• Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
    1·
    5 days ago

    “traveling” yikes.

    That is one way to say, you think wealth is attractive.

    I have traveled quite a bit and I like it a lot, but it is no hobby. For it to be a hobby, I would have to have a lot more money.

    Once or even twice a year, is hardly a hobby.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      4 days ago

      A lot of these hobbies are wealth-adjacent.

      Playing an instrument: a good instrument isn’t cheap, and music lessons can be pretty expensive.

      Woodworking requires a lot of fairly expensive tools, and a space to do it. You can’t really have woodworking as a hobby if you live in a small studio apartment. You basically need a house, either one with a basement, a shed or a garage.

      Gardening: requires a garden, something you’re unlikely to have unless you have your own house.

      Photography: I don’t know anybody who is into photography who hasn’t sunk a lot of money into the hobby. There’s the cameras, the lenses, and even the software these days.

      Astronomy: see above.

      Hiking: not expensive on its own, but in North America it means being able to drive to a wilderness spot outside the city, so you pretty much require your own car.

      Archery and blacksmithing: again, requires a specialized space

      Now, I know that there are cheap options for a lot of these. A musician could be someone drumming on an upside-down pail. Someone who only has access to a hotplate could still experiment with food. Woodworking could be just whittling sticks found in the park. Gardening could just be tending to a small houseplant. But, are these the version of the hobbies the women are picturing when they’re imagining a potential mate doing the activity? Probably not.

      Meanwhile, a lot of the stuff at the bottom of the list are very cheap hobbies. Like being influenced by the “Manosphere” just requires access to social media, same with porn and “arguing online”.

      Honestly, it looks to me like if you sorted the list by “dollars per hour someone invested in that hobby is likely to spend” you’d get many of the same things at the top and many of the same ones at the bottom. Some of the few exceptions are writing and reading, which can be pretty cheap hobbies, but are still apparently very attractive.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        0·
        3 days ago

        For astronomy (really astrophotography, which is considered even more expensive) I guess it depends on what you consider expensive. For $500 and with 3 free software products I’m able to produce stuff like this:

        A rather large telescope (8" dobsonian reflector) I have as well was “only” $500. So it can be a hobby that you don’t need to spend all that much on, but again that depends on what we consider expensive. $500 is definitely not cheap but I’m just a schmuck in a factory and I could save for that.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          3 days ago

          I’m sure you know other people spending thousands on their gear. Anyhow, many of these hobbies can be done relatively cheaply, but I imagine the woman picturing the man doing it as someone who wasn’t going the ultra-cheap route.

          Nice picture btw. How far do you have to travel to get somewhere where there’s a low enough level of light pollution that you can take a picture like that?

          • Asafum@feddit.nl
            0·
            2 days ago

            Thanks! I’m lucky enough to live in a bortle 4 zone so that was taken right outside my house, it’s just processed a bit to pull out the colors and darken the background.

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              2·
              23 hours ago

              Cool stuff, I live in a city. Not a huge city, but big enough that I only see the major stars at night. It would probably take me at least 45 minutes of driving to get somewhere dark enough to take a picture like yours (assuming I had all the equipment and skill to take that kind of picture at all).

  • Vespair@lemm.ee
    0·
    4 days ago

    I’m a 4 and 7 with a touch of 1, so I guess I’m a hot commodity.

    …my dating history tells me otherwise.

    • Skeezix@lemmy.worldEnglish
      01·
      3 days ago

      No, reading comic books doesn’t count . Neither does heating up cold pizza. Nor doodling 3d transparent cubes

              • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.netEnglish
                0·
                5 days ago

                Voyager recently added user tags (allows you to label other users) but the app also doesn’t appear to use the display name option available in Lemmy (or at least no one has it enabled from the screenshots I’ve seen posted), so it just shows the username you use to log in, which doesn’t have special characters.

                My display name is my username, but spelled using emojis in case you don’t see it that way, either.

                • aeharding@vger.social
                  1·
                  5 days ago

                  Oh, I see. Voyager doesn’t show that because display names are confusing for mentions, can be used to impersonate, and distracting. It might be an option to enable in the future, off by default.

                  Edit:

                  Claim

                  To clarify how I really feel, here’s my hot take: display_name is a really awful feature and should be removed from Lemmy.

                  Why?

                  They are dangerous by default because the very concept implies that clients should render display_name instead of the username, if it exists. Which is unwise: Apps have to choose between replacing (bad for impersonation/UX/distraction reasons) and showing both (which just looks duplicative most of the time).

                  What makes this feature even more frustrating is that people are now using display names for their username + flairs of actually important things, like gender identities. (for example, display_name="Alex (he/his)")

                  It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation for Lemmy clients. Some people are using display_name for important info like gender identities, and yet display_name is so incredibly easy to impersonate people and otherwise abuse.

                  Solution?

                  What is the solution? I think Lemmy should ditch display_name and replace with flair (or something like this). The general idea is that flair is NOT a replacement for your username, but rather it will be displayed alongside it.

                  Maybe even make flair per-community like Reddit. I think that was a much better design than what Lemmy currently has.

  • zante@slrpnk.netEnglish
    0·
    5 days ago

    Woodworking 94%. Right.

    Try ordering a new lathe after you’re married.

    • xkbx@startrek.website
      1·
      5 days ago

      That’s because the deal has already been sealed. They typically wanna keep you off the market, not increase your “resale” value. Unless you’re into that kinda thing. Like, cucking or sharing kinda kinks, not human trafficking. Human trafficking isn’t sexy. Unless you’re into that kind of thing. Like, as a fantasy, not as a real thing. Real human trafficking isn’t sexy. Unless you’re into that kinda thing. Like, as in humans stuck in traffic or transforming into cars and being stuck in traffic, not as being sold as a commodity. Unless you’re into that kind of thing.