dating Decluttr, a phone trading company in the US found out that 70% of singles would prefer to date someone with an iPhone

[mr moose]

I bet people didn't even consider the phone to be a condition until they were asked.

 

EDIT: OP should add "until this thread I didn't even consider what phone someone used" to the pole options.

[captain_to_fire]

4 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

I like a woman with a large notch and dual 12 MP cameras. 

I’m not straight so I’d say I like a man who’s more than just a pretty face. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, aki adaki said:

I like mine with plenty of ports and a little pokey bit that sticks up when turned on. (I hope you get the reference) 

Theres only one port I'm interested in 

[Beef Boss]

1 minute ago, RorzNZ said:

Theres only one port I'm interested in 

You don't like them wireless? I see you're more of a physical input kinda guy

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

I’m not straight so I’d say I like a man who’s more than just a pretty face. 

I prefer someone with a hard vibrate setting and a sexy automated assistant

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, aki adaki said:

You don't like them wireless? I see you're more of a physical input kinda guy

I need a lightning connector

[Dylanc1500]

1 minute ago, RorzNZ said:

I need a lightning connector

Are you sure your not a SCSI kind of person?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

Are you sure your not a SCSI kind of person?

<snap>

I enjoy all be transfers slowly at USB 2.0 speeds, I don't want them to be quick. 

[captain_to_fire]

4 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

I enjoy all be transfers slowly at USB 2.0 speeds, I don't want them to be quick. 

Do you pull out a connector slowly? 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

Do you pull out a connector slowly? 

Well you can't just jam it in. The connector is very robust and study. It's proven in numerous tests the socket that wears out first. 

[Arenero14]

I love my dates with a good ol' 2.5mm headphone jack :winky :winky:

 

To be honest, this is the most silly thing that my eyes have readed in maybe a month or two. I dont care if you have a blackberry or a brick as long as i can communicate with you.

 

[Dylanc1500]

6 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

I enjoy all be transfers slowly at USB 2.0 speeds, I don't want them to be quick. 

SCSI-1 gives you speeds around 5MB/s, any large transfer at that speed would take all night.

[sof006]

I'm all for personal preference but not dating someone over the fact that they use a different phone to you is very sad.

 

I had this issue, I was talking to a guy on a dating app only to find out that because I own a Samsung phone he didn't want to date me because he had a iPhone. 

 

If you're reading this (whoever you are) it's your loss! ?

[captain_to_fire]

1 minute ago, Arenero14 said:

 

I love my dates with a good ol' 2.5mm headphone jack :winky :winky:

 

Are you sure it’s 2.5 mm and not 3.5 mm headphone jack? So many people are size queens. 

[captain_to_fire]

1 minute ago, sof006 said:

had this issue, I was talking to a guy on a dating app only to find out that because I own a Samsung phone he didn't want to date me because he had a iPhone. 

People like that are waving big red flags that mean trouble. It’s like dating Taylor Swift. 

[Dylanc1500]

5 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

Are you sure it’s 2.5 mm and not 3.5 mm headphone jack? So many people are size queens. 

Definitely need to go with the 1/4" jack.

[Guest]

[Tech_Dreamer]

***Kanye west Gold digger song  starts playing**

[kirashi]

2 hours ago, captain_to_fire said:

Well iMessage isn’t the only option for the sexter. Other messaging apps also use end to end encryption like Telegram which is cross platform 

2 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Given Telegrams recent news, I'd rather not use a 3rd party service when the first party alternative is there and is more than likely more trustworthy. 

Any messaging service that's closed source should be assumed insecure, since you have no way to know they're actually using the encryption methods they claim. The only way to ensure encryption actually works is to build your own messaging service, or at least compile your own IPA/APK of the Signal Messenger app. https://github.com/signalapp This way you can guarantee the app is actually using encryption on your messages before they leave your device.

 

That being said, judging someone over the tech they use is rather petty, so ideally we'd just date for the sake of one's personality...  

 

[DrMacintosh]

5 minutes ago, kirashi said:

The only way to ensure encryption actually works is to build your own messaging service, or at least compile your own IPA/APK of the Signal Messenger app. https://github.com/signalapp This way you can guarantee the app is actually using encryption on your messages before they leave your device.

I get where you are coming from, but you have to realize the absurdity in what you just said....

[kirashi]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

I get where you are coming from, but you have to realize the absurdity in what you just said....

Absurd? How so? If a piece of software is closed source, and decompiling it to ensure it actually provides the encryption the developer claims is illegal, how do you suggest one ensures their messages are actually encrypted and kept secure? Honest question here, because without access the the source code, all we can do is trust that a company isn't lying about something.

 

Full disclosure: even I don't go to these lengths, as I don't really care about encryption that much, but it's definitely a [slightly paranoid] thought to consider, if anyone is truly concerned about keeping their data safe when using a service or piece of software they don't fully control.

[DrMacintosh]

13 minutes ago, kirashi said:

Absurd? How so? If a piece of software is closed source, and decompiling it to ensure it actually provides the encryption the developer claims is illegal, how do you suggest one ensures their messages are actually encrypted and kept secure? Honest question here, because without access the the source code, all we can do is trust that a company isn't lying about something.

 

Full disclosure: even I don't go to these lengths, as I don't really care about encryption that much, but it's definitely a [slightly paranoid] thought to consider, if anyone is truly concerned about keeping their data safe when using a service or piece of software they don't fully control.

You logic isn't wrong, your entire idea is just beyond practicality. 

 

If you go to great lengths to build your own IM service, you could do it. But you will have nobody to use it with. So congrats you know for sure your platform is secure, but your platform is useless since it gets no traffic for the work you put into it to be worth it. 

 

Now maybe if you were a spy for the Kremlin that would be ok, because you and your spy buddies would all use the service, but for what people use things like Snapchat, Telegram, iMessage, and other secure IM platforms for, what you suggest is just completely pie in the sky. 

[vanished]

I agree with the general sentiment here that this is both a marketing stunt and the results are likely questionable at best, and/or this is a sign of the end times.  If you care so badly about what phone they use that you can't even date them then idek anymore.  That's not to say that a radical difference in opinion over which is better and why couldn't be a deal-breaker; I can definitely see that being the case, same as radical differences on religious, politics, etc. could be.  But c'mon just get to know them first What they're using doesn't necessarily tell you much about how they think.

 

That said, there is something to be said for phones representing us and showing our personality and taste, and there's one particular part of this that's kind of interesting: the cracked screen thing.  If you're actually using your phone like that, it really does say something:

1. You're not careful with your stuff (seriously it's not hard to avoid dropping it), and/or
2. You're not concerned with appearance or impressions (really, this looks so much worse than having an old model or a non-prestigious brand.  tbh neither of those even matter), and/or
3. You don't know how to manage your money (seriously just get it fixed.  If you can't afford that you shouldn't have bought that phone in the first place), and/or
4. You have low self-esteem (honestly, don't you think you're worth more than this?  That you deserve to be able to actually see what you're looking at and not cut your fingers every time you scroll?)

just my two cents

[veli2501]

Did anyone else read this as: "iPhone users more likely to be single"?

[kirashi]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

You logic isn't wrong, your entire idea is just beyond practicality. 

 

If you go to great lengths to build your own IM service, you could do it. But you will have nobody to use it with. So congrats you know for sure your platform is secure, but your platform is useless since it gets no traffic for the work you put into it to be worth it. 

 

Now maybe if you were a spy for the Kremlin that would be ok, because you and your spy buddies would all use the service, but for what people use things like Snapchat, Telegram, iMessage, and other secure IM platforms for, what you suggest is just completely pie in the sky. 

If you simply took the open source Signal app code and compiled the apps yourself, but still used Signal's servers, you could ensure that messages leaving your device are actually being encrypted using one-way encryption. You'd know the Signal server has no way of decrypting since you were able to confirm that your build of the app indeed is using the encryption scheme that Open Whisper systems claims it should be using, and thus your messages would be safe leaving your phone.

But I agree with you on all other points - it's impractical to build your own messaging service, because heaven forbid yet another service for communication comes to market, causing even more segmentation than we have now. Market segmentation actually causes less communication than if we had fewer messaging apps anyway. If we killed off about 2/3 of the messaging services we currently have, I'd bet you a box of TimBits that we'd be able to communicate more efficiently.

 

But I digress - the point is that verified encryption can't be 99.99% secure - it has to be 100% or you may as well just not use it.