5
sometimes you bring on a ceo just to get some controversial thing done. they can eat the blame and then leave
You bring in a female CEO to take the fall. The narrative gets to be about her weak leadership.
Ellen Pao wasn’t even CEO for a full year. Reddit clearly put her in charge to take the heat - which they knew would be ample based on her sex alone.
So replacing a woman with a woman, and then bringing back the original woman is what made you think the fall person had to be a woman? Reddit may have done so.. but I find it hard to believe this was sex/gender related. Otherwise it would have made more sense to replace the woman with a man, have him take the fall and go back to Whitney so it made her / the company look better long term.
I'm embarrassed it took me so long to realize this. Somebody explained that to me recently, within the context of a conversation about layoffs. That CEO had no prior CEO experience, was only there for less than a year, and was part of the board of directors. In hindsight it seems so obvious.
They called it an Axe Man, in my time. I've been at two companies hit with them, and I follow them AND the CEO who stepped down (once a reverted permanent one and the other a long-term leave) to see which companies are fucked next.
It's what boeing does everytime a plane goes down.
That must be quite a list of ceo's
The ol' Ellen Pao
Tacit racism. She is a US citizen of Chinese background. Why have her face on the flag of the Empire of Japan if the subliminal message wasn’t yellow peril?
But that was the idea
And it should be noted, it was shit like "you can't have a subreddit entirely devoted to encouraging groups you dislike to kill themselves"
Wow, as a gay dude reading the comments here, straight dating sucks, why is it even like that?
Bumble used to be different back in the day. I tried it when it was going down the tubes.
I think part of the problem is that the matching is fairly superficial, so while you know a little about the person, most of the details amount to their face, 1-3 hobbies, and their ass.
The women I matched with that I went out with were awkward and felt forced. In the end, I ended up falling in love with a close guy friend that I had known for years.
If bumble wants success, they should allow for much deeper Q&A, longer response times, a tweaked algorithm that matches people based off hobbies and passions, and an AD section that allows people to privately put in stuff that they like after dark. Info that isn't shared with their matches, but helps make people match better with people like them.
As for straight dating though, idk. I feel like people should probably be avoiding apps and meeting organically through stuff like biking groups, climbing groups, skiing events, big dance venues, etc. it fosters much more organic connections.
I don't participate in bar culture that much, but the difference between the gay bars I've gone to and the straighter college-y bars feels immense. The former is much more social with a pinch of kink, the latter is where people are getting absolutely blitzed without much dialogue over loud music. It's an extremely small sample size, but I can't help but wonder if it's part of a larger trend when it comes to meeting people and how portions of society meet and date. Perhaps there are bars where single straight men and women meet over 1-2 drinks and talk, but I haven't seen any so far.
Overall, I think the Internet and cars (decreasing population density and increasing the space between third places) has had a dramatically negative impact on love and friendships in places like the US.
There's a big problem with the "women message first" gimmick, and it's that they just don't.
If they don't simply let the match expire, you either get a shitty Gif, or something along the lines of "hey."
Maybe one in ten will actually send a message that genuinely starts a conversation.
I literally saw so many profiles being like “I don’t message first”, like do you even understand what the app you’ve signed up for is?
I always wondered if they realised we actually can't send the first message.
it would work better if it was "women swipe first'. men can look at and swipe the women who swiped them already. this solves two problems:
- women are not seen by anyone they don't want to be
- men don't need to spend hours swiping hundreds of women
please give me 1 million dollars
That's the premium feature in pretty much every dating app. You get to see who likes you but you have to pay the money to find out if anyone swiped on you at all.
They imply that lots of people swiped on you but you don't actually know until after you've given the money.
So basically your plan is to just remove the con part which I'm all in favor of.
This means men will see many fewer women on the platform in many cases.
it means men would not spend hours on the app, which means nobody would ever do this
Exactly, Im 50 and Im not rich or particularly good looking. If I was straight I might only see 5 or 6 women on the app that would match with me to begin with and if those didn't become anything I'd be done with that app. It can't work
Would you rather see 5 or 6 women that all expressed interest in you or a thousand women who have never and probably will never even see you? Open the app, swipe 5 or 6 times, move on with your life.
This is very well put.
Exceptthe company that makes the app needs you to keep dating to make money. If ypu have 5 options and they don't pan out you are done with that app.
Who wants men spending hours on the app and why? Most of these are subscription-based, not ad-supported.
Yes, that's the idea. They wouldn't see anyone who hasn't already liked them.
Which means after the exhaust those few options they won't use that app again. No app developer will do this.
They're not "exhausting options". They're just only seeing the options that are actually available, rather than an endless stream of those that aren't.
You get that not seeing more people is the problem for the developer, right?
What?
If I see five options and then date those five and it goes nowhere if there aren't new potential matches presented regardless of suitability the user will go to a different app where they are given the illusion of more choice.
You think people will be happier to swipe endlessly for hours with extremely limited success than to open their app, look at 5 profiles and instantly find a match?
Over the long term I know that the app that has many potential matches will always outlast the one that has a handful to single digits.
You don't seem to understand the concept. There are no "potential matches". If they don't like you, you will never match with them.
No, you're misding the point. If a menu has ten items on it and you try those ten and none appeal to you then you'll stop going to that restaurant unless they offer you more options. Similarly if the dating app only offers five or six potential matches and those go nowhere you won't use the app for long and the company fails.
Do you think dating apps exist to hook people up in relationships? They can't really make money that way as connected people tend to stop dating.
Honestly, this is not that complicated. I don't know what else I can say to help you understand. Have a nice Monday.
Right back at you. I think the confusion is you are thinking of what the user wants and Im talking about what the company running the app needs. They are very different things.
Maybe it's you guys, but I never really had this issue.
Is the signature feature that women initiate or was that some other app?
Yeah. I used the BFF version for a bit to try and find folks in my area to hang out with. It's a really horrible app. When someone messages you, you have 24 hours to respond. If you don't then the two of you get unmatched. I can understand something like unlatching after some time period without responding, but just 24 hours? Ick.
We have shareholders to consider! Now get on with your relationship before we unnecessarily cut you off.
Brought to you by Match, "You're next Bumble, you think they fucked up Bumble already!? Just you wait!'
This just gave me the (shit post) idea of an app where VC funders can swipe on projects they want to invest in or not
That would make a great parody sketch.
Did that ever...work?
Probably, considering that it was enough to get the company to the point that it could go public. And for the company to lose 54% of its "value" after changing it.
So it got enough eyes on the platform to serve them ads or subscriptions or whatever their monetization strategy was...did the product ever once function as advertised?
Not really because a lot of women just used to begin the conversation with "hi" which gave you nothing to work with. Especially when they had a basically empty bio.
So basically suffered from exactly the same problem that every other dating app suffered from which is that nobody really puts the effort in.
this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2025
5 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
61220 readers
1224 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS