Elite Singles Review upd. August with Price Free Promo Codes, Discount For Our Users

      Comments Off on Elite Singles Review upd. August with Price Free Promo Codes, Discount For Our Users

brightbrides. net is a third party review service that evaluates and studies dating sites. Our goal is to help you with making decisions related to possible dating. Although we are a non aligned, independent and unbiased service, you can find links to platforms on our site that offer brightbrides. net compensation.

We may be paid for posting services from our partners on our platform. We might also get payments from businesses when you track certain links on our site. These payments can affect the placement of information and links’ order on our website. But it doesn’t affect how we look at and evaluate dating platforms. Please, do not regard the sequence of information and link placement on our platform as advertising media. brightbrides.

net does not examine all dating companies in the segment. Also, take into account that you can use other platforms in addition to those presented on our site. In the realm of today’s dynamic dating market, EliteSingles. com is a site trying to accommodate the needs of a growing population of mature professionals in search of genuine relationships. It’s best suited for busy people with not enough time on their hands to browse through endless profiles looking for a match.

Users of Elite Singles fill out lengthy personality tests and give all sorts of additional information to allow the site to find persons compatible with them. Everyone can expect to get 3 7 matches a day. Once you receive your daily matches, you can read their profiles carefully and decide which ones you’d like to contact. There are multiple options for communicating with another user including messaging, sending emojis and adding them to your list of favorites for future reference. The registration process is time consuming, and some of the questions can seem a bit odd and off putting. First of all, potential users need to fill out a personality questionnaire, which takes 30 45 minutes to complete.

Unless you are familiar with the theory of psychological testing, some of the questions may appear repetitive or downright awkward. However, they are all there for a reason. Answering them requires some insight into one’s psychological processes as well as an ability to judge one’s physical appearance. For an insecure person, this is bound to provoke apprehension and anxiety. One might argue that adding a couple of pictures to your profile would make a detailed description redundant, but the creators of this site seem to think differently. Being able to own up to your bad traits as well as the good ones is something people you get matched with could appreciate better.

You should not sell yourself short though – always emphasize your best features and don’t be afraid to do yourself justice. If you’re an honest, hardworking person, who’s already achieved quite a lot in life, saying this does not constitute bragging. Liking someone’s photo or information given in their profile is free of charge as well as sending smiles and using the 5 Questions feature. However, sending and receiving e mails is reserved for paid members. Also, the site will only let you see pictures of your matches once you pay membership fees. As for the price of this site’s services comparing to other sites with similar content, we would put it in the upper moderate price range.

Although Elite Singles gives you quotes of their monthly fees, it’s actually impossible to purchase a monthly subscription. The minimum paid membership is for three months, but the monthly fees go down if you decide upon a six month or the whole year’s subscription. You get charged for the whole sum upfront, and after your membership expires, it will get automatically renewed unless you manually unsubscribe or end your paid member status. Unlike many other sites in the dating niche, EliteSingles doesn’t put dozens of photos of half naked people in your face as soon as you click on their homepage. It emphasizes personality features as its developers appreciate the fact that it takes a lot more than physical attraction to bring about a solid base for a lasting relationship.

That said, EliteSingles is not about finding you an easy hook up or a one night stand. Those are not too hard to come by anyway. It suffices to go to a local bar, have a few drinks and small talk to another bar patron. Chances are they are there for the same reason. And if you later discover that you have nothing in common with the person you spent a passionate night with, no one is at a loss. Similarly, if you don’t feel like meeting inappropriate people and wish to start a more meaningful relationship, EliteSingles is an excellent place to look.

Elite Singles Review upd. August with Price Free Promo Codes, Discount For Our Users

      Comments Off on Elite Singles Review upd. August with Price Free Promo Codes, Discount For Our Users

brightbrides. net is a third party review service that evaluates and studies dating sites. Our goal is to help you with making decisions related to possible dating. Although we are a non aligned, independent and unbiased service, you can find links to platforms on our site that offer brightbrides. net compensation.

We may be paid for posting services from our partners on our platform. We might also get payments from businesses when you track certain links on our site. These payments can affect the placement of information and links’ order on our website. But it doesn’t affect how we look at and evaluate dating platforms. Please, do not regard the sequence of information and link placement on our platform as advertising media. brightbrides.

net does not examine all dating companies in the segment. Also, take into account that you can use other platforms in addition to those presented on our site. In the realm of today’s dynamic dating market, EliteSingles. com is a site trying to accommodate the needs of a growing population of mature professionals in search of genuine relationships. It’s best suited for busy people with not enough time on their hands to browse through endless profiles looking for a match.

Users of Elite Singles fill out lengthy personality tests and give all sorts of additional information to allow the site to find persons compatible with them. Everyone can expect to get 3 7 matches a day. Once you receive your daily matches, you can read their profiles carefully and decide which ones you’d like to contact. There are multiple options for communicating with another user including messaging, sending emojis and adding them to your list of favorites for future reference. The registration process is time consuming, and some of the questions can seem a bit odd and off putting. First of all, potential users need to fill out a personality questionnaire, which takes 30 45 minutes to complete.

Unless you are familiar with the theory of psychological testing, some of the questions may appear repetitive or downright awkward. However, they are all there for a reason. Answering them requires some insight into one’s psychological processes as well as an ability to judge one’s physical appearance. For an insecure person, this is bound to provoke apprehension and anxiety. One might argue that adding a couple of pictures to your profile would make a detailed description redundant, but the creators of this site seem to think differently. Being able to own up to your bad traits as well as the good ones is something people you get matched with could appreciate better.

You should not sell yourself short though – always emphasize your best features and don’t be afraid to do yourself justice. If you’re an honest, hardworking person, who’s already achieved quite a lot in life, saying this does not constitute bragging. Liking someone’s photo or information given in their profile is free of charge as well as sending smiles and using the 5 Questions feature. However, sending and receiving e mails is reserved for paid members. Also, the site will only let you see pictures of your matches once you pay membership fees. As for the price of this site’s services comparing to other sites with similar content, we would put it in the upper moderate price range.

Although Elite Singles gives you quotes of their monthly fees, it’s actually impossible to purchase a monthly subscription. The minimum paid membership is for three months, but the monthly fees go down if you decide upon a six month or the whole year’s subscription. You get charged for the whole sum upfront, and after your membership expires, it will get automatically renewed unless you manually unsubscribe or end your paid member status. Unlike many other sites in the dating niche, EliteSingles doesn’t put dozens of photos of half naked people in your face as soon as you click on their homepage. It emphasizes personality features as its developers appreciate the fact that it takes a lot more than physical attraction to bring about a solid base for a lasting relationship.

That said, EliteSingles is not about finding you an easy hook up or a one night stand. Those are not too hard to come by anyway. It suffices to go to a local bar, have a few drinks and small talk to another bar patron. Chances are they are there for the same reason. And if you later discover that you have nothing in common with the person you spent a passionate night with, no one is at a loss. Similarly, if you don’t feel like meeting inappropriate people and wish to start a more meaningful relationship, EliteSingles is an excellent place to look.

What Happened When I Deleted My Dating Apps and Opened My DMs

      Comments Off on What Happened When I Deleted My Dating Apps and Opened My DMs

But at the end of last year, I had a series of dates that seriously had me considering deleting my apps forever. I’d been out with a guy three times before realizing that he was the culmination of every terrible man I’d ever met online — he was condescending, non committal, and he liked to insult my intelligence. He was also spectacular at gaslighting me. The last time we hung out, he spent an entire day at my apartment, and then told me that it was crazy that we spent so much time together so early on. He must not have realized he was an autonomous adult who could leave at any time.

I went into the holidays feeling pretty defeated. When I returned to my dating apps post New Year’s, the lackluster selection of men only made things worse. I have a decent following on Instagram and am super active there and on Twitter. I hear from women and men, alike, about my sex and relationships writing — and so I hoped that, if I told men I was open to the DM slide, they’d go ahead and slide on into my DMs. I thought at least some of the men who are so quick to jump into my mentions with a “well, actually” would also shimmy into the DMs with a “sup. ” Whether I wanted to date another “well, actually” man was a different question, but this was all in the name of science.

It seemed like a very of the moment way to meet people. And considering the fact that my prolific dating app use had resulted in nothing but a string of disappointments, I figured I had absolutely nothing to lose. More on that in a second. First, a note on the hard parts. The first week or so, I definitely felt a pang of fear every time I went to swipe through an app and realized it wasn’t there.

In my app using days, I usually had at least one man I was speaking to who, if we hadn’t already been out, was a decent prospect for a date. I’d come to rely on that hit of male attention, which is one of the more pathetic feeling sentences that I’ve ever written in my life. I had to recognize that, sit with it, then learn to live without that little high of male approval I had been getting from the apps. There was an adjustment period, for sure. This experiment also taught me to occupy the middle a little bit more.

I used to think that if I wasn’t the one doing the pursuing, then I had to be completely passive and just wait to be picked. But being open to meeting men in public or in my DMs!I started to learn the subtle art of flirtation — which, as a sex writer, I’m ashamed to have not really gotten a handle on earlier. I’m now looking men in the eyes and smiling at them when I walk down the street. I’m talking to them at bars. Since I don’t have a swipe app to let someone know that I’m interested, I’m telegraphing interest in a subtle way, which satiates my need for control while also reminding me that I’m only one part of the equation.

He can smile back or not. He can stop to talk, or keep on walking.

Why Dating Apps Are Racist With or Without Ethnicity Filters Rolling Stone

      Comments Off on Why Dating Apps Are Racist With or Without Ethnicity Filters Rolling Stone

This past June, several dating apps — responding to a public outcry against systemic racism in the wake of the murder of George Floyd — removed “ethnicity filters” from their platforms. Grindr was among the first when, on June 1st, at the start of LGBTQ Pride Month, it announced its solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement across its social media accounts, adding that the company had made donations to BLM and the Marsha P. Johnson Institute, and due to its “commitment” to fighting racism on the app, it would be removing “the ethnicity filter from our next release. ” Jack’d and Scruff two other popular gay “dating” apps both owned by Perry Street Software, along with others, quickly followed suit.

I first started using dating apps when Grindr began crawling out of the primordial sea of 2009, since they seemed like a less scary version of flirting with a guy in a loud, dark, sweaty bar. But the scariness of the apps was in how comfortable people felt in being truly awful when there was no one publicly holding them accountable. A disturbing amount of profiles declared “WHITES ONLY,” something I hadn’t seen outside of Jim Crow photos of water fountains in the South. But this wasn’t Alabama or Arkansas; this was Brooklyn and Manhattan — and sometimes less than 100 feet away. These modern day sexual Jim Crows defended their stance as a “preference,” as if one’s race was mutable or a choice. As more people — particularly white dudes who were the objects of this pointed attraction — started calling out these profiles for their blatant racism, the less and less “whites only” appeared.

The same for “No fats, no femmes, no Asians” which has been around for decades, migrating from newspaper personal ads in their paid classified listings. That’s not to say there still aren’t people who, bafflingly, think that it’s OK to write that in a profile, but it seems less prevalent these days. Still, words only go so far. It’s easy to espouse racial equality — to add a BLM to your profile or call out racism in other people’s profiles — but it rings hollow if you don’t actually date people of color, if you don’t see them as whole people, as human beings with wants and desires and fears and insecurities, who need to love and be loved just like you. My experience on these apps has told me the opposite: that I am not worthy of love. That I am not desirable.

That I am nothing unless a white man loves me. It’s what society has taught me through media representations, or lack thereof. It’s what the apps have instilled in me through my experiences and through the experiences of countless others. What, then, are the solutions?How can we fix racism?Or, at the very least, how can we fix racism on these dating apps?Well, non white gays could play into the segregationist theory of those “whites only” profiles and migrate over to platforms that tend to cater to people of color such as Jack’d instead of Grindr — which has other systemic problems to address. Or we could quit the apps all together in some sort of racial boycott, although this pandemic has rendered these apps almost essential for social interaction, romantic or otherwise. But that would undercut the fact that queer people of color have as much right to occupy space, digital or otherwise, as their white peers.

I’ve had to interrogate my desires my entire dating life. Why am I attracted to this guy?Why is this guy attracted to me?What role does whiteness play in my attraction?What role does my blackness play in their attraction or aversion?It’s the burden of my blackness, but it’s time to start sharing that weight. It’s not easy work, but it has given me the tools I need to fight the programming to which I’ve been exposed all these years. It’s an ongoing fight, but there is no “fixing” the racism on these apps if we don’t address the racism of the people who use it.

Why Dating Apps Are Racist With or Without Ethnicity Filters Rolling Stone

      Comments Off on Why Dating Apps Are Racist With or Without Ethnicity Filters Rolling Stone

This past June, several dating apps — responding to a public outcry against systemic racism in the wake of the murder of George Floyd — removed “ethnicity filters” from their platforms. Grindr was among the first when, on June 1st, at the start of LGBTQ Pride Month, it announced its solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement across its social media accounts, adding that the company had made donations to BLM and the Marsha P. Johnson Institute, and due to its “commitment” to fighting racism on the app, it would be removing “the ethnicity filter from our next release. ” Jack’d and Scruff two other popular gay “dating” apps both owned by Perry Street Software, along with others, quickly followed suit.

I first started using dating apps when Grindr began crawling out of the primordial sea of 2009, since they seemed like a less scary version of flirting with a guy in a loud, dark, sweaty bar. But the scariness of the apps was in how comfortable people felt in being truly awful when there was no one publicly holding them accountable. A disturbing amount of profiles declared “WHITES ONLY,” something I hadn’t seen outside of Jim Crow photos of water fountains in the South. But this wasn’t Alabama or Arkansas; this was Brooklyn and Manhattan — and sometimes less than 100 feet away. These modern day sexual Jim Crows defended their stance as a “preference,” as if one’s race was mutable or a choice. As more people — particularly white dudes who were the objects of this pointed attraction — started calling out these profiles for their blatant racism, the less and less “whites only” appeared.

The same for “No fats, no femmes, no Asians” which has been around for decades, migrating from newspaper personal ads in their paid classified listings. That’s not to say there still aren’t people who, bafflingly, think that it’s OK to write that in a profile, but it seems less prevalent these days. Still, words only go so far. It’s easy to espouse racial equality — to add a BLM to your profile or call out racism in other people’s profiles — but it rings hollow if you don’t actually date people of color, if you don’t see them as whole people, as human beings with wants and desires and fears and insecurities, who need to love and be loved just like you. My experience on these apps has told me the opposite: that I am not worthy of love. That I am not desirable.

That I am nothing unless a white man loves me. It’s what society has taught me through media representations, or lack thereof. It’s what the apps have instilled in me through my experiences and through the experiences of countless others. What, then, are the solutions?How can we fix racism?Or, at the very least, how can we fix racism on these dating apps?Well, non white gays could play into the segregationist theory of those “whites only” profiles and migrate over to platforms that tend to cater to people of color such as Jack’d instead of Grindr — which has other systemic problems to address. Or we could quit the apps all together in some sort of racial boycott, although this pandemic has rendered these apps almost essential for social interaction, romantic or otherwise. But that would undercut the fact that queer people of color have as much right to occupy space, digital or otherwise, as their white peers.

I’ve had to interrogate my desires my entire dating life. Why am I attracted to this guy?Why is this guy attracted to me?What role does whiteness play in my attraction?What role does my blackness play in their attraction or aversion?It’s the burden of my blackness, but it’s time to start sharing that weight. It’s not easy work, but it has given me the tools I need to fight the programming to which I’ve been exposed all these years. It’s an ongoing fight, but there is no “fixing” the racism on these apps if we don’t address the racism of the people who use it.

Bumble Dating. Friends. Bizz Reviews JustUseApp Reviews

      Comments Off on Bumble Dating. Friends. Bizz Reviews JustUseApp Reviews

While it is “empowering” for women to make the first move, this app makes it hard to establish a legitimate relationship. It requires location services to be continually on this makes me believe Bumble wants to spy on users because it’s not required on other sites and as a result, you get tons of likes from people who live nowhere near you. I have settings on to match with men within a 90 mile radius, but am inundated with people who are just visiting my city. This is a colossal waste of my time!I don’t want to scroll through hundreds of people who don’t even live in my state and are just looking for a hookup.

When I travel, I have to remember to turn off my location so I’m not swarmed with likes from people across the country. This flaw makes Bumble substandard to other sites like Hinge, where a user sets the city he or she lives in and chooses a radius. At least on Hinge I can view matches and have conversations and dates with local people. If Bumble wants to be known as more than a hookup app, this needs to change. I’m not a fan of allowing an app constant access to my location, and the time wasted scrolling through visitors is making me want to delete it very soon.

Fix this flaw, Bumble, and women will stick around longer. While some women may be fine with finding hookups, many are not. If this app really wants to empower women then give us the choice to opt out of such nonsense. We’re too busy!This app is good for meeting new people, however, it’s kinda unfair to use. What I mean by this is that if you end up liking someone or someone or that person likes you, in order for you to see who that is or for it to be an official match, you must pay $18 just to see who they are that liked you, which is really unnecessary and expensive if all you’re trying to do is meet someone, and god forbid it’s someone you don’t find interesting or doesn’t match your personality, then you’d end up just blowing $18 for no reason when the whole point was just to meet someone YOU thought was perfect for you. And on top of that, the women have to make the first move which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but some don’t make a move at all after matching from what I experienced.

So it then makes it unclear as to whether they even meant to do that in the first place or not, and since I a male can’t say anything first, I’m just left in the dark as to why I haven’t heard from anyone cause I can’t say anything to confirm if she’s willing to meet. Im not trying to complain or say it’s a bad app or anything cause it actually does what it’s supposed to do, but I’m just pointing out the flaws of paying an expensive price just to see who swiped you and whether it was worth the money or not and also pointing out the communication issues between people. I have been a Bumble user for quite sometime now. The site is decent aside from the forced pop ups asking for contributions and “social causes. ” I recently was looking into a subscription for the site and had the incorrect one applied to my account. My first inquiry for assistance was closed without any response and when I tried to follow up they said the matter was resolved and they wouldn’t response to my email.

When I opened a second case, although I shouldn’t have had to in the first place, I received a general response with absolutely no details or personal reflection of my inquiry simply telling me I can purchase the additional subscription for the additional cost, which wasn’t even what I was inquiring about in the first place. You’d think for a site that prides itself on its users and highlights a CEO who makes billions of the site, the customer service would be somewhat adequate to answer the concerns of the users in a timely manner. However that is far from the reality of this app and it’s customer service. Would highly recommend staying away from this app and using one of the competitors, they are better sites anyway. I hope one of the employees reaches out to me in regards to this review, but all we know that will never actually happen.

My subscription will be my last and I have already cancelled any further charges associated with this app. Would recommend anyone else who uses it to do the same. Not a bad app. Haven’t gotten any targeted ads yet, and haven’t been smothered with obvious fakes either. I’m giving the lower rating because they have basically put the “Dealbreaker” buttons in your range settings as a placebo.

I’ve been trying to go mile by mile outward, because there is an entire college just outside of 40 miles away, and my queue will be entirely dominated by people from that college if I don’t restrict my range. What I find happening anyway is I will still see people OUTSIDE that range after I’ve set my range to be a dealbreaker!Even sneakier, I will sometimes find that this setting has been turned off for me, as if they’re trying to pull a fast one on me. In addition, how is it that one day I can swipe through every profile in a specific range, but the next day there’s several less than 10 miles out?Not likely they made their profile day, since that little “new here” bubble appears on their profile. There is clearly some sneaky business going on to restrict your swiping to people who will never see your profile past a certain point, and hold some in reserve so you can swipe on for longer. In the end, however, these practices are less predatory than most of your other options for dating apps. If you’re dead set on picking on, this is probably your best bet.

I completely loved this app. I haven’t ever used dating apps and about a year ago I decided to give them a try. I did some research and decided to try Bumble first as I was looking for something serious. The app is really easy to use, I just wished the chat window was a bit more interactive and allowed to delete messages lol, but again the purpose of this app is just to use it as a first step and continue chatting/texting out of it once you think you have a match. As a woman, is nice to be able to take the first step to initiate the conversation. I had 3 dates with really nice guys before finding my current boyfriend we’ll soon be celebrating our first anniversary!, so we are both very happy we found each other with this app.

The only thing I would recommend them to change is to allow choosing pictures from your phone instead of Facebook. I met one guy who had old photos on Facebook because he just didn’t interact with it a lot, so when we met in person he looked a bit different. Overall it was a good app, and I would recommend it to anyone looking for something serious, guys here were really nice, some really well educated, and a couple were absolute gentleman. I was swiping on Bumble when a notification to be in the spotlight popped up on my phone. Not realizing it, I accidentally clicked on the package and tried to exit out.

It was then that the payment screen came up and when I was trying to click the button to exit, it quickly accepted my fingerprint for payment. I quickly notified Bumble and got a generic response from “Mike” from the “Bumble Feedback Team” saying sorry it’s in the terms that we can’t refund your purchase. I emailed him back that I’m trying to pay for school and was recently laid off and I could really use the money. He quickly got back to me with the SAME EXACT generic email saying sorry it’s in the terms. It’s obvious that he doesn’t care and so I emailed him.

I understand, but accidents happen. Please make the exception. He hasn’t emailed me back. Bumble is this how you train your employees?You pay them to send generic, careless emails to your users?You write in your email to please provide us with feedback as we’re always looking to improve. How about you go the extra mile with your customer service and show that you actually care about the service you are providing to the users and not just money grabbing. Keep employees like “Mike” from the “Bumble Feedback Team”!It’s clear he doesn’t have pride in the company he works for and the job that he does for you.

Judging by the way you handle your customers, I can understand why. I’ve used bumble for about 2 years now and have even managed to meet one of my ex girlfriends on there. Additionally, I think the fundamental aspect of having the woman strike up conversation first is a HUGE bonus, when you consider how unlikely it is for them to do so on other apps. HOWEVER, the company is going in a greedy direction, starting with two significant features: the amount of swipes and the reverse button if you accidentally swiped left. In the last 6 months or so Bumble has significantly reduced your amount of swipes, which is of course a far more important issue for your average man than woman.

Most of these other apps that I’ve used employ this feature of limited swipes, but Bumble used to give you so many more swipes it might’ve been unlimited nowadays I‘llswipe on like 25 people before running out and having to wait a day?My matches have significantly dropped and it’s almost pointless to have this app because it’s just like all the other ones now. The aforementioned features are what made it different and better!, but it seems like they want you to pay for them now, which is understandable paying more for more services but how does it differentiate from the myriad of other apps that have saturated the market?I don’t know. Personally, it’s not enough of an incentive to keep this spacious app on my phone. This app is overall okay. I like that they have a lot of options on things you can add to your profile, but their monthly price is really high. $40 for basically one month, and $20 for a week, just so you can see people who have swiped on you or even to just filter things such as height preference.

But what really gets me here, is the way they handle gender identity and how they categorize it. I’m a trans male, who’s interested in women, and I’ve had no problems in my past with dating women. But if I change my gender identity to “trans man” on this app and set my preference as “women” my feed is changed to nothing but other women who are interested in women, or people looking for “poly” relationships. I don’t think I’m quite what lesbians are looking for bumble?But once I set my gender back to “male” I’m brought back to women who are interested in men. So I have no choice but to just put “male” and then that I’m “trans” in my bio.

So maybe something needs to be changed about that?Why should I feel that I’m less of a man on this app?I get that you try and pair “lgbtq+” with others in that same category, but make it make sense. If I say I’m “straight” I should only be seeing what my preference is. If others choose to not like me because I’m trans, let them make that decision. So Bumble definitely shadowbans or at least outright blocks you. I had Bumble for about 2 years straight. One of the women I met off there ended up stalking me and I deleted the account out of fear she would create fake profiles and try to monitor me.

Needless to say I ended up moving for work and decided to make another account now that I felt safe. Within the first hour I had several likes, however, that stopped instantly after that. Nothing after that first hour I live in a large metropolitan area so this is unusual. I’m also not an ugly guy by any means. It’s not difficult to see who likes your profile since bumble’s blurred image for your queue is easily distinguishable when swiping.

I noticed that one particular like I had showed up in my stack and I didn’t swipe on it initially. I reopened the app later to see my likes disappear. HOWEVER, these profiles still showed up in the stack and they are unable to unlike your profile once they’ve swiped right. This happened with almost all of the likes I had and they weren’t bot profiles. I received no more likes since that first hour and I kept the app for a week and a half to make sure. Pretty pathetic I received whatever “ban” they clearly have in place simply because I deleted my account to protect myself.

Not like I’m deleting and recreating the app every other week. Won’t be recommending or using like I could anyway this app again. I’d say half the profiles are zombie accoumts of women who have zero intention of dating you and just want to add followers to their Instagram accounts or promote their businesses. I know this because I came across three profiles of friends who I know for a fact are not available. And how do you know your profile is being shown to people?You have no way of knowing. There is zero transparency.

So there you are, right swiping hundreds of lovelies with hopes high and fingers crossed, and you’ll never know if tney even saw you. What the app is exceptionally good at is extracting money from you in a series of scammy, unverifiable gimmicks that prey on your vulnerabilities. “Boost” your profile for $2 4 to be seen by more people for 30 whole minutes!What, are you saying you weren’t showing my profile before?!”Super swipe” at $1 3 a pop so she may or may not take notice of you!Their exploitation of human weaknesses at our moments of greatest vulnerability e. g loneliness and rejection is masterful and deeply sinister. Finally, gentlemen and ladies, remember that all these dating apps only make money while you’re still on them. So their incentive to make more money is fundamentally misaligned with yours, which is to find a decent match so you can leave the app.

Go meet real people through real friends, and save yourself a crapton of money, headache and heartache. Bumble is not your friend. There’s an individual on here who does work in my neighborhood and has come onto me in a way that made me highly uncomfortable. He leers at me every time he’s around. I have blocked him on bumble only to see he has popped up since I blocked him about 7 more times!In addition to this, in June I sent a Twitter DM to inquire about the free boost trial.

They told me they were having issues with boost and they would manually apply it to my account. I had about 1,000 profiles to scroll through and I had gotten through about 25 and without changing any preferences, while I was in the middle of looking at the bumble Match Queue, my ENTIRE queue disappeared!There were a few accounts I saved to look at better later and hundreds I hadn’t even seen that disappeared in a flash. I wrote them on Twitter and the bumble rep was less than helpful and it got to the point where they were just rude. Later I told them I wanted the boost removed from my account completely but was told they cannot do that. Since the time Boost was manually applied by them it rendered that whole match queue area useless. The trial has expired; it never worked anyway, but now even the blurred out profiles are gone.

I’ll have guys who “super like” me that don’t show up in the queue as blurred out profiles. Bumble used to be a good app. The boost thing was just an annoyance but now that I feel unsafe with the block feature not working, I had to write a review and disable my account. I think all dating apps has its pros and cons but what Bumble lacks is putting it behind apps like Tinder I hate to even compare it to Tinder and Hinge. For example, Tinder at least has the feature where you can search numbers through your contact list and block them from seeing your profile in the app. I wish Bumble had a similar feature because you do see a lot of the same user profiles in most of the dating apps and I’d like to be able to block someone that I didn’t necessarily connect well with or from having a family member or coworker see my profile.

Also the 24 hour match feature where the woman has to message the guy first and wait for him to respond during that time or else the match completely disappear is just not right. I sometimes go days without checking the app because I’m busy with work and life in general or choose to take mental breaks, before logging back on and then finding my “match” has disappeared. I’ve lost many potential matches this way or some that I’ve messaged and they don’t respond with the 24 hours. At least give the woman who has to message the match” an option to extend that message time so that maybe when the guy logs back on, he has a chance to see the actual message. First off I can find my home town in the app, I live and grew up in a Small town in Ohio and I can find it therefore I cannot complete my profile.

That means I can’t get the 100% and it drives me nuts. Also I don’t understand why y’all need to include our political views as an option on our pages. This country is divide enough as is and having the fact that I am a republican on my page is only gonna drive people who don’t know me away, and I ain’t gonna lie and not say what I am. In today’s political climate someone may look at my page and see the word “Conservative” and think “well if he is an conservative he must be a racist” that is gonna severely affect my matches, also why not include more than just Liberal,Moderate, and conservative. You can’t just generalize all people into three categories Far left, Far right, or Middle I do understand it makes it simple though because I am not any of the options.

Given these options to us will only push us farther apart when the left and right need to do is come together. And pushing us apart is what in fact will happen with this app because of the fact it has a such a large user base. I think this app is really cool, it stands out from other dating apps and makes the “left swipe, right swipe” experience seem fresh. I think however what strikes me as the weakest point of this app is how the matches work. I was out of state and I got a right swipe but I didn’t find the match before I returned home so I was stuck with this like, with no way to find out who it is. I think even an easy way to fix this is just to put the person in the rotation of people I’m swiping on even if they’re out of state so that I can still connect with them or at least let me delete the match.

And this would only be if they’ve already swiped right on you first Also something that stood out about this app was that it gave you three rewinds and there were on a timer and that was cool and now rewinding is a paid feature which I think is a terrible move on the developers part I could just get on tinder to not talk to my matches there’s nothing special about this app anymore accept that the girl goes first which I wish I still had the option to message first not just a single 24 hour extension but that is a discussion for another timeThis is my second account with Bumble. The first one I had to cancel because I simply tried to verify my account by taking a picture which seems like the only way to do so and could not do so. I literally took several photos in the same spots in my house and the app basically told me I’m not me. The app then locked me out and forced and when I contacted customer service for assistance they suddenly could not find an account for me. So stupidly I started another profile, with some of the same pictures and definitely the same information.

So I decided to try and verify my account yet again…. and yet again it will not allow me to verify. I have contacted customer service and have received a basic email with no information that is of use to me. I am now locked out of my account and will likely close my account. This app is really not that user friendly and it makes it impossible to receive any helpful customer service to solve a simple problem.

I recognize that verified accounts add another layer of security which is why I wanted to verify mine but this is too much trouble!Oh and I’ve yet to find anyone who isn’t trying to sell something, have me follow them on another site or who isn’t really married to someone I may know!I like the interface and the chat options. That’s about it. I use the service because everyone else is here. What I dislike the most is how the chat history disappears when the connection is unmatched. If someone actually wanted to be an adult and end the convo maturely it’ll all be for nothing because the other person will never see the last message.

Bumble makes everyone ghosters. What if someone wanted to say, “hey I’m getting off here text me at . ” then unmatches everyone cause they don’t know what happens on the other end. we’d never know!Second, also in the realm of ghosting, I dislike the 24 hour response window. I’m trying to match with quality men and I don’t expect any to log in and respond everyday on a dating app.

That means the most valuable matches are risked being lost; forever. These things make the experience very disappointing. Then there are other nuances like auto sending a gif. Or not being able to swipe back to the chat list instead it initiated the reply function, so annoying. And alerting the other party of you playing the question game.

Real smooth Bumble. Please get rid of the timer and deleting the full chat history. If anything change to a fun response if someone responds in the first 24 hours and only removing the chat typing box after an unmatch. In my past experiences with this app, I’ve met a handful of people, and most of my dates. The key thing to getting a decent amount of matches is great pics and a great bio traditionally known. Although, it may still be hard to get even one match because people commonly have busy lives, hence don’t check their Bumble.

Others just won’t care and will ghost you. But, who am I to judge?I personally prefer to meet people in person, as it’s the old fashioned way. I believe Bumble is one of the best, if not the best app to meet new people. I’ve personally had numerous accounts with Bumble after deleting and reinstalling it SO many times. One thing that discourages me is that there can be so many attractive people in your area but not only is it possible to not have likes, but just to get noticed I feel like you have to buy spotlight.

I definitely feel like it’s way easier for women to get matches compared to men, but I may also be wrong. Unless you are an EXPERT with patience, and you only have an interaction here and there, I think it’s best to meet people in person. I know we live in a digital world, but still don’t believe dating apps are for everyone. My advice, try the app. If it bears good fruit, God bless. If it doesn’t, stay away.

I use a few dating apps Tinder + Hinge as well, and at first I felt like Bumble was the best because I had the option to send a message first, which I liked!Kind of ironic that Bumble actually played out to be the app I feel the most unsafe on. I’ve matched with very sketch people on here. I’m not sure what it is about this app but most of my matches have all had stalker like tendencies and when I actually met up with one of them in person because the others were very obvious red flags concerning SAFETY that I wasn’t willing to try, I felt completely unsafe because they had continued to stalk me, create new profiles and try to catfish me, followed me under different instagram accounts etc until I finally decided to change my phone number. I did report one instance to Bumble and was not notified on how it was handled. Mind you, went out with this guy ONCE. I’m still afraid to this day that he is following me somehow.

I’ve had A LOT better luck with Hinge specifically, their team is super responsive QUICK and take reports seriously, which makes me feel good!Hinge has been fun and I’ve met great people there!Not sure if it’s because Bumble requires the woman to make the first move…?I think the waiting game culminates into an obsessive kind of behavior, personally. Would not recommend to friends I tell them stick with Hinge. Initially I liked the idea of Bumble. I think too often other dating apps allow users to match, but make no effort to actually connect. With Bumble’s “consequence feature” you lose a match if you do not reach out in time.

This ensures serious inquiries and leaves those looking for hookups to the likes of Tinder. With all that being said, I found my Bumble account inaccessible one day due to a political blanket statement regarding certain current events this year 2020. I scoured the pop up looking for the elusive “X” in a corner to get out of it. However, my only option was to click “Accept. ” I have no clue what I was accepting.

It seems Bumble was forcing users to accept their platform’s political interpretation and narrative. I fundamentally disagree with this. Bumble is an app designed ultimately for dating, and not a political organization taking a stand. Which stifles diversity on the app. At this point, perhaps Bumble should even consider removing political orientation from the “about you” section. After being forced to click accept or never access my profile again.

I hastily and happily deleted my profile. Prior to this I would have generally considered Bumble as one of the better dating apps available. However, unless you accept and agree to their political narrative, you’ll find yourself unable to use the app for what it was designed for, dating. In terms of people on the app, Bumble is pretty decent. You have the ability to filter to only verified profiles which is nice.

However, Bumble notifications are what annoy me the most. Why send a notification if you don’t have a like or a match?Some notifications are so misleading and it’s just about getting people back on the platform and back on their phones. It’s about business as usual, trying to keep you on the app for as long as possible while not getting you a match. I get that this is the model that all dating apps function on but at least try to make it less obvious. People who are motivated to find someone don’t need a reminder to go on a dating app. They just need to know when they get a match or a like.

That’s it. Concerning the swiping mechanism, I can’t tell you how often I’ve swiped right or left by accident while trying to scroll down on a profile. I would suggest changing the sensitivity of the swipes or using buttons instead like Hinge. Also something that goes for all dating apps, not just Bumble. Spotlight should be active for at least 6h, not 1h.

I’m glad Bumble gives you 1 free Spotlight a week, but come on, one hour is not enough for the price you would pay if you bought one. I completely loved this app. I haven’t ever used dating apps and about a year ago I decided to give them a try. I did some research and decided to try Bumble first as I was looking for something serious. The app is really easy to use, I just wished the chat window was a bit more interactive and allowed to delete messages lol, but again the purpose of this app is just to use it as a first step and continue chatting/texting out of it once you think you have a match.

As a woman, is nice to be able to take the first step to initiate the conversation. I had 3 dates with really nice guys before finding my current boyfriend we’ll soon be celebrating our first anniversary!, so we are both very happy we found each other with this app. The only thing I would recommend them to change is to allow choosing pictures from your phone instead of Facebook. I met one guy who had old photos on Facebook because he just didn’t interact with it a lot, so when we met in person he looked a bit different. Overall it was a good app, and I would recommend it to anyone looking for something serious, guys here were really nice, some really well educated, and a couple were absolute gentleman. I tried bumble several times and I am finding a pattern.

A lot of men on here are using bumble to gather women to hook up with. They upload great pics and profiles and sit back and watch the messages pour in from women because we are the only one who can initiate contact . So, the good looking guys just sit back and have their choice of woman to prey on for sexual encounters. So very little men on here actually want relationships. Oh and if half don’t reply to your message ladies it’s because their working through the 100s of messages from all us other ladies .

BUMBLE makes men lazy and their being spoiled rotten with attention cause we are ALL knocking at their doors. CONCEPT was empowering at first but has backfired. a lot of men has used this only to their advantage!There are a very small percentage of actually guys navigating with hearts looking for a relationship but I think that’s in any dating app BUT bumble has become the go to for decent looking guys to have their pick of women to get laid . bumble has made it easy for them too!PLEASE change the women message first thing to a feature on whether a woman wants to accept a message from a guy . make both sexes message. EMPOWER the women again with a FEATURE that women can use to chose to unlock or view the message from the guy!BUMBLE I had hope in you!Change up the feature !It’s only benefiting the dudes now believe me !There’s an individual on here who does work in my neighborhood and has come onto me in a way that made me highly uncomfortable.

He leers at me every time he’s around. I have blocked him on bumble only to see he has popped up since I blocked him about 7 more times!In addition to this, in June I sent a Twitter DM to inquire about the free boost trial. They told me they were having issues with boost and they would manually apply it to my account. I had about 1,000 profiles to scroll through and I had gotten through about 25 and without changing any preferences, while I was in the middle of looking at the bumble Match Queue, my ENTIRE queue disappeared!There were a few accounts I saved to look at better later and hundreds I hadn’t even seen that disappeared in a flash. I wrote them on Twitter and the bumble rep was less than helpful and it got to the point where they were just rude. Later I told them I wanted the boost removed from my account completely but was told they cannot do that.

Since the time Boost was manually applied by them it rendered that whole match queue area useless. The trial has expired; it never worked anyway, but now even the blurred out profiles are gone. I’ll have guys who “super like” me that don’t show up in the queue as blurred out profiles. Bumble used to be a good app. The boost thing was just an annoyance but now that I feel unsafe with the block feature not working, I had to write a review and disable my account. I find it very odd that every guy I’ve matched has either never talked or we start talking and I suddenly never hear back from them again.

I’ve only exchanged numbers with two guys on this app and one suddenly disappears after we talked all night and he agreed to take me surfing and the other guy stops talking. All the guys I’ve matched with stop talking mid conversation this has happened 100 percent of the time. I’ve had at least 12+ matches and have been using this app for about a week, I’d say I’m a very attractive woman and have never had problems getting a date so I find it odd that this has happened every single time. The Bumble Bff does this as well but not as badly so I’ve stopped using the dating side of Bumble as it’s super suspect and I haven’t had any success with any of the guys I’ve matched with. I also think their are quite a few fake profiles as well but seeing all the bad reviews I’m starting to believe this app is just trying to get you to spend money as it takes so many swipes just to see whose liked you.

Mine said I had 50+ likes and it stayed that way because Bumble won’t reveal even one of them for a very long time unless you pay for an upgrade. I find it odd that I can’t match with any rally handsome guys on the app but when I go out I attract good looking guys all the time. Anyways I just wanted everyone to know my experience. It’s not you, it’s this app. First of all, how great is it that you can now find a date, friends, and a business partner all in one app?!I can’t speak from a guy’s perspective, but having had this app for almost 2 years, I can say that it’s an absolute game changer. I love the concept that ladies get the first move, which as an introvert, I have come to appreciate; It has taught me to be brave and creative when starting conversations with strangers lol.

It seems like most people on here are genuine, although I do wish there was just a bit more diversity. I love the time limit concept on the matches, it’s quite ingenious. It creates a sense of urgency which is great but also has its cons. The app itself is smooth and very user friendly, plus the no limits on swiping is just the icing on the cake. If you don’t have a paid subscription however, which allows you to see everyone that swiped right on you amongst other great perks I’m sure, it can be easy to waste a lot of time on the app just swiping. They also notify users with cute little positive messages and tips every so often and I love it.

I’ve matched with at least 7 women to which 3 of em never texted me. Idk y this app has the whole “women text first thing” but it somewhat seems like a missed opportunity for the guy. It’s unfair when a women matched with you, but never text simply because women don’t do that all the time. Idk if it’s for empowerment, but normally women don’t text first. Also the women I’ve matched with all seem exactly the same. Idk if it’s just coincidental but they are all are boring and answer like days later.

It’s somewhat confusing, considering they matched me and liked my photos. Last but not least, I’ve encountered women who for some reason delete their accounts. only to make another one with a different name and different pictures?I can tell it’s the same women because “Duh it’s obvious” but it’s creepy and makes me wonder who tf I’m talking to. This app is good because it’s more freedom unlike tinder, I actually feel like I can talk to ppl on here. But it suffers from the same thing tinder does.

It’s just the gratification u can possibly talk to these women. It’s not guaranteed or anything. Again this app isn’t bad, surly better set up then tinder but, just awkward and boring at times. Maybe because I’m in Japan idk. I randomly get push notifications saying I have a match, but no match.

Or the latest saying I won’t be shown to women looking through the app. Unsure why you’d ever want to notify me of this. I’ve paid for this app for about a year and had 0 success. Any like I give to a girl is wasted because they don’t see my profile. After months of receiving no likes or matches, I messaged them. There was no help, and instead I was told I’m stupid and wrong.

Very off brand for Bumble, and very off putting in general. Then a few weeks later I had 100s of people who had liked me all in matter of hours. I’m on other apps, I receive likes and matches so I knew something was wrong and then bam it was fixed. I still don’t receive any forward matches though if someone likes me, I can match with them but if I like them, I’ll never see them because they don’t see me. This app is a sham and unethical. Stop messing with algorithms and make it simple you like someone, they see you automatically.

I’m confident when my subscription runs out I’ll be treated normally by their software but once you pay them they want you to keep paying them being in a relationship is a fast way to stop those payments. It’s in their biz interest to have paying customers receive no likes. Honestly Apple and google shouldn’t distribute this app if that’s true, they’re unethical and don’t practice what they preach. I redownloaded the app a while ago and after every few swipes there was an ad for a “free trial” for bumble boost. It was annoying to constantly have it pop up so I figured I’d give it a try. Come to find out that I was automatically charged for a 3 month subscription.

It should have clearly been stated that I was not eligible for the free trial bc apparently I had tried it years ago even though I don’t remember but instead they just automatically charge you. This is false advertising!I realized this one hour into it and tried to email bumble and cancel and this is what bumble responded with “The reason this instant charge happened was because Apple deemed you not eligible for a trial, possibly because you have already had one previously for Bumble under a different account. In this case it is Apple that chooses to charge you immediately and that’s unfortunately out of our control. ”I asked if they couldn’t cancel it entirely to at least switch me to a one month subscription but they said no. How did they decide to sign me up for the 3 month versus at least a 1 month trial?This is very misleading and deceptive. So shady and money hungry.

Bumble is the worst dating app I have ever used, period. I have used most of the other ones, and have found much more success on practically every other site. Bumble ropes you in with the idea that it is a feminist dating app, but whether by design or not, this really only benefits the guys. Even then, I have come across several reviews from men online stating that they are not having much success with the app either, so I am assuming it only really benefits very attractive guys. As a woman who has not had any issues meeting men on on other dating sites, my biggest problem with this app is that it makes men lazy. The guys who are actually having women message them first don’t put in any effort in conversations, and It’s like the men on this site literally do not know how to hold a conversation and expect the woman to do all the work.

Just because the woman is expected to send the first message, does not mean that you should simply forget how to talk like a normal human being. I am also suspicious that many of the attractive men and attractive women on this site, a lot of the profiles are fake profiles. I’ve done some searches of reviews, and this seems to be the general consensus that many people believe. Don’t waste your money and find another dating app; there are plenty out there that will help you successfully meet more people without being so frustrating and irritating to use. I’m going to make this short and simple.

I’ve been on this app like five times before, and although I’ve met some incredible people and had some great times, I say that online dating is risky. It’s for people who are lonely for some specific reason and want company, but don’t necessarily want to date. That’s not the apps fault, but I just want anyone who’s reading this to know that if things don’t work out it’s not you, it’s just online dating. Now on to technical issues and the men on there. I’ve logged on with my Facebook, and I put ton of care into my bio, even putting attractive photos and I haven’t matched with anyone. I know how this sounds lol but I honestly think my phone or the app is broken at least for my profile.

I tested this my liking a whole bunch of profiles, even guys I’m not interested in or dtf guys and still nothing. It’s been three days!Not one like. It’s kinda peculiar. When I was on here before, within 24 hours there would be tons of matches, but now it’s not working. Also, I think bumble should allow both parties to message first because it’s too much pressure on me to always message first and then sometimes get nothing, because the dude believes he has to be chased and sold. It’s weird.

In conclusion, I’m going to try tinder. I used to have this app to try and look for a date, but after getting a boyfriend not through Bumble I decided to look for friends to match with instead. To my disappointment, you can apparently only match with friends of the same gender. I am male, but I identify as agender meaning I just don’t really feel a connection to the concept of gender. This meant that it just kept suggesting me regular men who were typically straight.

Now I don’t hate straight men, but I have so much more in common with women, trans people, and non binary folks, not to mention men are statistically significantly more violent towards people like me, especially in a conservative state like mine. I have emailed Bumble about it because I was confused as to why no women were showing up, and they basically said they had no intention of changing it. Assuming that males can only be friends with other males and females can only be friends with other females is incredible heteronormative and sexist. I liked everything else about the app, but couldn’t even use it because I had no friends to match with. It would really be as simple as just adding the option to choose which genders show up in the friends part.

I mean, you can match with both men and women when looking for relationships, but not friends?That hardly makes sense. I think there should be a place that shows what ethnicity guys are interested in. I only say that because I am a black woman and there’s mostly white guys on here. And most white guys especially in the South where I live aren’t interested in talking to, let alone dating a black woman. It would be very helpful to have a “Who I’m looking for” feature on the guys’ profile. That way black women like myself are not having to guess on whether a guy would like me or not because of the color of my skin.

I found myself trying to see if a guy had black friends based upon his profile pictures or if he listened to black artists just to make a guess on whether he would even like me. My experience on Bumble made me feel undesirable and like I wasn’t even meant to be on here in the first place. And if that’s truly the case, I think it should be clarified in the App Store that this app is only for white people I don’t mean to be cynical. The only person who did swipe right on me was the only black guy that I seen on here. Imagine that!I just think it would be easier to know beforehand if I had a chance of a guy outside my race liking me instead of just performing endless swipes on guys who wasn’t going to like me in the first place just because I am black.

Their “block” feature is broken. I blocked my co worker so awkward then a few swipes later he popped up again. This happened with different people mind you. This isn’t a very ‘woman friendly’ app after all. Also if men can extend 24 hours why can’t women if a guy doesn’t respond?I used to love this app for dating but with the block feature broken it’s terrible and false advertising. Blocking doesn’t work and women can’t extend a match once you say hi.

Bumble has responded and it’s bologna. Their block feature is broken as this has happened repeatedly no they didn’t make new profiles this happens all the time in the same week I block every guy I see that I know and lo and behold he pops back up and I as a woman can’t extend once I say hi and they don’t check their phone within 24 hours. Maybe I want to extend and am powerless to do so. I get way more matches on tinder and okcupid something about bumbles algorithm isn’t set up for successful matching and I’m a paying member. Their super swipe is a complete waste too. The person never sees it!I was super swiped by a guy and because I paid I could see him up top in green with a heart.

I waited for a week of swiping to see if he’d show up as a match and he never did. Now I feel foolish for wasting the $2 on guys who never even saw me. You’d think it would push the match to the front of the line. Bumble has really made a name for its self. Giving women control over the conversation is a game changer and the pre made conversation starters are to die for and I love how you can set height preferences and get two free filters, but the cons are pretty hefty for me. One major update they need is gender identity.

To be the best app and stay up there it would be great if people knew you are open to everyone. Having a gender identity option would be great for existing users so there is no more confusion. Also a lot of people complain about not getting notifications from the app and I can agree to that. Unless I see a badge icon or check the app I will not know if a guy messaged me and that takes away from the 24 hr window making a lot of us miss out on opportunities because no notification for messages come in but matches do. Some refining on the “looking for “ option would be great.

It’s very difficult talking to someone when you want a relationship and they just want a hookup because the profiles don’t give that good of clarification. All in all bumble is a good app with amazing features and a growing community but within that community does come transgender people, non binary ppl, etc. There should be an option for them. I guess they added a feature for the Bumble Boost Match Queue, that keeps people in the queue that swiped on you and then left town, or keeps people in your queue who swiped on you when you were out of town. Since they rolled out this new feature, over half of the guys in my match queue are super far away from me.

I have my search radius set to 50 miles away. I’m getting guys in my queue who are 100+ miles away. I live in Oklahoma and I have guys still in my queue from FLORIDA that I assume are there from my vacation back in JUNE. I also have guys from Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, and have gotten several from Texas and Colorado. This feature is AWFUL.

If other people want to set their search radius for super far away, fine. But if mine is set to 50 miles, I don’t want to see ANYONE outside that radius!Even if I was in the same town as they were for a short period of time, and even if they swiped on me. If I had wanted to see who was available while I was in Florida, I would have opened the app to look. But I wasn’t interested in guys halfway across the country then, and I’m not interested in them now. It’s been an absolute chore to try and weed through them, but it never seems to end and honestly, I’m exhausted!I hope they fine tune this feature or give us an option to turn it off.

FAQ: “Smart” Meter Basics Stop Smart Meters!

      Comments Off on FAQ: “Smart” Meter Basics Stop Smart Meters!

“Smart” Meters are digital utility meters that send customers’ detailed usage information to the utility using a radio frequency transmitter or over the power lines in the case of Powerline Carrier PLC systems. Some meters AMI mesh networks also contain other capabilities, such as remote shut off. Smart Meters are part of a larger plan to change the electricity grid to a “smart” grid–though there is controversy about whether the customer meter is actually crucial to that change. Electric smart meters are replacing older analog style meters, while gas “smart” meters are generally small devices attached to existing gas meters.

Wireless water meters are also being installed in many regions. In the U. S. , the Federal Communications Commission, a regulatory body with no doctors or medical professionals on staff, has set the guidelines for public RF exposure at a very high level, based on biased and incomplete science dating back to the 1950s. The FCC also appears to have waived some requirements for “smart” meter manufacturers, allowing them to bend several rules that were intended to protect the public, such as not locating one transmitting meter near another transmitting meter colocation.

See this post about the FCC and “smart” meter violations. Apartment dwellers need only look for the “bank” of meters that service their building to see the precaution about colocation violated. Another provision that is ignored is the 20cm distance that is supposed to be enforced, keeping people from coming closer than that about 8 inches. No “smart” meter that we are aware of has ever been installed in a way intended to keep people at that minimum distance. The current attitude of governmental bodies in the United States is that if radiation doesn’t heat tissue, it is considered safe.

Ionizing radiation e. g. x rays can alter molecular structures and standards for this type of radiation have been established. Non ionizing radiation such as cell phone and “smart” meter radiation has been considered safe by government agencies because it doesn’t heat at lower levels of exposure. But a growing number of scientists, researchers, and experts feel this is a flawed position. Clear biological effects have been observed at “non thermal” levels–most notably DNA breaks, breaches of the blood brain barrier, and increases in brain glucose metabolism.

Make a Call or better yet, write a letter via certified mail to your utility number is on your bill and tell them you demand an analog meter. Ask to speak to someone in management. If you have been made ill by your ‘smart’ meter, tell them about it in detail. Tell them you know of the people who have gotten analogs. Tell them you are going to the press if they don’t do the same thing for you they have done for others.

Do not accept a digital non transmitting meter— be aware they also have problems, and are not stable and secure like analog meters. Do not take ‘No’ for an answer—ask to speak to someone higher up and do not give up. I have three smart meters on my home. No savings but severe headaches, erratic hypertension, heart palpitations, burning of my skin and eyes, unable to remain asleep and developed electrosensitivity. No body cares that I have had to leave my brand new home, have to dive three towns over at 5 am to take get my kids to school, am living anywhere I can to get away from the rf’s now that I have become sensitized due to the overexposure to the three meters constant emissions–up to and possibly over 180,000 pulsed transmissions per day.

If the meter hasn’t affect you, yeah for you!Now everybody has the same physiology and biological makeup. Look around–some people get cancer and some don’t. You may have high blood pressure and maybe your spouse doesn’t. You may develop Alzheimer’s and I may not. Does my not developing Alzheimer’s mean that you couldn’t possible have a legitimate case of Alzheimer’s. If You fall and break your leg but I fall and don’t break my leg, does that mean that you can’t really have a broken leg, that you are faking it, or that it is all in your head?I’m so sick of people telling me what is truly happening to people affected by these meters and what isn’t truly happening because of them.

When you live the nightmare, then come talk to me. Otherwise, don’t pretend that you can know what is happening to others. Are you a physicist, electrical engineer, biochemist, physician, researcher?If not, then thanks for your unprofessional opinion. But I will use what is happening to me and all the info out there that shows these things are unsafe for the population. Santa Claus, I agree with your experience on bills going up after the installation of the “smart meter”. My bill has continued to climb since the smart meter was installed without my knowledge or consent 3 years ago.

My previous high bills were around Christmas when we had out door lights running for a couple months. The bills for those months were $110 to $120. Summer months the bills were around $50. I went on a budget pay plan which averaged the payments out over the year. It started at $70 per month and rose continually over the years. After the installation of the smart meters DTE was raising my payment every 3 months until it got to $240 per month.

During this time frame, I was buying and installing energy efficient appliances, devices and lights. NOTHING I have done has reversed this trend of my escalating electric bill. It hasn’t even keep it the bill at the same level. Today as I was preparing my taxes, I pulled the records on line for my utilities and could not believe what I saw for this years electric bills compared to last year. Part of this is my fault because I opted for electronic billing and automatic payments. I did find out when I called to complain and blame the increase on these smart meters, that I could switch back to the analog meter.

There is a charge of $67 to switch back and a monthly charge of a little over $9 to have the meter read but I opted out of the smart meter. I found this blog and your comments while trying to find information from others that have opted out of the smart meter. I’m looking for confirmation that they saw a decrease in their usage and bill. It’s easy to find complaints that their bills went up, as both you and I have seen. What I would like to know is did their bills go down after switching back?What was you experience, if you were able to switch back?Maybe that’s why your head is screwed up now. Believing that tin cans is gonna get ur message across.

Ur an old idiot. Time to retire. As for the rest of us living this bs, it’s time to take action. I am having all of the exact symptoms. I even went to west Texas for a week to get out of this area and wa la. Felt great!Get back, 3 days later.

Dizziness again. I can’t stand this smart meter bs. I saw the guy install it he came in my yard about 3 months ago. That’s when all this began. I had bought the house cash at auction and it hadn’t been lived in for years I think since 2011.

So it had the older meter. He replaced with the new smart meter. I’m pretty pissed. Luckily there’s a lot of electric companies in Houston that compete for business so I’m hoping for the best when I talk to them. Richard, since you brought up the notion that lead is toxic to our brains, are you ignoring that our brains absorb microwaves?Or are you saying that there is no evidence that microwaves have an affect on water?Are you ignoring that our brains use electricity at a much lower frequency to function properly?Did you know that the pineal gland produces melatonin when it doesn’t sense light?Are you aware that the pineal gland recognizes microwaves as light and stops or decreases melatonin production?Did you know that melatonin is four times more powerful than vitamin c?Did you know that women working night shifts have a higher rate of cancer and lower levels of melatonin?Paul, I realize that you like to cite the 3AM wakening as some sort of anomaly related to SmartMeter transmission, but you have never to my knowledge demonstrated the increased transmission activity… and, anyhow, most adults will wake about that time as part of a normal sleep cycle… So, should anyone be surprised that all of their neighbors are waking about that time?Seems pretty normal to me. Anyone else want to weigh in here?AND if anyone can demonstrate the correlation of sleep disturbance with increased SmartMeter activity, then I’m all ears.

I’d love to see your data. com you can purchase the letters you are suppose to send them just pay $9. 95 make sure it is certified letter you sent to the electric company and give them a deadline to install the analog mechanical meter. If they don’t let them know that you will be informing ur attorney and that they are violating your federal constitutional title 18 and that you would call the cops and let them know that your rights are being violated and that it is a health hazard do some research about what you can do he has a lot of knowledge. In the United States, the trademarked name SmartMeter is registered with the SmartSync corporation. When I write about SmartMeters, I am writing about the radio electric meters used by PGandE northern California.

The term smart grid, and super smart grid are not registered trademarks, just names cooked up by promoters of a more advanced power grid. We don’t have a “smart power grid” here in PGandE territory, but there are a few small regions in the U. S. and Canada that do have “smart grids”. The SmartMeters used here are Automated Meter Reading AMR devices, and the radio network that collects the data built into the SmartMeters manufactured by Silver Springs Networks is strictly an AMR system, it is not capable of : real time total electrical use, demand response, bi directional electricity management or recording, monitoring power quality issues or cost of service measurements.

What many people seem to be confused about is the misleading marketing and sales hype. The sales engineers like to refer to the much more advanced and much more expensive Advanced Meter Infrastructure AMI meters. An AMI meter costs about 15 times as much as an AMR meter, and the utility corporations would never deploy such an advanced meter on any residential property unless the customer pays about $5000+ to the utility company and the additional cost of other computer and electrical equipment. The AMR meters that PGandE uses only use the Silver Springs mesh network to communicate total electrical usage in 4 hour blocks of time in data packets to the utility. A commercial/industrial AMI meter supposedly can transmit on a mesh network, but not a Silver Springs Network.

But an AMI meter can transmit on a mobile broadband network 3 4G, Power Line Carrier RF on power lines, RS 232, RS 485 and Analog Phone Modem. In other words, wired not wireless. AMI meters have been in use for decades in commercial/industrial applications such as large radio stations, municipal water and sewer treatment plants, solar and other generation plants, large manufacturing facilities, top secret government operations and transportation systems, etc. , etc. An AMI meter can be programmed to support five demand measures, real time pricing, real time data monitoring, bi directional monitoring for solar and vehicle chargers and return load to the power grid, time of use data, demand response data, transformer and line loss compensation, power factor, 4 quadrant measurements, instrument transformer correction and increased recording channels.

The AMI meters have a programmable sag and swell monitor that logs voltage sag and swell duration down to one cycle, minimum or maximum voltage, coincident current and date and time of occurance. Voltage and current THD Total Harmonic Distortion per phase. TDD Total Demand Distortion, Distortion Power Factor, Displacement Power Factor, Distortion KVA, and distortion KVAh all recordable. Harmonic analysis plots odd and even harmonic magnitudes and phase angles. Programmable diagnostics for voltage imbalance, distortion, current imbalance, and high neutral current. These events may be logged, set an alert, and initiate a call in.

All these features are not to monitor any individual device or appliance down line from the meter , they are to monitor the power quality and condition of the power being fed into the AMI meter. This data is critical to the operation of any manufacturing batch plant, like cyrogenic pharmaceutical operations , pill counting and tabbing machines, food processing plants, financial equipment like currency counters, automated factories, etc. etc. Sooo, now you know the difference between a “SmartMeter” and an advanced AMI meter, and I have never seen an AMI meter with the trademark “SmartMeter” on it. An AMI meter is “SmarterThanSmart”, it’s SuperSlick. SCE has already installed a smart meter at my residence without my consent.

Since I have a concern about the RF danger, I am thinking about designing a Faraday cage to place around the meter. Technically speaking, a Faraday cage stops all incoming and outgoing RF so this would eliminate the RF hazard. A proper design could be achieved using steel mesh which would still allow visual reading of the meter if SCE so desires. Since the cage would only surround the meter and be mounted to MY electrical panel, I would never even physically touch SCE’s meter. I have read about some of the “opt out” programs and I think it is “bull” that the utilities want to charge you to be in these programs.

I should not have to pay extra each month to prevent SCE from poisoning my home. The way I am looking at this is : 1 I am not joining SCE’s opt out program so they can not charge me more per month adn they get no financial benefit that way, 2 Since I have not physically touched SCE’s meter, they have no grounds for action against me, and finally 3 while protecting my family from RF hazards I can also eliminate the primary cost benefit that SCE gets from the smart meter firing all their meter readers. Since these utilities have changed to being an IOU investor owned utility, they only care about profits. They do not care about customer safety. If you can take away the profit potential of these meters, then SCE will drop them. Do you have any thoughts about my approach here?Any idea what you think SCE’s response will be?I do not want SCE to make money from installing a smart meter on my property.

I want to legally make this a money losing proposition for SCE. RE: preventing “trespass” to install devices. In our area we must sign an agreement to receive power in there they have a clause that says they ” the power company employees” can come on the property at any time to do anything they please. That means if they want to go for a Sunday stroll on the land they can. They come in and cut trees and shrubs, make huge ruts in the driveway, knock down gates, leave the mess in there wake having no plan for the fallen trees.

They lie saying one thing and doing another. You chase them off and the sneak on when your not around. AND you can do nothing because of that clause you signed and could not get hooked up to electricity with out signing. They do what they want and call themselves a cooperative. My old analog meter measures kilowatt hours period.

A smart meter measures many other parameters, such as power factor, that when sampled at high speed can serve to provide a ‘signature’ of individual appliances and time of day use. It is not difficult for data mining software, provided with this kind of data, to easily determine the differrence between your turning on a toaster and a motorized device like a hair dryer or power tools. Add the ‘Zigby chip’ options, and it is designed to communicate and even CONTROL your appliances. Now you might think it is nice to have the power company turn on and off your A/C or furnace, for example. What you might not be realizing is that the ability to turn on and off, also allows the utility to selectively DENY SERVICE on an individual appliance…. that is to say, your clothes washer or dryer might not even be run unless it is at night during low power demand times.

That is a whole different thing than providing you with the information to CHOOSE to do your laundry at night. Smart meters may or may not be here to stay!It may depend on the health damage they do, the privacy concerns and the costs to the public. It took years to find out the dangers of asbestos, tobacco, DDT , lead paint etc. So what can we do if a smart meter is installed on our homes?Place a faraday cage around the meter and the meter base, and ground them to the incoming water pipe or a ground rod. A faraday cage will prevent over 90 percent rf from coming in or going out of the smart meter. Make the faraday cageremoveable for inspection purposes only.

magnets will do!Mark the cage as your property, with notice that the inspecting power company to replace it after inspection. Look after your health!Your home must be your safe haven!Consumers Energy’s Opt Out literally is an opt out and you can keep your analog meters but DTE still wants you to pay the upfront fee and monthly fee to have the meters read but still demand the installation of the Smart electric and Advanced gas meters. Our public utilities commission is called MPSC and some judge said they can install these or lets put it this way they can install a meter. Got news for them I already have two. In fact in June they forced me to have the gas meter that had been in basement I bought this house in 2012 to the outside. I was adamant of them not putting in this new kind and had a supervisor here that day.

I don’t understand why anybody would defend the smart meters. I got an idea if you think it will be cost saving and such a great thing then go head have a smart meter and those that choose not to let them not have them …Can anybody defending the utility company forcing a smart meter on people possibly then bang on their chest and say this is a greeat free country . This country was made great for just that freedom of choice … If you people who love smart meters knock yourself out you want wifi go head in fact ill defend your right to have it but please defend mine not to . You want to smoke eat junk food you do that I choose not too Privacy and legitimate health concerns are being ignored by the greedy power companies rolling out wireless smart meters in many countries. The idea of further saturating communities with higher levels of electromagnetic radiation from these dangerous devices, and the increasing indiscriminate use of wireless technology, terrifies those who have detailed knowledge of the adverse health effects and biological harm that microwaves are doing to populations, and to all animal and plant life on Earth.

Smart meter lunacy could well prove to be the most prominent health curse of the 21st century.

‎Bumble: Dating, Friends and Bizz on the App Store

      Comments Off on ‎Bumble: Dating, Friends and Bizz on the App Store

Millions of people have signed up for Bumble to start building valuable relationships, finding friends, and making empowered connections. And now, we’ve been named one of Apple’s 2021 Apps of the Year for connection. Creating new connections has never been easier. Bumble is working to lift the stigma of online dating by employing unprecedented standards for respectful behaviour.

Because of this relentless dedication, millions of people are using Bumble to build valuable relationships every single day. DATE, MEET FRIENDS and NETWORKBumble is at the forefront of matchmaking technology by providing an app that allows users to foster more than just romantic connections. The industry leading app empowers users to swipe through potential connections across three different modes: Bumble Date: On Bumble Date, women make the first move. We’ve changed the archaic rules of the dating game so that you can form meaningful relationships in a respectful way. Bumble BFF: Life is better with friends. Whether you’re new to a city or looking to expand your circle, Bumble BFF is the easiest way to make new friends.

Bumble Bizz: Now we’re in business. Use Bumble Bizz to network, find mentors, and create new career opportunities. Bumble is the first app of its kind to bring dating, friend finding, and career building into a single social networking platform. CHANGING THE RULES OF THE GAMEAt Bumble, women make the first move. In heterosexual matches, the woman has 24 hours to make the first move and the man has 24 hours to respond.

In same sex matches, either person has 24 hours to make the first move, while the other individual has 24 hours to respond, or else the connection expires. By prompting our users to be bold and make the first move we’ve seen over 3 billion messages sent to date. THE BUZZ IS REAL“Bumble exists to empower women. ” Fast Company“Bumble is just an app: but it’s changing the discussion. ” Wired“Bumble offers an alternative that prioritises meaningful connections, with women calling the shots:” UK Sunday Times“Bumble rejects hate speech to make users feel safe on its dating app” Texas Standard“What makes Bumble different from other dating apps. is its focus on giving women all the power.

” Business Insider Bumble is free to download and use. However, we also offer optional subscription packages Bumble Premium and Bumble Boost and single or multiple use paid services for which no subscription is required including Spotlights and SuperSwipes. We offer weekly, monthly, 3 month and 6 month subscriptions giving discounts to the weekly price. The prices may vary per country and are subject to change without notice. Prices are clearly displayed in the app.

Payment will be charged to your iTunes account at confirmation of purchase. Your subscription will automatically renew itself, unless auto renewal is turned off at least 24 hours before the end of the current period. Your account will be charged for renewal within 24 hours prior to the end of the current period. You can manage your subscriptions and turn off auto renewal by going to your Account Settings in the iTunes Store. If offered, if you choose to use our free trial, any unused portion of the free trial period will be forfeited when you purchase a subscription to that publication, where applicable If you don’t choose to purchase Bumble Boost or Bumble Premium, you can simply continue using and enjoying Bumble for free.

Your personal data is securely stored on Bumble be sure to read our privacy policy and terms and conditions:umble Inc. is the parent company of Bumble, along with Badoo and FruitzDon’t subscribe!They cheat you by giving you lots of matches on the first day. Like 150+ within the first few hours So obviously i paid because i was curious to see who were my matches and swiping is tiring. The moment i paid, the number dropped to nothing. Like 4 a day.

And a lot of the matches turned out to be poor quality accounts. Like blurred selfies of foreign workers or whatever lol. Don’t know if real guys or not, but i also don’t know what kind of normal girl would want to match with them. Also too many guys who list ‘pubs’ ‘whiskey’ and ‘gym’ as their main joys in life, so good luck trying to start convos based on those boring topics lol.

Tinder app Wikipedia

      Comments Off on Tinder app Wikipedia

Sean Rad founded Tinder in 2012 at a hackathon held at the startup incubator Hatch Labs in West Hollywood. By 2014, Tinder was registering about one billion daily “swipes” and reported that users logged into the app on average 11 times a day. In 2015, Tinder was the fifth highest grossing mobile app, and in 2019 it surpassed Netflix in annual spending. In 2020, Tinder had 6. 2 million subscribers and 75 million monthly active users.

As of 2021, Tinder has recorded more than 65 billion matches worldwide. In May 2013, Tinder ranked in the top 25 social networking sites according to app data. Tinder’s selection function, which was initially click based, evolved into the company’s swipe feature. The feature was established when Rad and Badeen, interested in gamification, modeled the feature off a deck of cards. Badeen then streamlined the action following a trial on a bathroom mirror. Tinder has been credited with popularizing the swipe feature many other companies now use.

In August 2017, Tinder Gold, a members only service of exclusive features launched. Tinder Gold became an instant hit, boosting Match Group’s total revenue by 19% compared to 2016. This boost in revenue and profits came as Tinder’s paid member count rose by a record 476,000 to more than 2. 5 million, driven by product changes and technology improvements. The popularity of Tinder Gold led to a surge in Match Group shares and record high share prices.

Greg Blatt, Match Group’s then CEO, called Tinder’s performance “fantastic,” and stated that the company was driving most of Match Group’s growth in late 2017. After building a profile with a Facebook login or cell phone number, users can swipe yes right or no left to determine if they have a potential romantic match. Chatting on Tinder is only available between two users that have swiped right on one another’s photos. The selections a user makes are not known to other users unless two individuals swipe right on each other’s profiles. However, once the user has matches on the app, they are able to send personal photos, called “Tinder Moments”, to all matches at once, allowing each match to like or not like the photos.

The site also has verified profiles for public figures, so that celebrities and other public figures can verify they are who they are when using the app. In March 2014, media and internet conglomerate IAC increased its majority stake in Tinder, a move that which is believed to have valued Tinder at several billion dollars. In July 2015, Tinder was valued at $1. 35 billion by Bank of America Merrill Lynch based upon an estimate of $27 per user on an estimated user base of 50 million with an additional bullish estimate of $3 billion by taking the average of the IPOs of similar companies. Analysts also estimated that Tinder had about half a million paid users within its userbase that consisted mostly of free users. The monetization of the site has come through leaving the basic app free and then adding different in app purchase options for additional functions.

Tinder is used widely throughout the world and is available in over 190 countries and 56 languages. As of September 2021, an estimated 75 million people used the app every month. In late 2014, Tinder users averaged 12 million matches per day. However, to get to those 12 million matches, users collectively made around 1 billion swipes per day. Tinder now limits users’ number of available swipes per 12 hours based on an algorithm to make sure users were actually looking at profiles and not just spamming the app to rack up random matches.

The minimum age to sign up and use Tinder was 18. As of June 2016, Tinder is no longer usable by anyone under 18. If minors were found being under 18, they were banned from using Tinder until they were 18. As of April 2015, Tinder users swiped through 1. 6 billion Tinder profiles and made more than 26 million matches per day. More than 558 billion matches have been made since Tinder launched in 2012.

On June 30, 2014, former vice president of marketing Whitney Wolfe filed a sexual harassment and sex discrimination suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court against IAC owned Match Group, the parent company of Tinder. The lawsuit alleged that Rad and Mateen had engaged in discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation against her, while Tinder’s corporate supervisor, IAC’s Sam Yagan, did nothing. IAC suspended CMO Mateen from his position pending an ongoing investigation, and stated that it “acknowledges that Mateen sent private messages containing ‘inappropriate content, but it believes Mateen, Rad and the company are innocent of the allegations”. The suit was settled with no admission of wrongdoing, and Wolfe reportedly received over $1 million from the settlement. In August 2018, co founders Sean Rad and Justin Mateen and eight other former and current executives of Tinder filed a lawsuit against Match Group and IAC, alleging that they manipulated the 2017 valuation of the company to deny them of billions of dollars they were owed.

The suit charges that executives of Match Group and IAC deliberately manipulated the data given to the banks, overestimating expenses and underestimating potential revenue growth, in order to keep the 2017 valuation artificially low. Tinder’s 2017 valuation was set at $3 billion, unchanged from a valuation that had been done two years earlier, despite rapid growth in revenue and subscribers. The plaintiffs sought upwards of $2 billion in damages. The trial is scheduled to begin on November 8, 2021. Critics have raised concerns about Tinder regarding issues including cybersecurity, data privacy, and public health. Public health officials in Rhode Island and Utah have claimed that Tinder and similar apps are responsible for an increase in some STDs.

In February 2014, security researchers in New York found a flaw which made it possible to find users’ precise locations for between 40 and 165 days. Tinder’s spokesperson, Rosette Pambakian, said the issue was resolved within 48 hours. Tinder CEO Sean Rad said in a statement that shortly after being contacted, Tinder implemented specific measures to enhance location security and further obscure location data. In August 2016, two engineers found another flaw that showed all users’ matches’ exact location. The location was updated every time a user logged into the app and it worked even for blocked matches.

The issue was detected in March 2016, but it was not fixed until August 2016. In July 2017, a study published in Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing found that Tinder users are excessively willing to disclose their personally identifiable information. In September 2017, The Guardian published an article by a journalist who requested all data that the Tinder app had recorded about her from the company and found that Tinder stores all user messages, user locations and times, the characteristics of other users who interest a particular user, the characteristics of particular users of interest to other users, and the length of time users spend looking at particular pictures, which for the journalist amounted to 800 pages of detail. In 2021, Tinder partnered with and invested in Garbo, a non profit background check company. The partnership was intended to add a feature enabling users to run background checks on their matches. Critics believed the integration of background check software discriminates against one third of the adult working population in the US who have criminal records.

Another issue that critics raised was the unreliability of background checks since they disproportionately impact people from Black and other ethnic minorities. A Prison Policy Initiative spokesperson claimed that because the US applies laws unequally, introducing criminal background checks to dating apps would filter out marginalized groups of people. Moreover, public records and court documents often contain erroneous or outdated information. Garbo does not advertise drug possession charges or traffic violations in attempt to combat further marginalization. The New York Times wrote that the wide use of Tinder could be attributed not to what Tinder was doing right but to flaws in the models of earlier dating software, which relied on mathematical algorithms to select potential partners.

Relationship experts interviewed by the newspaper stated that users used the photographs that come in succession on the app to derive cues as to social status, confidence levels, and personal interests. Marie Claire wrote that the app was “easy to use on the run,” “natural,” and “addictive” due to the game style of Tinder, but that “. it’s hard to focus,” and Tinder “is still very casual sex focused many are only on Tinder for a quick hook up, so if it’s a serious relationship you’re after this app might not be for you. “In August 2018, Natasha Aponte made headlines after conning dozens of men she had matched with on Tinder to meet her in Union Square, Manhattan at 6 p. m.

for a “Live Tinder” dating competition. According to some, they received an unsolicited message from Aponte inviting them to meet her. Upon arrival, the men discovered that they had been conned into competing for Aponte, who explained that “she was over dating apps and wanted instead for her suitors to participate in a competition. ” The stunt was intended to point out the superficiality of online dating apps like Tinder which function on a “hot or not” ideology. Producer Ron Bliss told CBS News that “there’s a lot of issues related to the online dating, it’s sexist, ableist .

there’s a lot of problems. “Men use dating apps and websites at a higher frequency than women do—measured by frequency of use and number of users both. The first study on swiping strategies, conducted by Queen Mary University in London, reveals that “men tend to like a large proportion of the women they view but receive only a tiny fraction of matches in return—just 0. 6 percent”. On the contrary, women are much more selective about who they swipe for, but match at a 10% higher rate than males do. The study then went on to analyze the difference in responsivity between males and females—finding that women are more engaged and take longer to craft a response, while men usually send shorter messages, averaging 12 characters in length.

According to University of Texas at Austin psychologist David Buss, “Apps like Tinder and OkCupid give people the impression that there are thousands or millions of potential mates out there. One dimension of this is the impact it has on men’s psychology. When there is . a perceived surplus of women, the whole mating system tends to shift towards short term dating,” and there is a feeling of disconnect when choosing future partners. In addition, an article written for The Atlantic suggested that the appearance of an abundance of potential partners causes online daters to be less likely to choose a partner and be less satisfied with their choices of partners. In a 2018 article written for The Atlantic, it is mentioned that data released by Tinder itself in 2018 has shown that of the 1.

6 billion swipes it records per day, only 26 million results in matches a match rate of approximately only 1. 63%. Also, a Tinder user interviewed anonymously in an article published in the December 2018 issue of The Atlantic estimated that only one in 10 of their matches actually resulted in an exchange of messages with the other user they were matched with, with another anonymous Tinder user saying, “Getting right swiped is a good ego boost even if I have no intention of meeting someone,” leading The Atlantic article author to conclude “Unless you are exceptionally good looking, the thing online dating may be best at is sucking up large amounts of time. “In August 2015, journalist Nancy Jo Sales wrote in Vanity Fair that Tinder operates within a culture of users seeking sex without relationships. In 2017, the Department of Communications Studies at Texas Tech University conducted a study to see how infidelity was connected to the Tinder app.

The experiment was conducted on 550 students from an unnamed university in the Southwestern United States. The students first provided their demographic information and then answered questions regarding Tinder’s link to infidelity. The results showed that more than half reported having seen somebody on Tinder who they knew was in an exclusive relationship 63. 9%, while 73. 1% of participants reported that they knew male friends who used Tinder while in a relationship, and 56. 1% reported that they had female friends who used Tinder while in a relationship.

Psychologists Douglas T. Kenrick, Sara E. Gutierres, Laurie L. Goldberg, Steven Neuberg, Kristin L. Zierk, and Jacquelyn M.

Krones have demonstrated experimentally that following exposure to photographs or stories about desirable potential mates, human subjects decrease their ratings of commitment to their current partners. David Buss has estimated that approximately 30 percent of the men on Tinder are married. Prior to Tinder’s launch in 2012, most online dating services matched people according to their autobiographical information, such as interests, hobbies, future plans, among other things. The advent of Tinder, however, meant that first impressions could play a crucial role. For social scientists studying human courtship behavior, Tinder offers a much simpler environment than its predecessors. In 2016, Gareth Tyson of the Queen Mary University of London and his colleagues published a paper analyzing the behavior of Tinder users in New York City and London.

In order to minimize the number of variables, they created profiles of white heterosexual people only. For each sex, there were three accounts using stock photographs, two with actual photographs of volunteers, one with no photos whatsoever, and one that was apparently deactivated. The researchers pointedly only used pictures of people of average physical attractiveness. Tyson and his team wrote an algorithm that collected all the matches’ biographical information, liked them all, and then counted the number of returning likes. They found that men and women employed drastically different mating strategies.

Men liked a large proportion of the profiles they viewed, but received returning likes only 0. 6% of the time; women were much more selective but received matches 10% of the time. Men received matches at a much slower rate than women. Once they received a match, women were far more likely than men to send a message, 21% compared to 7%, but they took more time before doing so. Tyson and his team found that for the first two thirds of messages from each sex, women sent them within 18 minutes of receiving a match compared to five minutes for men. Men’s first messages had an average of a dozen characters and were typical simple greetings; by contrast, initial messages by women averaged 122 characters.

Tyson and his collaborators found that the male profiles that had three profile pictures received 238 matches while the male profiles with only one profile picture received only 44 matches or approximately a 5 to 1 ratio. Additionally, male profiles that had a biography received 69 matches while those without it received only 16 matches or approximately a 4 to 1 ratio. By sending out questionnaires to frequent Tinder users, the researchers discovered that the reason why men tended to like a large proportion of the women they saw was to increase their chances of getting a match. This led to a feedback loop in which men liked more and more of the profiles they saw while women could afford to be even more selective in liking profiles because of a greater probability of a match. The feedback loop’s mathematical limit occurs when men like all profiles they see while women find a match whenever they like a profile. It was not known whether some evolutionarily stable strategy has emerged, nor has Tinder revealed such information.

Tyson and his team found that even though the men to women ratio of their data set was approximately one, the male profiles received 8,248 matches in total while the female profiles received only 532 matches in total because the vast majority of the matches for both the male and female profiles came from male profiles with 86 percent of the matches for the male profiles alone coming from other male profiles, leading the researchers to conclude that homosexual men were “far more active in liking than heterosexual women. ” On the other hand, the deactivated male account received all of its matches from women. The researchers were not sure why this happened.

The Republican Party is now undeniably the antivaccine party RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

      Comments Off on The Republican Party is now undeniably the antivaccine party RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

So it’s finally happened. During my partial hiatus from this blog last week, President Biden laid out his plans going forward to combat the COVID 19 pandemic. Prominent in his six pronged plan to address the COVID 19 pandemic is a federal vaccine mandate. Specifically, President. Biden is mandating either vaccination against COVID 19 or weekly testing for all federal workers and workers for companies on federal government contracts, as well as all employees of hospitals and other health care facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement for their services.

In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSHA will issue a rule using emergency authority requiring employers with more than 100 employees to ensure that their workers either be vaccinated against COVID 19 or tested weekly. In addition, OSHA’s new Emergency Temporary Standard will also “apply to public sector state and local government workers, including educators and school staff, in the 26 states and two territories with a state OSHA plan. ” This is a long overdue federal response to the pandemic, and, predictably, the Republican Party is losing its mind over it. As Amber Ruffin’s regular segment on her weekly show asks, “How did we get here?” Given that I’ve been explaining for several years now how Republicans have been increasingly embracing not just opposition to vaccine mandates, but actual antivaccine misinformation as no longer fringe but part of the mainstream of the party, I thought that Joe Biden’s recent announcement and the Republican Party’s reaction to it provided a perfect excuse to review some history, given that it’s been two years since I last addressed this specific question. Unfortunately, that history shows that the Republican Party is no longer just flirting with the antivaccine movement, as was true six years ago; rather, the Republican Party has become the antivaccine party.

So…how did we get here?Of necessity, a lot of this story will be a rehash, but it’s a timely one given President Biden’s executive order. Also, given that I haven’t put this story together in a coherent fashion in at least a couple of years I think it’s worthwhile to risk this post being a rehash if it saves my readers from having to click on too many links. Not that I don’t encourage you to click on the links, I hasten to add. It’s just that I’ve tried to structure this post so that you don’t have to click on them unless you’re interested in more information. There was a time not so long ago perhaps a decade, but certainly no longer than 20 years ago, when there was a widely held stereotype that antivaxxers were generally hippy dippy, granola crunching lefties.

Indeed, given the association between conservatives and right wing populists and antivaccine activism today, it’s definitely a stereotype that has persisted long past any resemblance to reality. Be that as it may, back in Jenny McCarthy‘s heyday as the celebrity face of the antivaccine movement around 13 years ago, contributing to that perception were prominent left wing antivaxxers, such as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. still an antivax leader, and now, predictably, an antimask COVID 19 conspiracy theorist and a number of Hollywood celebrities like Rob Schneider admittedly, I’m being generous in my definition of “celebrity”, Mayim Bialik, and Robert De Niro. It’s also true that areas with a lot of affluent people on the coasts whose politics tend to lean heavily liberal, have been focuses of outbreaks of vaccine preventable illnesses over the years.

In actuality, this perception of a strong leftward political bias in the antivaccine movement was never really accurate. It’s long been known that antivaccine views tended to be the pseudoscience that crossed political boundaries. Indeed, there has always been a libertarian and right wing component to the antivaccine movement, with a very strong strain of antivaccine views on the right as well. Examples included General Bert Stubblebine III’s Natural Solutions Foundation, far right libertarians, and others who distrust the government, including government recommended vaccine schedules, an observation that led me once to ask in 2013 why the antivaccine movement seemed so at home among libertarians. Indeed, at the right wing Libertarian FreedomFest in 2012, I was privileged to watch a debate between Julian Whitaker and Steve Novella about vaccines.

At the debate, vaccine pseudoscience flowed freely from Whitaker in a most embarrassing fashion, and I couldn’t help but note that FreedomFest that year featured two screenings of Leslie Manookian’s antivaccine propaganda piece, The Greater Good and had featured antivaccine talks in previous years. Ironically, at one point, one of the antivaccine bloggers at the crank blog Age of Autism blamed “progressivism” for failing to “get” autism. Translation: From his perspective, his fellow progressives don’t accept the vaccine autism link the way he would like, while conservatives apparently did. It is no coincidence that the most powerful antivaccine legislator in the 1990s and into the first decade of the 2000s was Representative Dan Burton R Indiana, who for many years was the foremost promoter of the pseudoscience claiming that vaccines cause autism. His activities in support of antivaccine views as chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform were legion while he was in Congress and Republicans controlled the House.

For instance, Burton held showboating, Kangaroo court style hearings about thimerosal and autism back in 2002 that now remind me, more than anything else, of the hearings about Stanislaw Burzynski by Rep. Joe Barton R Texas back in the 1990s. Burton also was known for harassing FDA officials over thimerosal in vaccines, and at one point tried to insert himself into the Autism Omnibus hearings by writing a letter to the Special Masters asking them to consider crappy scientific papers e. g. , a this paper, which was pure crap allegedly supporting a link between thimerosal containing vaccines and autism.

Rep. Burton wasn’t the only antivaccine Republican, even back in the day before Donald Trump and long before the pandemic. For example, his successor as chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Darrell Issa R California, flirted with the antivaccine Canary Party, although in fairness it wasn’t always clear whether Issa was a true believer or just opportunistically took a large donation from a prominent wealthy antivaxxer named Jennifer Larson and then gave her a hearing on vaccines and autism to make it look as though she’d gotten something for her money. Fortunately, Issa’s hearing in 2012 was a bust. Before that elsewhere in California, The Canary Party, a rabidly antivaccine group that pushes the idea that toxins in vaccines are responsible for autism and all sorts of health issues and that autism “biomed” quackery is the way to cure vaccine injury teamed up with the East Bay Tea Party to oppose vaccine mandates in California.

Moving away from California, Michelle Bachman was also known to drop the occasional antivaccine bon mot as well. Meanwhile, the Texas Republican Party famously included a “vaccine choice” plank in its 2012 party platform. Also on the right wing antivaccine political crew back in those days was Rep. Bill Posey R Florida, who has in the past introduced dubious legislation demanding the Holy Grail for antivaccinationists, a “vaccinated versus unvaccinated” study. True, Posey did co sponsored that bill with Carol Maloney D New York, but she’s the only Democrat holding federal office in the last decade whom I’ve ever been able to find willing to go on record supporting a piece of legislation giving the antivaccine movement something it desperately wanted.

More recently as in six years ago, Rep. Posey was promoting the “CDC whistleblower” conspiracy theory that ended up forming the basis of Del Bigtree and Andrew Wakefield‘s 2016 antivaccine propaganda movie disguised as a documentary VAXXED. It hasn’t been just right wing politicians pandering to antivaxxers, either. Fox News, for instance, has long played footsies with antivaxxers. Prepandemic examples abound, such as when the Fox and Friends crew did sympathetic pieces about Andrew Wakefield, interviews with Dr.

Bob Sears, SafeMinds’ anti vaccine PSA campaign, Louise Kuo Habakus who is virulently anti vaccine herself and has long been politically active in New Jersey pushing for transparent “philosophical exemption” laws. During the previous pandemic you know, the H1N1 pandemic that everyone’s forgotten about now, FOX News fell for the story of a young woman claiming dystonia from a vaccine. Of course, today Fox News feeds its viewers a steady diet of antivaccine propaganda from its star pundits Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and others, to the point where it’s been speculated that Fox News could be sued if anyone dies because of acting on its antivaccine rhetoric. By 2015, the rightward shift of the antivaccine movement was undeniable, to the point where the national media started noticing. What really fueled this shift was the political reaction to SB 277, the law passed in 2015 in California in response to the Disneyland measles outbreak of December 2014. In brief, SB 277 eliminated nonmedical “personal belief” exemptions to school vaccine mandates, including religious exemptions.

After SB 277, only valid medical exemptions could be used to excuse a child from school vaccine requirements. Long before SB 277, antivaxxers had discovered that appealing to right wing political messages, such as “freedom,” “parental rights,” and opposition to government mandates, was a powerful message that drew in conservatives and libertarians who might not have been antivaccine. While this appeal had been going on years before SB 277, in 2015 it was turbocharged, and the question of school vaccine mandates began its unfortunate road to being far more politicized than mandates had ever been before. Groups like Texans for Vaccine Choice, Michigan for Vaccine Choice, and all the other statewide grassroots groups for “vaccine choice” became forces to be reckoned with, with antivaxxers joining the 2016 Presidential campaign to raise money and lobby to oppose vaccine mandates and demand “investigations” of links between vaccines and autism. Antivaccine views even infected the 2016 Presidential campaign, and it wasn’t just because Donald Trump, with his antivaccine statements dating as far back as 2007 blaming vaccines for autism, was the frontrunner for the GOP nomination.

Would that it were just him!Unfortunately, several of the GOP candidates, including Ben Carson, Rand Paul who really is antivaccine, Chris Christie, and Carly Fiorina remember her?pandering to antivaxxers. Sadly, several of the GOP candidates from 2016, such as Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Ted Cruz, and former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who did at the time speak up and strongly support school vaccine mandates have since—shall we say?—adjusted their views to oppose vaccine mandates of any kind. In my own state in 2018, a Michigan Republican candidate for Congress in my own district held an antivaccine “roundtable” during the primary season, which included my outgoing antivaccine state Senator Patrick Colbeck who was running for governor and my state Representative Jeff Noble, who, if not antivaccine himself, clearly was antivaccine adjacent.

This not so dynamic duo had cosponsored a bill not just once, but twice, both sets of bills fortunately never making it out of committee that would have stripped the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services of the power to require parents requesting religious and philosophical exemptions to school vaccine mandates to travel to their county health office for an educational program about vaccines. They also co sponsored a dubious “informed consent” actually, fear mongering misinformed consent about “fetal cells” in vaccines. By then, I was wondering whether the GOP had become the party of antivaxxers. By 2019, the year before the pandemic, the situation had gotten even worse. With appeals to “freedom” and “parental rights” serving as a “gateway drug,” if you will, to antivaccine conspiracy theories, the Republican Party had not aligned itself decisively with antivaxxers. Examples abounded even prepandemic, with the Ohio Statehouse having become a hotbed of antivaccine Republican legislators, Oregon Republicans refusing to work until a provaccine bill was shelved, and multiple openly antivaccine Republican candidates running for office.

Going beyond even that, antivaxxers have even attracted far right wing militia groups to their cause, a trend that has accelerated during the pandemic, with such groups contributing to the harassment of health care workers and even cancer patients at hospitals with vaccine mandates and, more recently, violent confrontations. As journalist Tara Haelle recently put it, the pandemic is the moment antivaxxers have been waiting for. Dr. Jha is far too kind. Although I once believed this, it’s now been a long time since I could believe that Republicans “care about getting beyond this pandemic every bit as much as Democrats do. ” Their actions demonstrate clearly that they do not, unless you count their wishful thinking that everything will be hunky dory if we just appeal to individual responsibility and put no restrictions with actual teeth on anyone or any business, as “caring.

” Given the extreme resistance of nearly the entire Republican Party to very basic public health interventions to mitigate the spread of COVID 19 and minimize the death and damage caused by the pandemic, I can no longer hold this “both sides” position that characterizes Republican resistance to vaccine and mask mandates as an honest disagreement on the best strategy to slow the pandemic. Let’s consider the Great Barrington Declaration GBD as an example of what I’m talking about. You will recall that this was a declaration sponsored by the right wing think tank the American Institute for Economic Research AIER and spearheaded by three scientists, Dr. Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard and Dr.

Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford, who called on countries to end “lockdowns” and advocated “focused protection” of the vulnerable, ignoring the simple fact that it is impossible to protect the vulnerable from COVID 19 when the coronavirus is spreading more or less unchecked through the “healthy” population responsible for the care of the vulnerable. You’d think that GBD signatories, opposing “lockdowns” and mask mandates, would be all for mass COVID 19 vaccination as the single most powerful remaining tool for “focused protection. ” You’d be wrong:Sure, there’s plenty of hypocrisy among these Republican governors. But ask yourself: Why do Republican governors and, in fact, Republicans at all levels of government feel the need to attack President Biden for his decision, regardless of their state’s own vaccination policies?The reason is simple. The COVID 19 pandemic has completed the turn of the Republican Party to the dark side, which began at least a decade ago.

The Republican Party is now fully the antivaccine party, and it doesn’t even really pretend any more. Some members might convince themselves that they are really “anti mandate” and “pro freedom” rather than antivaccine and perhaps some of them really are. However, appeals to “freedom” were the gateway through which antivaccine conspiracy theories and pseudoscience passed to infect the GOP base to the point where politicians like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Rep. Mo Brookes, and a depressing number of other Republican pols pushing antivaccine antivaccine disinformation that wouldn’t be out of place on RFK Jr. ’s website.

Meanwhile, GOP politicians cynically pander to antivaxxers in the Republican base and gin up their resistance to vaccine mandates, all to increase enthusiasm for opposing other Democratic policies as well. There are a exceptions, such a Governor Mike DeWine in Ohio, but they are becoming increasingly uncommon. The rest of the Republican Party seems to have degenerated into a death cult, in which the eugenics of letting the virus rip through the population in order to achieve “natural” herd immunity plus those who voluntarily get the vaccine is the order of the day, the cost in suffering and death be damned. Of course, the descent of the Republican Party into antivax conspiracy theories and mindless resistance to anything perceived as a “vaccine mandate” or government action to promote public health is a bit of a “chicken or the egg?” question. Did this unfortunate turn of events come about because the base pushed Republican politicians towards resistance to vaccine mandates or because Republican politicians, seeing a potential source of activism and support, encouraged antivaccine views?Why not both?In any event, the outreach by antivaxxers to right wing groups, both real grassroots and astroturf and, make no mistake, there is a big astroturf component to the anti public health movement, has been wildly successful. President Biden’s decision to impose vaccine mandates, as justifiable as it is from a scientific and policy viewpoint, will unfortunately only fan the flames of antivaccinationism in the Republican Party even more, even if he had little choice but to act.

if righties stress the importance of freedom and self determination, the leftists have always singled out Nature as their motivation of course, these two paths intersect at G d : some of the more vocal advocates years ago spoke about the horrors of injecting foreign, lab produced substances into pure infants, much as they rejected SBM care for childbirth care and other medical issues. Nature loving mothers’ sites sprung up on the net and on FaceBook. Amongst those I have surveyed for a long time, I notice a shift towards libertarian ideas although they still claim Nature is Best. Some of the formerly left leaning advocates have even deserted their party or have grown disillusioned with it: Del who grew up in Boulder!, Rossi, Wright and other anti vax mothers like those at the now ostensibly defunct TMR . RFK jr is an interesting case because of his familial roots and his environmentalism but he also sounds like a freedom hawk especially when he sidles up to Trump and diverse political protestors in Germany that included unsavoury types. @NWO ReporterIf you can’t find what you’re looking for, then you’re not looking very hard.

The CDC is actively monitoring VAERS for phenomena such as myocarditis and blood clotting OVID Shimabukuro 508. pdf among other adverse events that are plausibly caused by vaccination. In any case, you’re asking for a negative to be proven e. g. that the vaccines aren’t causing death and destruction. That’s simply not possible.

Furthermore, any serious analysis of unverified reports in any context would be unwise. I invite you to ponder why that’s the case. Even so, deaths reported in association with the covid vaccines may vastly overshadow any previous vaccine, but the VAERS death rate is not above the normal background death rate. The reason for the increase in reports is that healthcare providers are required by law to report any and all adverse events – coincidental or not – to VAERS . With hundreds of millions of doses administered, coincidences add up quickly; especially when millions of the old and dying with not much life in them anyway are given the shot. @NWO ReporterI don’t expect you to pull your head out of the sand any time soon, but at least read the links I posted.

True, I misspoke when I said “required by law,” but healthcare providers are required by the EUAs to report serious AEs to VAERS. That’s exactly what’s happening. Do you really expect people who have a bad reaction to one of the vaccines to just suck it up or to go die in a ditch unknown to anyone?No, they go to their doctor or to the emergency room, and whoever treats them reports the issue to VAERS. If they’re in nursing home, the staff will report it. Your assumptions of general incompetency are quite disturbing. As for why no one is doing this magical “analysis” that would reveal the great catastrophe that you think is occurring, I already told you.

The CDC is reviewing VAERS reports as they come in. VAERS isn’t good for much more than that. It’s a series of anecdotes, and the plural of anecdote is not data, as Dr Daniel Griffin likes to say. Other databases – VSD etc – consist of actual data and are thus able to be statistically analyzed. Brush up on statistical inference and listen to TWiV if you actually care to find out what’s happening. Stop JAQing off here trying to prove a negative.

That’s nice. Here’s my theory. You don’t know what you are talking about, no idea how VAERS works, and no idea of comparing baseline rates to VAERS reports to see if there might even be a safety signal. Those of us familiar with VAERS predicted before there was even an EUA for a COVID 19 vaccine that a mass vaccination campaign against the disease would result in lots of reports of everything after vaccination up to and including deaths, just because of the sheer numbers and the unprecedented push to remind people to report adverse events and how many deaths we’d expect within varying timeframes after vaccination just by random chance alone vaccinating tens of millions of people in a short period of time. But, yeah, you do you and your conspiracy nonsense.

People don’t like things shoved down their throats. Why is it that ‘incentives” and “mandates” promoted by the establishment both Democrats and Republicans always use punishment as an incentive?And no. The establishment hasn’t done a very good job of promoting vaccines if they have to resort to those mandates and incentives. Meanwhile our political betters exclude themselves and their agencies from those selfsame mandates. As Glenn Reynolds once quipped, ” I’ll believe there’s a crisis when the people who tell me there’s a crisis start acting like there’s a crisis. ”When Dr.

Jha says “Republicans care about getting beyond this pandemic every bit as much as Democrats do,” I think he’s referring to voters, not the politicos, as the later would be so obviously wrong. In this, I think he’s following the same coax them with positive spin of many public health advocates and Biden admin officials… You know, Joe’s line about the virus not discriminating between Democrats and Republicans, so c’mon man1 yadda yadda. But I think the reality is that a huge chunk of the GOP base at least is indeed caught up in what amounts to a death cult, marked by continuing denialism of what COVID does along with the rock ass stubborn “I will not do what THEY tell me” refusal of vaccines as well as masks and other and mitigation measures. And we know who THEY are, right, which somehow includes anyone in the so called ‘mainstream media’ but excludes everyone on Fox, Newsmax, wingnut talk radio…That’s what this is all about really, which is why it’s different from the old school antivax of AoA, TMI, RFKJ etc. For those folks, being anti vax has been the core of their identity, what amounts to a First Principle.

That’s why erstwhile environmentalist and liberal scion RFKJ is hanging with fascists and not vetting their positions on climate or pollution or anything. All of that is disposable in the quest to smite the demonic needle Nazis. But the folks in the deep South — and these are mainly people who didn’t raise a stink about childhood vaccinations back in the day; witness the ‘No exemptions’ school requirements and excellent MMR uptake in Mississippi for example — are into this Trumpy, grievance, ‘Freedom!’ tribalism schtick at the center, and vax refusal is just a badge of that — virtue signaling, like threatening the families of any school board members who might support a mask mandate. If Biden/Pelosi/Schumer/AOC at al had a collective epiphany and came out against the COVID vaccines, the MAGAs wouldn’t embrace them, and would probably start lining up to get the jab, assuming Tucker and Hannity told them it was OK, and now only the Sheeple were refusing the shots. I reckon your apparent and consistent state of confusion is actually deliberate, a refusal to acknowledge that your politics colours and taints your perceptions to the degree that they’re simply useless and compromised.

Republicans are very consistent. They we?are absolutely vaxxed, but like me they do not support the right of the government to force vaccinations. or use status as a passport. In many most cases this is because covid survival creates just as many if not superior antibodies — meaning the survivor is just as immune as a vaxx recipient — hence vaccination isn’t the only answer. Oh, and how and when did such an assessment of personal need become your right?For once, look at things correctly.

The right is against the constant slippage of rights to leftist predation using “we’re just being reasonable” argumentation. No, you’re not being reasonable. You’re demanding a one size fits nobody answer that can be co opted and used later for tyrannical purpose by people even more evil and stupid than the mewling and mindless hordes we see now. Sure, there’s no guarantee that this rights slippage is permanent wink wink but being real, we all know that yes, it is. But of course it is. The erosion of rights is what drives republican response.

Oh, but it’s easier for you to couch this as anti science. Because the idiotic claim works best for your crowd who already believes this to be true and hungers for more. You feed them more garbage thinking and venom, which is what they come for. It’s worse than a bungled netflix “for you” algorithm. Strawmen are always a better foil than the soldier in front of you. The exception taken with the blogger’s comment was the failure to distinguish among the unvaccinated.

After all, a very large population of those ALREADY possessing natural immunity exists among the unvaccinated for which mRNA would be an arguably irrational, and in most cases, a poorly informed decision. The conflation of all unvaccinated into a single group of recalcitrant ignoramuses is the sleight of hand that misinforms this push for mandates. And it should be noted that the unvaccinated also includes a significant population of those under age 25 for which a reasonable risk/reward analysis can be made to disfavor mRNA inoculation. The data offers little support for those advocating vaccination of the healthy young as you would find it nearly impossible to find a death sans a very substantial underlying health issue. My point is obvious. Many if not most of those who remain unvaccinated aren’t antivaxers.

They are rational and free. “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs?Of course we did.

” Even school vaccine mandates have always been political; they have just been nonpartisan, with a broad political consensus that they are a good thing, even as the political consensus behind them began to fray a decade ago and started to become increasingly politicized around five or six years ago, with antivaxxers succeeding more and more in making common cause with the right by opposing mandates based on “freedom,” “parental rights,” and opposition to government regulation. Unfortunately, this tactic was all too successful and even turbocharged by the pandemic, when anti “lockdown” and antimask protesters quickly made common cause with antivaxxers based on their shared antipathy to public health, and all of them making common cause with the vilest conspiracy theorists, like QAnon, to the point that the Republican Party is now indisputably the antivaccine party.