programming is for “general software development”, and this article doesn’t talk about software development at all. python is for “Python programming”, and for all the article says about this it could’ve just as easily been Ruby, Intercal, mumps, or Brainfuck.
A math, person, or games tag would’ve been more accurate here, and even in those cases it’s a stretch. If an article truly doesn’t fall under an existing tag, it might be worth questioning if it belongs here.
Also, wired is not what I would suggest is a good source of articles. It’s basically “Rolling Stones” for aging technologists and people that want to pretend they’re hip on the intertubes.
But, of course, this is “awwww poor grad student finds lurve with ~algorithms~”, and so people will upvote it because people. :-\
The story is about how somebody used machine learnings to game OKC, and was finally matched with somebody described as finding him “…in her search for 6-foot guys with blue eyes near UCLA”
And then the hilarious reality distortion field of relationships at work. After hundreds of words describing a cold and (literally) calculating search through the pool of available mates, the story throws this at the reader:
She bristles at that. “You didn’t find me. I found you,” she says, touching his elbow. McKinlay pauses to think, then admits she’s right.
Bollocks.
This isn’t love…this is two people who use superficial sorting to finally find somebody that fits into their world without much effort (see also under “long-distance relationships”).
I’d say there’s nothing in here to describe it as NOT love. It’s a geeky approach, but in the end they just wound up finding someone else that worked for them. This isn’t a Disney movie.
Maybe put down the cynicism for a moment and just let people be happy in their own way. It might not be the best article (your other post had better criticisms of it, some of which I agree with) but it IS an interesting approach to the problem of how to maximize OKC interactions, for good or ill.
So, the tags here aren’t well used.
programmingis for “general software development”, and this article doesn’t talk about software development at all.pythonis for “Python programming”, and for all the article says about this it could’ve just as easily been Ruby, Intercal, mumps, or Brainfuck.A
math,person, orgamestag would’ve been more accurate here, and even in those cases it’s a stretch. If an article truly doesn’t fall under an existing tag, it might be worth questioning if it belongs here.Also, wired is not what I would suggest is a good source of articles. It’s basically “Rolling Stones” for aging technologists and people that want to pretend they’re hip on the intertubes.
But, of course, this is “awwww poor grad student finds lurve with ~algorithms~”, and so people will upvote it because people. :-\
Aww, a love story.
You’re being sarcastic, right?
The story is about how somebody used machine learnings to game OKC, and was finally matched with somebody described as finding him “…in her search for 6-foot guys with blue eyes near UCLA”
And then the hilarious reality distortion field of relationships at work. After hundreds of words describing a cold and (literally) calculating search through the pool of available mates, the story throws this at the reader:
Bollocks.
This isn’t love…this is two people who use superficial sorting to finally find somebody that fits into their world without much effort (see also under “long-distance relationships”).
EDIT: </grump>
Yeah, I am being sarcastic ;)
I’d say there’s nothing in here to describe it as NOT love. It’s a geeky approach, but in the end they just wound up finding someone else that worked for them. This isn’t a Disney movie.
Maybe put down the cynicism for a moment and just let people be happy in their own way. It might not be the best article (your other post had better criticisms of it, some of which I agree with) but it IS an interesting approach to the problem of how to maximize OKC interactions, for good or ill.
Asking here because I have been wondering this for a while. Why do some people have green usernames?
They’re new users.
Gotcha, thanks! :)