Dating is a pure market game. Men get the short end of the stick based on supply and demand and from what I've seen, it balances out with age. Dating at 18 SUCKED!!!! But it makes sense. Imagine a numeric "appeal score" that covers EVERY facet: looks, personality, wealth, whatever matters to you. I was a 6 maybe a 7 at my most confident best days. No older women wanted to date me. Women my age who were 6s were getting attention from 8s their age and 7s ranging from slightly older to older than their dads. I don't hold it against women for choosing an 8 or a 9 over me.

However, I'm told, and from what I've seen, once you're 30, it reverses. A male 7 over 30 gets attention from older AND younger 8s. The women your age have lowered their standards because at 32, your ideal natural window for having children is nearly closed.

However, that's for first time marriages. In general, the older you are, the greater the probability your pool has found someone. I have a friend who is single and horny AF in her 50s. She meets lots of great men and jokes "unfortunately, the good ones are taken". She's told me stories about the men she's dated. If they're decent, they're very entitled (the market problem from before...he could date a woman his age, but also random women in their 20s and 30s are constantly hitting him up for no-strings-attached sex...many of which have less wisdom and experience and put him on a pedestal because they don't know any better).

All this is market stuff. It's like a house. If you want to live in a nice neighborhood with a short commute and a good school district....you're not likely to find bargains and will have to make compromises.

But in the end, you're still single for a reason. Maybe you found fulfillment being single. Many women do. They don't emotionally need men as much as men need a family. Lots of single moms just give up and focus on their kids and friends and are happy without a man....that's a valid reason.

In their case and yours, I'll wager you're not relying on AI chatbots for emotional fulfillment.

It was a funny and well written!

I used to be a cat person, we couldn't afford a dog growing up, then I got a dog....definitely a dog person now. But having loved a few humans and precisely 1 dog...they're NOTHING alike. People who think they're "Dog Parents" and say it unironically are truly broken individuals. You can love your dog, but it has no choice but to love you back. It is fully dependent on you and if it pisses you off enough, you can ethically put it up for adoption like people do today or unethically just abandon it and probably face no consequence, which was common where and when I grew up. Your dog has very limited agency and had bred to submit to your bullshit. It can't give you much feedback at all and has been bred to adapt to you.

I see similarities to AI relationships. It's a relationship where you fully control it and if it displease you, you can discard it without consequence. I can't abandon my kids. If my wife displeases me, it's VERY expensive to separate and has many consequences. If a chatbot displeases you, you can start all over with a brand new one for a similar monthly fee. I know a tiny number of people who have relationships with AI bots, personally...including a friend I've know for almost 13 years. She has many issues and severe childhood trauma and went from terrible relationship to terrible relationship. I am confident she's the target audience and not an anomaly. The few others who have told me about their AI relationships...yeah, seemed similar. I actually like her and used to be close friends with her, but feel bad for her...she falls for every scam...gets talked into one-sided polycules where she's monogamous, but her boyfriend fucks as many women as he wants...and she pays all the bills because he's perpetually unemployed...and FAR from attractive or charming...like most sex cult guys.

People with healthy functional relationships will keep these AI relationships at arm's length. People who are desperate? People who are too dysfunctional to form a real relationship will likely love these. Even those who are desperate? I know a lot of eternally single desperate people: I work in software. In EVERY case, it's not that they're fat or ugly or even autistic that they can't find a mate...If you're capable of giving and receiving love, there's a lid for every pot....they have deeper issues and are really difficult to be around, even for a limited time as a friend.

It's cruel, but true. If you're single, there's a reason. I have many single friends. The ones who are loveable? They gave up looking, like a handful of single moms I know, slightly dysfunctional, but from what I've seen, good enough to marry...I could picture dating them if single...but yeah when you're 35 and have a kid, it's not as easy as when they were dating in their early 20s, so they give up after 5 or 6 tries. The ones that keep trying? They have issues. You can see it just in their friendships or being their coworker, usually severe emotional instability or unreliability...you don't have to date them to see why they haven't found SOMEONE yet.

I work for a Glasswing company and it was turned loose on my application. We lost 2 weeks patching bullshit non-issues. One that was vivid? My arg-less scheduled task endpoint was a GET instead of a POST. That's stupid and pedantic and makes it harder for QA to test, but fine...I can accept that. Some asshole long ago arbitrarily said only POST can have side effects because HTTP has no "DO" method...it's breaking convention, but not a bug, nor a security flaw.

A bunch were absolutely wrong. One was complaining our permissions were too permissive. Myself and the other lead developer said...no...that's not a bug, that's the precisely correct security model and it cannot be changed.

Another manager had his offshore new hire fix it in the shared codebase...caused a customer incident because they didn't involve us in the release nor understand why we coded it that way. They didn't know how to correctly test the code. They even ignore the comments explaining it.

Most of the numbers we got were inflated. ALL were unreachable because we validate before entry, so you couldn't inject a payload. (issues with 3rd party libs). You can't even reach the server without being validate at the CDN layer and none of the fields were text.....but yeah, it reported an out of date spring transient dependency like 100x....even on endpoints that were purely numeric or read-only and thus impossible to reach....not heinous, but I don't consider those security flaws if they're fundamentally impossible to reach. I'll update the lib to patch them to be safe...but these AI tools really oversell their effectiveness....as I assume MS is doing here.

The whole AI revolution is predicated that today's models are clumsy, error-prone, and EXPENSIVE...just like the early computers, but advancements in technology will make them more reliable and cheaper and that in 10 years, doing the same work will be a fraction of today's cost with greater accuracy. The problem is accuracy is improving VERY slowly. Yeah, on benchmarks they cheat on, you can show whatever you like, but Claude still errors daily for me and has pretty consistently for the last 2 years. If there are positive changes, they're definitely subtle. I'll assume there are some.

But the dirty secret is that each new model is a lot more expensive than the last. There's no sign of the cost coming down. There's really no indicator that will happen. All indicators are that costs are going up. At the moment, the cost is being subsidized by VCs. Once investors pull their funding, Claude is going to have to pay for all the electricity they consume...so is DeepSeek and the lagging models. Also, our tolerance for failure is going to go down.

It's impossible to predict the future, but I see no route to the costs going down. There are no hints at the algorithms getting tangibly cheaper....yeah, some advancements have helped a few percent here and there, but we need factors, not percentages, like 5x efficiency gains, not 5%. The chips are already fully optimized. There's no know reason to assume they will get tangibly faster. We can't shrink them much more like we used to 20 years ago. There's no hope electricity will get drastically cheaper.

However, what I predict will happen? Those AI models will get a LOT better at breaking into your shitty agentic-engineered, vibe-coded monstrosities...so any money you thought you saved by having AI write it? I hope you don't mind data loss and ransomware!

At best, it's completely irrelevant, but sounds like race-baiting to me. Sorry, we're not that dumb. That's like me saying "I'm NOT saying your wife is a fat drunk who smells like rancid lunchmeat"...wait...why are you offended? I was saying she's NOT those things!!!

Convince a woman to reproduce with you and you'll know most people don't drive to avoid the homeless, they do so because it's unaffordable to raise kids anywhere served by public transportation on a 5 figure income (really even 6 figure). They have to go far out in the burbs and again...while you might be able to get to and from work in 3h via public transportation, you have kids and loved ones waiting for you...I know given your history you might not be able to relate to that...but...yeah, fuck off.

People are driving because it's a direct route to their home and public transportation doubles the commute time, which they don't have surplus time to begin with...because they're decent people who love their wives and kids. Most people enjoy taking public transportation and as someone who takes it all the time, the homeless are not a huge problem in the last 3 cities I've lived in. They're not going to be your top annoyance commuting.

Perhaps if you kept up on your Duolingo to keep your brain more limber, you might not have hallucinated an anti-immigrant rant. But hey...you can make baseless accusations if you like...does it make you feel powerful?...did you put me in my place?

This data is COMPLETELY useless unless you factor for income and education. Stress kills your brain and body like nothing else and little in life is more stressful than being poor. Is this just a proxy for wealth? If you speak 2 languages, you either have a comfortable life where you want to travel and/or explore other cultures or you're an immigrant and in most cases, the wealthier half of your society. The majority of immigrants, especially from Asia, come from middle-class to affluent households. I think it's safe to say none of your Asian coworkers grew up in the slums and realistically, relatively few of the Latin American immigrants you encounter grew up in the very worst parts of their country. They usually had the resources and motivation to buy a plane ticket.

I know a lot of DUMB AF immigrants, especially from India where they probably are exposed to multiple languages in addition to what they speak at work and at home. I know plenty of educated Americans who can't speak a 2nd language beyond the 4 years they had to take in high school or college and forgot everything but how to order breakfast immediately afterwards. I definitely don't notice any correlation in brain age. By this logic, everyone working in my local grocery store should have young and agile brains...moreso than the many American-born businesspeople, accountants, lawyers, and software engineers I've met. Sorry, my American monolingual accountant neighbor doesn't seem any worse off than my Ecuadorian grocery bagger.

My monolingual American/UK/Aus coworkers tend to perform just was well and typically better than their Asian-born counterparts....and among the older ones, I honestly notice more decline among the multi-lingual ones...which again, I'd attribute more to the stress of their lives than languages spoken. This is another annoying story that gives incomplete data.

In fairness, I started learning Spanish more seriously after the pandemic, mostly for brain health as well as some cultural ties. I don't really know if it's helping, but it's like my vitamin. I take a multivitamin every day...it PROBABLY does nothing, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. At the very least, I have a fallback plan if the USA collapses :)

You understand the XBox division has very little to do with the Windows division, right? It's like blaming Sony's full frame camera division because you don't like the new PlayStation update.

While the majority seem to prefer Nintendo or PS, MS has been very good to users. Games pass was a low monthly fee service to give you Netflix for games and you could pay slightly more and get them on PC. It was great. Their hardware is cheaper than PS. Their peripherals are cheaper. I fucking love my XBox. Fair disclosure, I've never owned a PlayStation, so maybe it's just as good or better, but it just fucking works. It's simple. It's a nice experience. I never have to troubleshoot it. My Nintendo switch is also nice, just not very powerful. But this is the problem, IMHO.

MS is giving it's customers what they want at the best prices in the industry. I love it, but yeah, I don't give them as much money as I would have to for a Nintendo. And you can't overpay your executive suite by giving the customers value for their money!!!!

Go is the worst language on the market. It's slower than Rust, C, Java, C#. It's a dogshit language, only slightly faster than JavaScript or Python. It has no reason to exist now that we have Rust. It's better at memory usage than Java/C#, but otherwise a LOT slower. Seriously...this shit is garbage. I've never been more disappointed with a language. It's not easy to use, like Python/JavaScript/Java. It's not fast, like Rust, C, or even Java. It's a legacy language that can't die fast enough. No one should start new projects with that garbage platform if there are any alternatives.

When every tech company laid off a ton of workers and claimed AI, they were committing fraud to their investors, nothing more. They needed to lay these people off due to overhiring, these employees underperforming and needing to be fired (but they didn't want to risk a lawsuit), or economic headwinds and thought it made them look like better leaders. Do you really think they wanted to do last year's business with 15% less cost? If they had actual useful AI, they'd repurpose all of these engineers, if not hire more so they can 10x their output and crush their competitors.

We've seen job loss to automation before. It typically is pretty slow. It typically results in reduced hiring before mass firing. Most people get repurposed. In most cases, the majority of people are retained and the company focuses on increasing output or expanding offerings. For example, if you're DeWalt tools, you use automation to make power tools with less humans and start expanding to hand tools and ladders and tool storage, like they did over the last 15 years. Your net hiring usually expands. As the automation gets deployed, you typically retain a huge portion of the staff during the transition, just in case. It's a process that unfolds over many months or years, not weeks, like Salesforce.com, Google, Facebook, etc did. And to repeat...if these were useful employees, they'd repurpose them to expand offerings.

I don't know if these AI CEOs were ignorant and believed their bullshit or were lying. However, we've all used these AIs. They're not dogshit, but they're not magic either. They're definitely not ready to actually replace human beings. I use Claude daily and it produces huge errors every day. I use Gemini frequently...with very simple product questions "Which $x has features $y?" It fails the majority of the time. For example, I asked it "What's the cheapest 10' USB4 cable with USB-IF certification?" It returned results that were 6'6" and cables more expensive than the ones in my Amazon cart...yet it provided links to Amazon. Pretty much every product search I've ever made failed. My point being...I can't imagine and easier question for AI. I gave a length, I gave a specific token and asked for the cheapest...it failed on all 3 fronts.

This shit ain't ready to replace anyone. If you're paying a human being to do it today, you need more accuracy than today's models can provide. If you can tolerate their level of errors, you weren't paying anyone before. Sure...it can replace your old automated chat bots...maybe reduce your offshore outsourcing spend slightly...but no...it's not that they're humanitarians. It's that their technology doesn't work well enough to be evil.

AI is a lot more impressive and fearful in our minds than in reality.

90% of my meetings are 60 min. Probably 10% go for like 2h or more. A 30 minute meeting is rare at EVERY tech company I've worked at. In fact, in the vast majority of cases if it's 30 min or less, that means someone messed up and we ended it early to rescheduled it when someone is prepared to present properly. For about half the teams I've worked on, even our scrums are over 30 minutes.

No white collar worker really has the option of moving ever 30 minutes or less. Tradespeople are on their feet all the time. I'll wager their life expectancy isn't that much higher. Is this because sitting 30 min or more causes cancer?....or just that everyone who has a more active life typically falls into the high stress group (people in the trades/retail/service who live much tougher lives) that dies younger from a more traditional killer like heart disease or diabetes...or maybe a few niche jobs like personal trainers or a select subset of unstressed-out health care workers (nurses for a plastic surgeon or wellness clinic) who will outlive a software engineer, manager, or accountant?