dandelion (she/her)

ah, that explains my confusion - thank you for clearing that up!

ah, I wasn’t sure because I was reading this:

The oxygen saturation of hemoglobin determines the content of oxygen in blood. After the human body reaches around 2,100 metres (6,900 ft) above sea level, the saturation of oxyhemoglobin begins to decrease rapidly.[2] However, the human body has both short-term and long-term adaptations to altitude that allow it to partially compensate for the lack of oxygen. There is a limit to the level of adaptation; mountaineers refer to the altitudes above 8,000 metres (26,000 ft) as the death zone, where it is generally believed that no human body can acclimatize.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_high_altitude_on_humans

it seemed like between 7,000 and 8,000 26,000 the air is not suitable, but I figured the pilot wasn’t likely to be taking risks like that, so there must be some explanation

edit: mixed up feet and meters

why was it cold, because they couldn’t maintain an internal cabin atmosphere, including temperature?

Also, I had to look it up, but just wanted to confirm 7000 feet is much lower than typical 737 cruising altitude, which is usually 30,000 - 40,000 feet.

7000 feet is still pretty high and around where oxygen saturation decreases - could you tell any effect? I just assume they were able to still oxygenate the cabin even if they couldn’t go as high 🤷‍♀️

sorry, are men concerned for their safety dating women such that a gender inverted version of this app makes sense? Your ignorance is what I’m talking about here …

yeah, the app has obvious flaws, and the Rate My Professor style approach succeeds or fails depending on the quality of the users and moderators, and could easily be useless or become toxic - either way, I’m not defending this aspect of the app, it’s clearly problematic.

Regardless I understand why women would want a resource like this, and that doesn’t seem true for those in the comments who see the doxxing as deserved for using this app.

Nevermind the rest of the context, like 4chan being a bastion of right-wing, misogynist trolls who would target an app like this for political reasons.

Lemmy users approving 4chan doxxing women is a major red flag … it might have something to do with how many Lemmy users come here due to being banned for their behavior on Reddit. Reddit isn’t sending their best and brightest, and it shows. (This is just my speculation, though.)

of course, the app has obvious problems, but I don’t see that as justifying the gloating and sense of revenge enjoyment happening.

Instead I see a kind of discontent about women I find concerning, which seems ignorant of the widespread violence women experience or what it’s like for women who take risks when dating men.

Men are not all equally problematic or privileged, but they are generally in a position of power relative to women and are acting like the victims here.

They should direct their discontent to patriarchy which creates the situation where violence against women is dismissed or accepted, and which motivates women to use apps to check if the person they are dating has a history of violent behavior.

Patriarchy which perpetuates the narrative that men are natural predators and women natural prey is what victimizes men here, not the women who rightfully fear and feel victimized by the minority of men who are violent.

The app enables the photos to be run through a reverse image search, enabling them to run a basic background check, check against public sex offender databases, and check for photos that might get flagged as being used in “catfishing” — misrepresenting one’s identity online.

The app also features a “Tea Party Group Chat,” which allows users to directly share information about men, and has a rating function, which allows users to share their experiences with Yelp-style reviews, awarding men a “green flag” or a “red flag.”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/25/us/tea-app-dating-privacy-cec

It’s a bit like Rate My Professor, but for dating.

Honestly I cyncially expect this kind of app might inevitably exist for rating people of all genders (or that dating apps might incorporate this Uber-style rating system), but the reason this app exists has directly to do with the violence women face from intimate partners.

The point is that men who are enjoying the doxxing of women who have used this app are ignoring the context, or even have a warped sense of the context, as if this is narrowly about (legitimate) privacy concerns and the harms caused by the app.

Even if the concerns about the app are justified, the revenge enjoyment betrays a view much harder to defend, that all the women who used the app are equally cupable, or that doxxing women using the app is equivalent to women doxxing abusive men through the app.

Men are not all equally privileged, but there is a broad inequality both to how violence is distributed and how that plays out in dating situations. Women are not wrong to fear men. One in three women have experienced sexual or physical violence, most of that violence being perpetuated by men.

Since this is the context for the use of this app, it’s not neutral to doxx its users or to claim it’s fair because men feel (legitimate) concerns about the app’s privacy violations.

There is some of that happening, like when women get together and discuss how they’re being treated it’s “gossip” and implied as immoral.

I think some men might read what you’ve said and think you are denying any toxic gossip exists, it’s important to have nuance and not alienate men who otherwise would be allies, but I think overall your point is well taken.

??

The replies in this thread are disturbing, giving me a sense that Lemmy has a misogyny problem; maybe I was naïve, but I expected outrage about 4chan doxxing women trying to protect one another, instead I see lots of revenge enjoyment as if being doxxed on 4chan is justice for … <checks notes> warning one another about dangerous men they encounter when dating?

The inability to empathize and take seriously the threats posed to women or to understand their motivation to protect one another is alarming.

There is no good faith extended, but also no evidence presented that instead of safety the app was just for gossip, it’s just taken as assumed that women are wrong for using Tea and they all deserve to be doxxed.

from the article:

Several users received an error message that says “The following are not allowed: no zionist, no zionists,” when they tried to add the phrases to their bios on Thursday. I tested this myself on a new Grindr account, and received the same error message. I was able to add “Zionist” to my profile (without “no”), however, and could also add any phrase I could think of: “no Arabs,” “no Blacks,” “no Palestinians,” “no Muslims,” “no Christians,” “no Jews,” “no trans,” “no Republicans,” “no Democrats,” and so on. “No Zionist[s]” was the only phrase that was blocked in my testing.

that was so hard to believe I checked the article myself, and here’s the quote:

Several users received an error message that says “The following are not allowed: no zionist, no zionists,” when they tried to add the phrases to their bios on Thursday. I tested this myself on a new Grindr account, and received the same error message. I was able to add “Zionist” to my profile (without “no”), however, and could also add any phrase I could think of: “no Arabs,” “no Blacks,” “no Palestinians,” “no Muslims,” “no Christians,” “no Jews,” “no trans,” “no Republicans,” “no Democrats,” and so on. “No Zionist[s]” was the only phrase that was blocked in my testing.

hm, if it’s not too much to ask, maybe a visual would help? Like, an example where Excel or some other program shows correct layout, and LibreOffice has incorrect?

I haven’t had much discomfort with LibreOffice and I tend to be pretty OCD and I do UI work, so … maybe I’ve just ignored it - would like to learn, though!

this is the way

I prefer Google Sheets to Excel, but I still use LibreOffice Calc for everything anyway

it doesn’t feel that different than Word and Excel, tbh - I don’t know what you’re talking about

yeah, I personally ascribe to this view, and prefer index funds to alternatives like stock trading. My comment was meant more as a joke, implying the news is a reason to panic sell off Berkshire stock, lol - I don’t actually have any idea whether that’s a good idea, it’s probably not.

(I would have jokingly said the same after Steve Jobs died about selling Apple stock, and indeed there was a dip in stock price after his death, but Apple’s market cap was $300 billion before his death and after he died it more than doubled to $900 billion by 2017.)

sell now?

I find that I cannot even begin to relate to the author. If you have the kind of money to throw around that you can meaningfully be an angel investor for 20 - 30 companies, I don’t see why the person wouldn’t just throw the money in index funds and spend their time in a better way. Their third goal is to make more money, but you have to ask at a certain point why it’s beneficial to do so - what does more money get you at that point?

It seems like with that kind of money they could be free to do whatever they want with their time - investing it all in index funds and live off the interest.

If they have meaningful contributions to make to founders and desire those relationships, they could meet founders and become a consultant for them, offering business advice or the typical advice they give now. This would enable them to learn and develop deeper relationships (their first two goals) without having to constantly sacrifice on those priorities to maximize their ROI (like having to spread their investments across 30 companies, making the relationships shallow and undermining their opportunities to learn and embed in the company).

I can understand wanting to have deep and meaningful relationships, and wanting to learn and be involved in innovative development - those goals make sense to me. It’s the third goal that has me puzzled.

As far as I can tell the only thing that the angel investing is offering them is that it forces founders to be friends with them and involve them, the money is coercive that way - so if the author otherwise has no meaningful contributions to make, they can still force a social dynamic where they have authority with the founders and to be in their business (literally). Maybe their money, rather than their advice, is what is primarily worthwhile and opening doors to relationships and learning for them.

But then I would say this is a poor way to achieve the goals of deeper relationships and learning: instead, use your economic privilege to get the kind of education that does make you a valuable person to work with, and then consult.

I’m just shocked someone would feel making more money is a top priority once they have that much money - something strikes me as fundamentally wrong there.

I liked that they used the creepy Chiller font for “Hopes & Dreams”, I mean - don’t get me wrong, my Hopes & Dreams are very Halloween themed, but how do they know that?