I find this very surprising.
The first sentence of the article states that about 60% of men are single, and only about 30% of women. There's about equal men and women, so that would mean that 30% of women are dating each other, or are in relationships with multiple men? That's discounting men dating men. I find that surprising.
Another possibility is that women are more likely to choose to self report their status as "in a relationship" vs. men. (Which would be an interesting finding on its own!) I'm not sure which source they pulled those figures in the first line from, but elsewhere it talks about PEW studies and the Survey Center on American Life which are presumably working from self reported survey data? "Married" is easier to track objectively than "single" vs. "in a relationship" which is more subjective. Is having been on three dates a "relationship?" Is it a relationship if you never talked about it with each other in those terms? If you're dating multiple people non-exclusively are you "in a relationship" or "single"? (I'm not asking; just speculating that two people might answer those questions differently.)
The 60% / 30% figure doesn't pass the sniff test to me.
Edit: Noticed the comment about this data focusing on "young" women and men and the possibility that more women are dating men outside that range than men are doing the same. That's also a good explanation. This was mentioned in the article too; I was just initially underestimating its significance.
That’s a good point that the article doesn’t touch on! (and along with the other ones from the article, makes a lot more sense than the “10% of the men date all the women” meme I see repeated in this HN discussion).
The article states 60/30% of young people, so the correct interpretation is that older men are "taking" a large share of the young, single women / young women prefer dating older men.
I think this article is somewhat of a relief to myself. It always felt like the majority of women I talked to casually mentioned they are in a relationship before my interest further peaked. At least it's not just thinking it's a coincidence that the majority that I talk to are taken, it's statistical lol.
Women are not objects to be owned. Even if she's in a relationship she might be unhappy with it and open to other options. Just don't be creepy or aggressive about it.
To use an analogy, hiring managers are allowed to offer you a job even if you already have a job. They're not obligated to wait until you're unemployed.
So situations where women think they're in a relationship, but the man does not (or not with them). Again, is this statistically significant? Are women's standards for what qualifies as a relationship low enough that they think they're in one with 1/2, 1/3, or even less, of a man's time?
Those figures are for "young adults". (20s I think? The article isn't totally clear.) The article mentions further down that some of the extra women are dating older men.
I see this talking point all the time yet never backed up by studies. That would mean that these attractive men put a premium on quantity over quality (because they’d have to date women less attractive then them for the numbers to work out) and have lots of time and mental energy at their disposal to manage these concurrent relationships. Whereas in general people tend to date people that are more or less as attractive as themselves, and the most prevalent form of relationships is still a two person couple. For casual flings it might be different.
Dating apps don’t make their data available to scientists, that would be nice though!
For sure life is more easy for hot people, off or on dating apps. It’s true in bars and clubs too. In settings where people have more of a time to get to know each other it probably matters less, even if it always plays a role. It’s just that, as long as society’s concept of a relationship is still two people together, and not one person with a harem, these attractive people at the top of the pyramid will end up being picky too.
> Dating apps don’t make their data available to scientists, that would be nice though!
Actually OKCupid did do that at some point, well, it was their own employees but they did extensive and very honest data analysis. After the company was sold those blog posts were erased, of course.
Another interesting thing to observe is whether the premium for being attractive has increased in general because of the "shrinking of the world" effect via internet (i.e. attractive people have more opportunities now to be models, to work in branding, start an onlyfans and make money). Basically - whether it's easier now to "monetize" your good looks.
If that is the case, attractiveness has actually become a better proxy for social status/success than it used to be. I don't have data to back this up - intuitively it makes sense to me, but I hope someone out there is studying the effect.
You think the disparity is more accounted for by the numeric difference between multiple-dating men and multiple-dating women, rather than by women dating men who are older than themselves?
Not just "think", it's a fact that same study shows: if that was the way you are putting it, in the upper age cohort, fraction of single men would be smaller than single women: men would be with young girls and dump women of same age as themselves. But it's not the case, because percentage of single men is higher in any age cohort under 65 (then, there are more single women simply because men die at earlier age).
Isn't single parenthood already "normalized"? In the US at least, it's extremely common. Of course, it's also extremely difficult for the mother; I can't imagine why anyone would willingly choose it unless she was independently wealthy and could hire caretakers.
I don't mean to say it in a negative sense. I'm a right-wing liberal. Inequality is the only thing that saves us for complete dominance of mediocrity. Also, it's sort of stupid to complain about because it's no one's policy or anything, just an objective fact. You can't un-invent Tinder.
That's ridiculous. Poly relationships are a tiny minority and even there most stick it to two partners - everything above that just takes way too much time to juggle next to a full-time job.
Conscious poly relationships are a tiny minority and will probably always remain so. But i mean situations when women don't know that they are not alone. Tinder does it to them. It makes easy to find and "get" the best men. But there's a catch...
Plus, very frequently women get ahead of themselves imagining that they are in relationship while their men sees it as merely a sequence of gradually more and more effortless hookups.
There's a big difference between a startup not managing and advertisers pushing billions of funding into creating this kind of thing. I very much agree with the author on this point.
It scares the German population, because every day here the news was about "are we going to make it through the winter". 50% of all houses are heated with Gas. The fact that no gas was flowing through doesn't really matter and likely wasn't going to for a while anyway still worries everyone.
It will make the pro-Russian arguments sound better, if people are scared.
The pipelines were useless to the russian goverment beforehand since they weren't sending any gas through it. It doesn't matter what the protesters wanted, Russia wasn't sending any gas. So there was never an "alternative".
But blowing them up means that people get worried again. The worries about having enough gas to last the winter increases. Russia wants a fearful Europe, not a determined one. This plays right into their hands, and it doesn't really matter whether people know it was them.
They are waging a proxy war with NATO through the Ukraine. And the fact that they are also threatening nuclear weapons just confirms their strategy in regards to Europe. They want a Europe that is afraid of Russia.
> The pipelines were useless to the russian goverment beforehand since they weren't sending any gas through it.
But they could have. That's what having an alternative means!
Putin was recently, explicitly, fishing for concessions in return for gas through those pipelines.
And people in Germany - a minority, for sure, but still - were demonstrating in the streets, demanding that Germany should make those concessions for gas.
Yes, Putin wants a fearful Europe, and he already had it. Now he has a Europe that's got nothing to lose, gas-wise, for the winter.
This is getting to me. How can people be so blind? IMO, believing that Putin blew up his own pipeline rather than Norway's which just opened (it's very close, if you can reach one you can reach the other), is the same as believing the rebels in Douma used chemical weapons on themselves. If they had them, wouldn't they use it on the enemy instead?
In Douma, people claiming a false flag self-attack had to contend with the fact that the area was surrounded, in fact it fell by the next day. I kept arguing with them, wouldn't it be very easy to catch the false flaggers in the act?
And with the accusation you're making now that Russia did it (which is also a false flag accusation), it happened in Danish and Swedish waters. Near Bornholm. Those Baltic islands are of great strategic importance (much to the inhabitants' annoyance), so you can bet the shallow sea is full of listening equipment, and that spy satellites track every fricking seabird. Yet they missed a Russian sabotage operation?
Also, if Russia wanted an excuse for mobilization etc, why didn't he blow up the pipeline in his own waters, or at least closer to it? Then he could at least claim to be attacked! It would be a disastrously expensive manufactured casus belli, but at least it would have been that. This is instead, if you assume Russia did it, playing right into the US's hands! They've hated that pipeline for years!
And people in Germany - a minority, for sure, but still - were demonstrating in the streets, demanding that Germany should make those concessions for gas.
Now you've got those same Russians screaming about how evil and awful it is that Germany is allied with the United States. Gee, who does that benefit?
Yet they missed a Russian sabotage operation?
Wouldn't they have caught an American sabotage operation? America as this mythical beast that's so powerful they can destroy a major gas pipeline without being noticed (or with everyone too scared to react) is precisely what makes your argument so farcical (well that and your insistence that the attacks happened in Danish territory).
And with the accusation you're making now that Russia did it (which is also a false flag accusation), it happened in Danish and Swedish waters.
No. The explosions happened in international waters.
> Wouldn't they have caught an American sabotage operation?
I'm explicitly saying they would have been in on it.
The attacks happened in the exclusive economic zone, which are not typically called international waters. Countries keep close track of their exclusive economic zones, even if they DON'T happen to be strategically important straits, which the sea between Bornholm and Poland absolutely is.
My money is on a faction of the Russian military either attempting to sabotage Putin or alternately attempting to block off potential routes to negotiation to force a confrontation. Both are plausible.
US intelligence works closely with the UK and Germany. If it was the US it was with Germany's knowledge and approval.
Have you forgotten Snowden's revelations? They spied like crazy on EU politicians. Germany is not even a 5 eyes country.
That's an example that they're both able and willing to manipulate German politics and keep Germany in the dark about it. They would probably have needed Sweden's and Denmark's cooperation, but again there is recent history they are very willing to give the US whatever covert assistance they ask for.
Maybe we should split the players: Putin and Russia might be different arguments. Like, if Putin goes away, the "new Russia" could be seen as "clean" thus NS1/2 imports would be acceptable again. This scenario fails if the pipes fail though.
Considering all the Russian energy execs dying mysteriously and Putin being a KGB guy, Putin pulling something like this to make the him the only option and making “the only way out is through” for this invasion… doesn’t seem impossible.
Maybe he thinks things will be okay if his new annexations come to a relative peace and have grudging acceptance from Europe like they did with Crimea. I doubt it, but…
Not really, they don't often advertise that you should attack their customers directly. The closest I can remember was the LifeLock guy putting his social security number up publicly.
Otherwise, they prefer you hit test or personal accounts rather than paying customers...
> Davis publicly posted his Social Security number as part of a 2007 ad campaign to promote the company's identity theft protection services. However, Davis was a victim of 13 cases of identity theft between 2007 and 2008.
Hacking accounts without consent of the victim is probably illegal. So normally you'd use an account you own (or your friend/colleague owns), but the challenge is excluding those. The company setting up special test accounts can be a good option as well, but needs to be done in good faith and is problematic when the attack is social engineering based.
So the challenge is either giving attackers permission to hack accounts of strangers, or requires the attacker to engage in potentially illegal behaviour. Neither of which is acceptable.
I assume this is just badly phrased, and what was actually intended was a requirement that the victim doesn't collude with or help the attacker.
You're not supposed to cause actual substantive changes to actual customers. In addition to being questionably ethical, that would usually disqualify a researcher from any possible bug bounties and forfeit legal protections offered by the program.
Well the CEO said they didnt think it was a problem because there is additional security (also a pin code required) to access the account. That is pretty standard for big companies. Saying that actually isnt a problem and either not fixing it or fixing it and not paying a bounty on it.
No, this is illegal and can put namespace into huge trouble.
Responsible Disclosure Programme needs to explicitly state that access to other users data is illegal and test/self owned accounts need to be used for security testing.
This is why legal departments exist, you cannot just say this as a CEO without consulting to your advisors.
> Responsible Disclosure Programme needs to explicitly state that access to other users data is illegal and test/self owned accounts need to be used for security testing.
Why do you think so? You don’t lose out on any legal protections without explicitly stating that.
I think you meant legal protections for the security researcher? I was talking about legal troubles for the Namecheap.
Company can't encourage/allow security researchers to access private data of the users, at best this is against GDPR but it can also cause monetary damage to users which can be far worse.
If this tweet is being interpreted as namecheap granting permission to someone to try and access customers' data, it actually is against GDPR for namecheap to do so.
As data controller, namecheap has the following duty "the controller shall use only processors providing sufficient guarantees to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures in such a manner that processing will meet the requirements of this Regulation and ensure the protection of the rights of the data subject." (GDPR 28.1)
Of course, if that tweet is treated as empty boasting, then there are no consequences - but if you take it at face value, namecheap is granting permission to access data without a proper limiting contract, and it is explicitly illegal for namecheap to do so (GDPR 28.3 - "Processing by a processor shall be governed by a contract or other legal act under Union or Member State law, that is binding on the processor with regard to the controller and that sets out the subject-matter and duration of the processing, the nature and purpose of the processing, the type of personal data and categories of data subjects and the obligations and rights of the controller"); they have a duty to ensure that any subcontractors or licensees or partners or whatever accessing the data do so only in a strictly controlled manner.
This is why every proper external pentest in EU will have explicit GDPR clauses about the limitations of personal data handling if the pentester/auditor has any chance of accessing systems with such data - it's not acceptable for a company to hire external auditors without such restrictions, they can't simply grant access to other peoples' data to third parties.
And before someone says "...but terms&conditions..", no, terms and conditions can't override law, these restrictions apply no matter what namecheap has contracted with the individuals whose data they're storing. There are some clauses of GDPR which state "don't do X without informing the data subject" (in which case the T&C might inform the customer that you'll be doing X) but that's not the case for these requirements.
> If this tweet is being interpreted as namecheap granting permission to someone to try and access customers' data, it actually is against GDPR for namecheap to do so.
I’m not sure that’s a credible interpretation, the CEO betting against you being able to work around their data protection measures does not turn you into a processor.
The big question is whether CEO betting against you being able to work around their data protection counts as namecheap permitting you to access that data.
If it does not (which IMHO is a reasonable interpretation), there is no issue and that's just empty boasting. But if it does, that's a violation - GDPR prohibits namecheap to allow anyone outside of company to handle that data without a proper controller-processor contract.
Not being a processor is a bad thing in this case, because being a processor is the only way how this can proceed legally. If you're not a processor, it's a violation for namecheap to give you that data; and if you're not a processor, it's a violation for you to process that data since you're also not a controller, you did not legally obtain this from the data subject, this is also not a purely household activity, no other exceptions seem to apply so the default condition applies i.e. that it's illegal for you to handle that data as you have no legal basis permitting it. (GDPR is a deny-by-default law; processing of private data is lawful if and only if specific conditions listed in GDPR are met. If some private data 'fell out of a truck', you can't legally do stuff with it).
Is anyone really surprised? I am not. Google has such a bad relationship to data privacy, they don't see the problem. Getting a warrant is so easy in the US right now, so there is very little reason to disrespect your customers privacy. They just don't see the problem.
Lots of reasons. It was at the time the least authoritarian regime. The alternatives are Saudi-Arabia, where as I understand the gas is harvested with the help of human rights violations, and other nearby suppliers like Norway were already and still are at capacity.
At the same time, gas is a relatively enviromentally safe, when compared to others, and since the relations to Russia were mostly friendly, the slight problems in the regime were ignored.
Now germany is reliant on them, and that was a mistake they are realizing. But if germany stops accepting gas today, the germans will freeze in the winter when the gas runs out, so its a complicated situation.
The issue is not people freezing. Wear a sweater and suck it up. Buy an electric heater. There are ways to hack your way through it.
The much larger problem is industrial manufacturing, in clusters like Ludwigshafen, where you have companies like BASF and Benckiser that rely on Russian gas for their refinery operations.
Fertilizers, chemicals, lubricants, etc.
You turn off Russian gas, you turn off the German industrial complex. Literally over night.
And that’s the reason why the German is so cagey about stopping the import of Russian gas. They can’t, because they don’t have an alternative.
Technically incorrect but socially “correct” where correct means as incorrect as the average person. I consider that to be a very prominent sign of lack of research.
