
I can see that. But, assuming my previous post was truthful and not mere e-peen waving on a tech site they would have to track down the "hacker on steroids known as meta-monkey" as I would never post anything like that under my own name or use company resources, as this person did.
I know AM tried to sell itself as a classier place, not just for hookups, but "Life is short, have an affair"?
And with a close up picture of a woman's full red lips. Mostly advertised on porn sites, whose viewership skews male.
They did not place ads with a picture of a hot dude on pintrest.
Tinder: The app that gets the top 10% of men by positive sexual characteristics an unbelievable amount of pussy.
Don't know about that. Some people have affairs because their marriage is dead. Spouse doesn't love them. Some people cheat on wonderful people who love them to death, because they're completely selfish assholes. I wonder how well one can predict from the AM data what percentage was what type, or what other types exist.
Combination of several things, probably. One can crawl the AM data for patterns for people who do cheat (or are interested in cheating) via a website, but no such database exists for those who do so without use of a site like AM. So, we can only speculate.
My completely wild speculation is that this method does not appeal to women.
A man who wants to have an affair just wants someone fuck, and goes looking for it. A woman who is unhappy does not think "I'm going to have an affair!" and starts shopping around. She gets interested in a specific guy and decides to sleep with him. The man goes to the bar to find a woman to fuck. The woman goes to the bar for a good time, sees somebody she'd like to fuck, and does it. The premeditation required to use a website like AM is a more masculine trait.
A man cheating on his wife has to take more risks. Back to the bar, the guy is more likely to have to strike up conversations with many women before he can find one who's interested. Every attempt is a risk. Learning he's married, she might expose him. He's seen talking to her, and one of her friends might expose him. "Hell hath no fury" and all that. I think a woman is more likely to inform another woman that her husband is fucking around than a man is likely to inform another man that his wife is unfaithful. And I don't think it's a secret that it's a lot easier for a woman to walk up to a guy she doesn't know and say "wanna fuck" and succeed, than it is for a man to walk up to a woman and do the same thing. So the whole discretion thing of AM is a much more enticing lure for a man than it is a woman.
And finally...women in general are not as interested in technological solutions to problems as men are. And remember AM has been operating since 2001. So think about the changing demographic of those who are "tech savvy" across that entire time period. When someone thinks "I want to have an affair," I think it's far more likely the person who thinks "I know, I'll go look on the internet!" is going to be a man than a woman.
So, there's a bunch of wild speculation with extreme generalizations that in no way reflect the opinions of Major League Baseball, or anything else, really.
Eh, one point of order.
I do not condone infidelity, yadda yadda yadda, but purely as a practical matter if one is looking to cheat on their spouse and wants things kept discrete, a better choice of partner is someone else who is already married. They have more skin in the game and are more likely to keep things hush hush, because they don't want to be exposed, either. If things go poorly, you can be less afraid of someone threatening to tell your husband, when you can also tell their wife.
That said, yeah, I'm not convinced a website would be the best method of finding such a partner.
Exactly. I'm actually in the process of doing the exact thing this author did. I do not, in any way, care about the personal identities of the users. But that data all loaded up in MySQL, with R churning away...not everybody's idea of fun, but, well, I am a nerd.
Tom: Listen to this one then; you open a company called the Arse Tickler's Faggot Fan Club. You take an advert in the back page of some gay mag, advertising the latest in arse-intruding dildos, sell it a bit with, er... I dunno, "does what no other dildo can do until now", latest and greatest in sexual technology. Guaranteed results or money back, all that bollocks. These dills cost twenty-five each; a snip for all the pleasure they are going to give the recipients. They send a cheque to the company name, nothing offensive, er, Bobbie's Bits or something, for twenty-five. You put these in the bank for two weeks and let them clear. Now this is the clever bit. Then you send back the cheques for twenty-five pounds from the real company name, Arse Tickler's Faggot Fan Club, saying sorry, we couldn't get the supply from America, they have sold out. Now you see how many of the people cash those cheques; not a single soul, because who wants his bank manager to know he tickles arses when he is not paying in cheques!
Bacon: So how long do you have to wait for a return?
Tom: Probably no more than four weeks.
Bacon: Well what good is that if we need it in six... no, five days?
Tom: Well it was still a good idea.
I agree, totally agree, it's fucked up.
But it's also awesome. I mean, yes, I don't look forward to the Orwellian nightmare, but there's going to be a whole new dimension to "America's Wildest Police Videos."
"This criminal thought he could run from the cops! But he didn't count on getting dive bombed by law enforcement drones!"
Zooooooom thwump bang "I didn't do nufin' I didn't do nufin'!"
"Falling in love makes smoking pot all day look like the ultimate in restraint." -- Dave Sim, author of Cerebrus.