u/VarangianWRLD

Inspired by another post, I'm curious to hear people's reasoning.

If you're reluctant to exchange phone numbers and move the conversation to WhatsApp, why?

I'm interested in hearing what specific risks people are trying to avoid.

In the modern world, there's a reasonable chance your phone number has already appeared in data breaches or is held by data brokers. Scammers often have access to large databases of phone numbers anyway.

Because of that, I personally don't see giving my number to someone I've been chatting with as adding much additional risk. I don't really treat my phone number as particularly private anymore.

I also prefer moving to WhatsApp because it feels a bit more personal and intentional than staying on the app. If we've been having a good conversation for a couple of days, I'd usually rather move it off Bumble.

For those who prefer to stay on the app, what's the main reason? Is it a privacy concern, safety, wanting to avoid someone having your number if things don't work out, or something else?

I'm down 35kg this year.

I spent years reading weight loss advice online and, looking back, a lot of it just made things more complicated than they needed to be.

Here's what actually worked for me.

Weigh yourself every single morning. Same conditions every day. After you've been to the bathroom, before eating or drinking anything. Ignore day-to-day fluctuations and watch the overall trend. Judge your progress on your avg for the week.

Your main priorities are staying within your calorie target and hitting your protein and fibre goals. Everything else is secondary.

I'd estimate around 60% of my diet has been ultra-processed food. It's easier to track accurately, it's convenient, and things like low-calorie ice cream have genuinely kept me sane. UPFs may not be ideal long term, but being obese isn't exactly healthy either. That's a problem I'll happily deal with once I've reached my goal weight.

Stop obsessing over nutrient density before you've even lost the weight. Yes, egg yolks are nutritious. But if eating mostly egg whites means I can have a much bigger meal for the same calories, that's what I'm choosing. We can optimise every vitamin and mineral later.

Diet drinks have been one of my biggest tools. I regularly drink up to 2 litres of diet soda a day. If it keeps me full without adding calories, that's a win.

Low-calorie jelly has been ridiculously useful. It's sweet, filling, almost no calories and helps kill cravings.

Cardio is good for your heart, but don't treat it like a calorie-burning machine. You don't burn nearly as much as people think, and if smashing yourself in the gym makes you eat an extra 800 calories afterwards, you've probably gone backwards.

10,000 steps isn't a magic number. More movement is generally better, but don't get hung up on arbitrary targets.

One that will definitely be controversial: nicotine pouches have helped suppress my appetite. I'm not recommending anyone starts using nicotine, but as someone who already uses them they've made sticking to a calorie deficit much easier.

At the end of the day, calories in versus calories out is still the foundation. You don't need the perfect diet. You need one you can actually stick to for months

If I had one piece of advice, it'd be this:

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough.

Losing weight with frozen meals, diet Coke and low-calorie ice cream is still infinitely better than staying obese because you're waiting for the perfect "clean eating" plan.

Not a review of someone's looks or whether they went on a date with you. A review of what they're actually like to talk to.

Imagine seeing things like:

Average reply time

Average conversation rating

How many questions they ask versus answer

How often they ghost people

Whether they regularly unmatch after one message

At the moment, the most attractive profiles can get away with putting in almost no effort because there's no accountability.

Plenty of people spend ages matching with someone who only replies with "haha", "yeah" or gives one-word answers before disappearing.

A conversation review system would reward people who actually engage and make an effort. It would also encourage people to be more selective about who they match with instead of collecting matches they have no intention of talking to.

Yes, people would try to abuse it, so you'd need safeguards. Maybe only people who exchanged a minimum number of messages could leave feedback, and the reviews would be aggregated into anonymous metrics rather than individual comments.

It wouldn't make dating apps perfect, but it would save a lot of people from wasting time on matches who are only there for validation or have the conversational skills of a brick wall.

Imagine if, after a set period of time/number of messages, both people could anonymously rate things like:

Reply time

How engaging the conversation was

How many questions each person asked

Effort put into keeping the conversation going

Whether someone ghosted or just stopped replying

Obviously there would need to be safeguards to stop people abusing it, but I'm curious.

How do you think you'd genuinely score?

Aside from men striggling to get matches, the biggest frustration with dating apps seems to be matching with people who seem to have no interest in actually having a conversation.

Do you think a system like this would improve dating apps by rewarding people who put effort into conversations, or would it just become another feature that gets gamed?

Not a review of someone's looks or whether they went on a date with you. A review of what they're actually like to talk to.

Imagine seeing things like:

Average reply time

Average conversation rating

How many questions they ask versus answer

How often they ghost people

Whether they regularly unmatch after one message

At the moment, the most attractive profiles can get away with putting in almost no effort because there's no accountability.

Plenty of people spend ages matching with someone who only replies with "haha", "yeah" or gives one-word answers before disappearing.

A conversation review system would reward people who actually engage and make an effort. It would also encourage people to be more selective about who they match with instead of collecting matches they have no intention of talking to.

Yes, people would try to abuse it, so you'd need safeguards. Maybe only people who exchanged a minimum number of messages could leave feedback, and the reviews would be aggregated into anonymous metrics rather than individual comments.

It wouldn't make dating apps perfect, but it would save a lot of people from wasting time on matches who are only there for validation or have the conversational skills of a brick wall.

In the UK, if someone is described as "Asian", many people would traditionally assume they mean someone of South Asian heritage (for example, Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi).

However, I've noticed that younger people, particularly those who've grown up consuming a lot of American media, sometimes use "Asian" to mean East Asian instead, and will specifically say "Indian" or "Pakistani" etc when referring to South Asians.

How is the term generally understood in your country? If someone simply said "an Asian person", who would you assume they were referring to?

Has that changed over time, or has it always been understood that way where you live?

Personally, I'd like to see universities publish much more detailed employment data for each course, such as the percentage of graduates in graduate-level jobs, average salaries, and employment rates after six months, one year and three years, per course.

If prospective students had genuinely transparent information, I'd even be open to universities having flexibility on their own tuition fees, as students would be able to make far more informed decisions about whether a course/institution offered good value.

Do you think universities should be more accountable for graduate employment?

For example, should they have stronger incentives to build employer partnerships, provide longer-term careers support, or even have some funding linked to graduate outcomes?

Inspired by a post about how some feel that META glasses voilate privacy in public.

Between people filming in public, social media, facial recognition, drones and everything else, some feel like the law hasn't quite kept up.

If you could introduce one or two new laws, or change existing ones, to better protect people's privacy in public spaces, what would you choose and why?

If you also wouldn't change any of the laws, keen to hear that perspective too.

Edit: Think the heat may have had a slight impact on the usually impeccable reading comprehension that r/askuk is known for

I see this everywhere from when I lived with a girl in uni from Sudan, to the gym, to ubers, to shops and everything in between.

It doesn't bother me, I'm just curious. I know lots of people leave behind their families, but it's just so ramapant that I'm curious if there is anything else I am missing culturally.

I think I'd run out of things to talk about. Is this just a cultural difference?

I think 50% of the posts here are rage bait, this is not meant to be one of them. Please be respectful

Please save your bigoted opinions for another post.

I'm talking about being shirtless or being in your boxers.

I haven't lived with others since uni and back then it was pretty much anything goes. Even in normal weather, we were all probably shirtless or in our boxers 90% of the time.

We were all mates and barely adults so there was never a serious conversation about what was acceptable.

I can imagine this would be slightly different if you don't know the others in the house that well or it is a mixed sex house.