okmko

What a novel idea.

It's ironic that I use Firefox personally but unfortunately we prioritized Chrome when I did more front end work too. Firefox would often render views differently compared to Chrome (Safari was also a shetshow) and we had to prioritize work ofc, especially for legacy stuff.

The thing is, as a pure guess, I would bet that it's Chrome that's not adhering to the web standards.

Honestly I've come around more and more to bypassing the Democrat party.

Every time after we get ice cream hasn't changed the fact that our choice will always be between ice cream and driving off cliff until we eventually drive off the cliff. Either we drive off the cliff now or later, so maybe we should probably try to stop getting ice cream.

Well the claim was your's and I'm of the opinion that comparing who's hornier isn't a worthwhile endeavor.

Even if you take horniness to mean session frequency, why frequency, and why only that when there are also duration and intensity. There are also hard to quantify variables like met and unmet satisfaction. It could very well be that the integral of the product of all those variables over dt for all time ends up being close for all groups of people.

Differences are fine, but if those differences are a result of a very specific meaning, you should just that then than to potentially perpetuate an outdated and unhelpful stereotype.

I feel like you haven't provided any reasoning and evidence to support your opinion besides, "This is what I see from my perspective so that must be true at large."

It seems to me that you're implicitly defining horniess with a narrow interpretation of sex drive: how often people think about sex, which men very well may. To that I go back to my original point that using that to make claims is an outdated, overly simplistic, and lazy generalization. It's one that isn't very insightful and one that offers little utility.

That's an outdated, lazy, and inaccurate generalization.

Women are just as horny as men but straight women experience higher risks engaging in dating than gay men experience resulting in more caution and selectivity engagement.

Straight women who are able to have as much sex as they want tend to be those who are in stable, long-term relationships. The bottleneck is safety as a hard requirement for sex.

Donations and many self hosted volunteers, helped by the unique nature of the fediverse architecture also distributing burdens, fewer users, and lower computation/storage/availability requirements (compared to a more centralized service like a dating app).

Sorry if I come off like a butthole but I'm both curious yet dubious of the idea. I feel like people probably have thought about it but they probably ran into the same problems you'll run into.

You didn't quite answer my question. Where are you getting revenue? Eg. Subscription, one-time fees for X, grants, investments, etc?

Duallingo started like a non-profit but even their revenue with its massive userbase couldn't cover their expenses so they had to compromise hard to keep the lights on. The same happened to Coffee Meets Bagel. Hinge started with the same premise of "this app is meant to be deleted" but they also had to compromise and eventually sold to Match Group.

Also, I feel like gay men are a unique demographic that has higher that average engagement so Grindr is probably in a uniquely advantaged position to resist enshitification.

I guess I'm just saying it's probably in practice a cost center like city infrastructure or schools or research, so it might only work without heavy compromises if it's also funded by taxes.

But even non-profits need to pay for operating costs like salary and cloud fees. Where would you get the funding for that?