When it comes to social media, people rarely "exit" when they're very dissatisfied. A few people do, but most of the ones who are displeased with changes in the service respond by shifting some of their previous uses of it to other services while continuing to use it in different or more reduced ways.
For example, people mostly didn't leave Facebook after getting the message that Facebook is bad for privacy, but in the early days of Facebook I could find nearly every single one of my friends' phone numbers and home addresses on their profiles, and the "phone book" feature was very useful. Now, hardly anyone puts their address there, only a minority put their phone numbers there, and the "phone book" feature is mostly forgotten (I don't even know if they've removed it, I haven't looked for it in a couple of years at least). What kinds of photos people post, and how much they share, has changed a lot over the years, but most of the people who pulled back in this way didn't delete their accounts, and still post material there when they don't care much if it "leaks".
I've observed a similar thing with Google services over the past couple of years. People pull back by shifting some of their activity to other providers, while continuing to heavily use Google.
I don't know about you, but I've used Google Street View in residential areas a lot, and never once for "casing".
I've used it to look up someone's address I'm going to visit and then get a view of that portion of the street so I could recognize it more easily.
I've used it when helping a friend shop for new houses, to look at some of the places that published open houses and help narrow down which ones to actually take the time to go visit.
I've used it when chatting with distance friends online to show them places familiar to me.
I see things like this coming up in the literature from time to time, since the mid-90s or so when OO started becoming all the rage.
Even back then, though, I could never convince myself that it was a good model, until Perl5 came along and I started using objects without inheritance. Perl5 allowed inheritance, but it made has-a relationships just as easy and convenient to use as is-a relationships, and didn't push the is-a (inheritance) ideology at me, so I didn't bother because it wasn't useful as far as I could see.
I'm still convinced that the disadvantages of is-a OO (using a lot of inheritance) far outweigh the advantages, and that it is a misguided model for programming. has-a (containers without inheritance), on the other hand, is comfortable for me.
Okay then, your comment about this in the post was dishonest. Rather than explain that this is something you oppose and that's the reason you won't do it, you tried to explain it as something that "quality women" won't do (and then added an aside about how you're not really interested so that's not a big deal). I wonder if this attempt to rationalize is related to the reasons you're dissatisfied, and whether there are other things your question is hiding or obscuring in similar ways.
It's both something that I oppose and something that I've observed most potentially marriage-worthy women oppose.
I don't think casual sex is necessarily immoral, assuming that neither person intends to get married in the future. The main victims of consensual casual sex are future romantic partners of the participants, so if both participants have completely foresworn the possibility of having long-term relationships, I have no ground from which to call it immoral. However, it seems that this particular "use case" is pretty uncommon.
Try to stop drawing an imaginary line between women and women you could marry. Your concept of a woman needing to be 'pure' and fitting some set of standards you impose on them is a recipe for disaster.
People make some bad choices, everyone has their flaws. If you are looking for a relationship that really makes you happy, find someone you love and deal with things you don't agree with.
What caused you to have this reverse "Prince charming" desire? No offense, but you seem to have an incredibly high exclusion rate for women. A lot of it seems to come from sexual oppression.
Lastly, what do you possibly mean by "The main victims of consensual casual sex are future romantic partners of the participants". You claim to not think it is immoral, but lay that judgement down like it is factual?
"Your concept of a woman needing to be 'pure' and fitting some set of standards you impose on them is a recipe for disaster."
You have got to be kidding me. He's imposing standards on women? Since when did being selective about people who you start relationships with become an act of imposing standards on other people?
When you selectively choose your co-founders, are you imposing your set of standards on them? Is it a recipe for disaster? When an interviewer for a popular company is more concerned about false positives than false negatives, is that a recipe for disaster?
There is a huge difference between saying someone isn't a good cofounder for yourself, and saying they aren't a suitable founder in general. Same goes for the original argument.
(it was also primarily in response to other comments like 'The saying comes to mind about how, in the US, it's very easy to find a great job and very hard to find a decent woman, as opposed to the other way around in most of the world.')
That's a bizarre statement, and certainly not grounded in facts, yet you seem to believe it is factual. Plenty of long-term happily married men and women have had non-relationships sex. Your worldview is blinding you in a seriously astounding way.
I'm more productive the more active, engaged, and social I am. This can come from a variety of sources: Anything that gets my mind engaged, gets me to do more things, gets me out and about more, gets me to meet people, gives me things to plan and things to do.
So, for example, I'm more productive when employed than unemployed, even on projects unrelated to work, even you'd think I'd have more time for those when unemployed. Part time work, or multiple contracts and gigs of very different sorts (such as a political campaign and a sysadmin contract) is even more effective than a single every-day job.
Relationships generally have these kinds of effects on me: I plan outings, trips, and dates. I meet her friends, and go to things she likes. Interaction with her is mentally engaging. So, Relationships make me more productive.
I'm not sure what you mean by "unattached casual sex" - if you mean it literally, then I don't have very much experience with it. However, I do have plenty of non-relationship sex, with friends. "Quality women" are definitely not universally opposed to this, and it does improve the richness of a bond with someone even without a committed relationship. It also does some of the things I described above (for example, greater motivation to travel to see someone, as well as a greater variety of people-connections) so that also probably increases my mental engagement and productivity.
No, you're not alone. I've been playing Settlers for years, and it's long been a favorite of a number of friends of mine in different cities who don't all know each other. Perhaps it's been a niche game this whole time and will go "mainstream", but its niche hasn't been that obscure.
I think it may just be because the title "De-anonymizing social networks" didn't actually convey what the experiment found, and it's the result (as communicated in the title here) that got people interested enough to click.
Actually, I'm pretty sure year comparisons are more standard than month comparisons, for a lot of financial and economics stats. The press sometimes reports ambiguously, but since year-to-year comparisons tend to be more useful, they also tend to be more often used.
