
Automating Tinder with Eigenfaces - signa11
http://crockpotveggies.com/2015/02/09/automating-tinder-with-eigenfaces.html
======
donkeyd
Tinder should start using Eigenfaces to give people an estimate of the chance
of finding a match when they sign up. You know, to manage expectations.

"With your face and your standards you have a 1% chance to find a match.
Please lower your standards or improve your face."

~~~
junto
"improve your face". See South Korea plastic surgery stats:
[http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/04/daily-c...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/04/daily-
chart-13)

~~~
warfangle
See also, lawsuit over similar: [http://entertainment.ie/wtf/Chinese-man-
divorces-and-sues-wi...](http://entertainment.ie/wtf/Chinese-man-divorces-and-
sues-wife-over-ugly-children-And-wins/227669.htm)

~~~
juliangregorian
Apocryphal:
[http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/uglybaby.asp](http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/uglybaby.asp)

~~~
warfangle
I stand corrected.

------
for_i_in_range
Looking forward to attending a wedding where the How We Met story is, "Through
a Tinder Eigenface k-nearest neighbor machine-learning algorithm."

~~~
bendyBus
What can I say? our bots just really hit it off.

------
nemothekid
I feel the human race has made a rather amusing step forward to rule-by-
algorithm. 30 years ago this would be dystopian, today its a byproduct of a
mish-mash of open source libraries.

~~~
karmacondon
As someone pointed out in another thread, we're ruled by algorithms now and
have been for quite some time. Tinder itself is based on a human processed
algorithm:

    
    
      IF ((I think that he/she is hot) && (he/she thinks I am hot)) 
      THEN 
      date();
    

The good thing about computer algorithms is that we can open them up and see
how they work. Like, y'know, hackers. This program is doing the same basic
task as a person would, "Look at a face and judge hotness", except it can be
tuned and tweaked and quantifiably understood. I don't understand what's
dystopian about that.

I do understand why people don't like it. Everyone feels that an algorithm
could screw them over in a situation where a person wouldn't. It's the
driverless car argument. And we all know the response, that humans aren't
perfect either and we have better metrics and tools for understanding and
fixing machine mistakes than we do human mistakes. The same is true for
algorithms that control Tinder, credit applications, health insurance rates,
et al. They aren't always right and it does suck when you can't make an appeal
to human compassion. But humans can be just as wrong and just as obstinate, if
not moreso. At least with an algorithm you know where you stand.

I, for one, welcome our algorithmic overlords. As a hacker I've always been
able to figure out how technical systems work. Other humans? Not so much. If
anything, this new world will play to my strengths and to the strengths of
those like me.

~~~
Padding
> I, for one, welcome our algorithmic overlords.

Just imagine a world where you'd never have to hear "because I said so" and
"becasue fuck you, that's why" ever again. A world where for everything that
goes wrong, there'll always be a clear way to fix it and some clearly
identifiable someone liable for the mistake. A world where being handsome is
no more an advantage than having blue as your favorite color. Etc.

Maybe it's not perfect, but it would most certainly take away power from
people that don't deserve it. I can see why the "powers that be" would try to
convince us that this is "dystopian".

~~~
deong
Until computers are as generally intelligent as humans, the algorithms aren't
going to be the overlords -- they're going to _have_ overlords. The algorithm
isn't processing your loan application because it runs a bank; it's just doing
what the bank's owners paid for it to do, and if they want to say, "because
fuck you, that's why", they can happily continue to do so. If anything, better
AI may make them _better_ able to leverage their existing advantages over the
rest of us.

And when the AI does reach human level (a long time from now), we may be no
more capable of understanding its motivations than we are of understanding
those of other humans today.

~~~
your_ai_manager
Algorithmic middle managers then?

~~~
eropple
That would be what Uber's dispatcher system is.

------
andkon
So I've been using this for a few hours now. The automatic messaging is
hilarious ("Lisa are you a fan of avocados?") and weirdly effective. Also,
it's been showing me that my non-robot tinder game just sucks, and could be
improved with the basic principles of flirting:

    
    
      no seriousness
      ambiguity and non-sequiturs get conversation going
      being bold and casual about the things you say
    

Basically, every message should communicate that you don't really give many
fucks, and are playful.

~~~
magicalhorse
Avocadoes, and "I can't wait to introduce you to my mom!" are weirdly
effective. The Tinder game is strong in this one.

------
gadders
Looks like someone has tried to make the blog post on High Frequency Dating
from Rob Rhinehart (Mr Soylent) a reality:

[http://robrhinehart.com/?p=1005](http://robrhinehart.com/?p=1005)

(worth a read, it's pretty funny)

------
jareds
If I were single I would be using this. I'm totally blind so Tinder has never
been useful to me. I don't know how well it would work but I could see having
my friends help me train it by describing pictures to me. I was never a big
fan of the like absolutely everyone option, I felt like it would be hard to
start a conversation. "Why did you like me?" "The algorithm I use to make up
for the fact that I can't see your picture decided I should like you." would
at least be a unique way to start a conversation.

~~~
eyeareque
What photo would you seed the algorithm with? As in, do you have a preference
for facial features? a Tinder for the blind population would be pretty
awesome.

If everyone was forced to take a 3d photograph (MS kinect scan maybe?), the
algorithm would work even better.

------
withdavidli
Probably the only bot that would appeal to women with its preference setting.
It's mostly guys using the bots and filtering after the matches.

Love reading the Tinder app reviews: "this thing is broken, been using it for
a week and no matches. I ain't that ugly." <\- this is almost verbatim. I'm
always fancinated by how men and women differ in their usage of a dating app,
might as well have two separate UIs. Observing women use Tinder they swipe
right around 1 out of 50-100. Just insane differences when compared to guys.

I always thought Tinder could monetize by having auto swipe and an undo
option.

~~~
marvin
This phenomenon is endemic to dating culture in general. It's strange that the
large majority of young Western women who have ridiculously fickle
preferences, don't have the insight to realize the consequences of their
behavior (or even notice the behavior in the first place). It makes the
experience bad for 90% of the participants.

Not a bad thought to have separate interfaces by gender, maybe there is
something in this idea that could be explored. Although at that point you're
sort of codifying shitty gender stereotypes, which might be a transgression
that's even worse.

~~~
Udo
The standard perception is that women are scarce and men are dime-a-dozen. I
strongly suspect this might be true even in the gay dating scene (maybe
someone qualified might weigh in on this hunch).

Like in many social conventions, this scheme kind-of works as long as you
subscribe to it. Men are supposed to be undiscerning, women are supposed to
reject people like it's a bodily function. As long as you fall within that
schema and pursue your partners in a way that confirms their social
expectations, you're fine.

If you don't like that game, however, it's difficult. Thankfully the internet
exists, so it should be possible to date like-minded people who don't
subscribe to this convention.

Then again, I'm a European, so YMMV.

~~~
marvin
I think my comment came across as saying something other than what I intended
(-4 at the moment). What I mean by "shitty gender stereotypes" is that, as you
say, everyone is expected to conform to this model (guys and women alike).
Under this stereotypical model, the pace is dictated by the women, which is
why I singled this out - but of course it's a two-way evolution of behavior.

"Kind-of-works as long as you subscribe to it" would be a good interpretation,
but I think everyone's opportunities are diminished by this. One thing is
finding someone to have sex with or have a relationship of the type that
society expects (which probably works well enough on a societal level with
stereotypical dating), but finding someone you are really compatible with on a
deep level is a different question. My strong suspicion is that there are many
lost opportunities in the latter category.

At this point I am incredibly happy with my life partner, but I've previously
had many bad experiences with the traditional dating model. Since everyone is
complaining and gender norms are the one fixed variable, it stands to reason
that this is where the problem is. The LGBT community does not have this
problem, which I think is caused by a greater awareness of the roles each
person takes. Heteronormative gender roles are problematic, which is evidenced
both in complaints about dating and divorce statistics.

~~~
Udo
_> but I think everyone's opportunities are diminished by this_

I share your frustration, but I've also become very cynical about this. If
people didn't want it this way, they wouldn't do it. It seems to me in my
social circle, partners are chosen first and foremost for the function they
perform.

"I needed a full-time mother for my children" "I didn't want to be alone
anymore" "I felt time was running out" "I wanted a man with more status" "I
wanted someone who's more down to earth" "I wanted someone to be there when I
get home from work" "I wanted better sex" "I wanted someone who looks up to
me". Almost everyone I know can and does distill their relationship into one
of those sentences. You might think it's bleak, but people think nothing of it
apparently.

So I came to the conclusion that my ideal, to hook up with people who are
interesting and whom you can love for who they are, this ideal practically
doesn't exist in the wild. And if we're indeed mostly choosing partners for
their function, I don't see how any opportunities are diminished by playing
arbitrary (and sometimes inhumane) games. I may not like it, I will certainly
not participate in it, but it seems to work out for pretty much everyone.

This is only marginally related, but when my cat died, do you know what the
most frequent first response of friends and family was? It wasn't "oh, so
sorry, I know you loved her very much", or even "so what, it's just a cat",
though both ends of the spectrum were certainly present. No, the most common
reaction was: "are you getting a new one?"

To most people, it's all about function.

~~~
marvin
That's a pretty dark interpretation, and I don't think I can disagree much
when we are discussing things on a societal level. Thanks for sharing your
thoughts :) I hope you're in a good place, or at the very least that you're on
your way towards it. Kudos on high moral standards and a clear vision.

I do think the ideal exists; I have seen many examples. But it's certainly not
the most common possibility.

------
kehrlann
I am not too creeped out by the concept of this bot (actually, I find the
whole idea amusing). I can understand why people would find it creepy, but I
feel that the creepiness comes from Tinder rather than the bot ... It's only
possible because of Tinder and the way it makes users interact with each
other.

Not a Tinder user myself, so I guess I'm biased in this case.

~~~
StavrosK
I can't understand why people would find it creepy. There's already a filter
built into Tinder (show me women/men), why is an extra filter suddenly creepy?
If a bot can know what I find unattractive and filter that out, why not?

~~~
lmm
Just like IRL: only looking at women or only looking at men isn't creepy. But
only looking at people with particular physical characteristics (aside from
the small set that are acceptable to judge on) is creepy.

~~~
path411
I think this is a pretty natural progression of applying machine learning to
real life.

I find that people will say things like "I prefer people with blue eyes", but
what they are really saying is that the people they find attractive often have
blue eyes.

Humans don't seem to be able to actually determine the characteristics of a
person's looks that makes them attractive, and rather resort to pattern
recognition bias. So instead a computer is able to determine what you are
actually attracted to as it doesn't have the same bias and is able to
consciously distinguish more data from a person's face than the extremely
basic set a human can.

------
djloche
Automate the matching, then the conversations, then the meet-up schedule.

TinderPro could be a paid service built on top that has you swipe left/right
for x pictures and then takes it from there and does all the rest of the
legwork. You pay $$ per month and based on your settings, it schedules dates
for you (based on openings on your linked calendar app).

~~~
robotnoises
NOTIFICATION FROM TINDERPRO: Congratulations you are now married.

------
phreeza
It would be hilarious if two people match up both using this bot.

~~~
swah
His soulmate is probably on reddit.

------
JDiculous
Wait, so guys are still getting matches on there? Am I the only one who
doesn't get matches anymore?

A couple years ago I'd get like 5-10 matches/day using the app for like 10-15
mins/day tops. Every time I'd log in, the first 5-10 or so profiles would be
from people who swiped right on me.

Now I seriously never get matches anymore. I'd estimate that it'd take me 30
minutes of swiping right on every single profile to even get a single match. I
live in one of the most population dense areas (Manhattan) and consider myself
at least average looking.

Anyways I've abandoned Tinder for a competitor. I'm getting matches in the new
app at a rate that's more in line with how Tinder used to be for me.

My theory is that guys on Tinder just began swiping right on every single
profile. I guess it's more efficient that way because then you can just filter
the matches afterwards who you know are already interested in you. But the
downside is that it makes women more selective.

Even then though, it doesn't make sense that I can load up Tinder now, swipe
right on the first 100 profiles, and not get a single match (unless they
changed the algorithm to not put people who liked you you at the top).

~~~
freyr
> _and consider myself at least average looking_

There's your problem. Many men on various online forums have compared their
response rates when using a photo of an average looking man (or even above
average looking man) and when using a photo of a very attractive man. The
average man gets almost no matches, and the attractive man gets nearly all
matches -- and, apparently, a surprising number of invitations for casual sex.
It seems to be a case of the Pareto principle, with 20% of men claiming 80% of
the rewards, though the numbers might be closer to 5% and 95%.

I'd assume this is a consequence of skewed supply and demand, where most men
are happy to match with anyone and therefore swipe right frequently, and women
receive many potential matches and can afford to be selective. I suspect this
plays out in the dating scene as well (e.g., a small percentage of men sleep
with a disproportionately large percentage of women). But the situation seems
even more skewed on Tinder, where all emphasis is on physical appearance.

~~~
hagan_das
>I suspect this plays out in the dating scene as well (e.g., a small
percentage of men sleep with a disproportionately large percentage of women)

I've seen studies that say 20% of men get the vast majority of women and sex.

~~~
boyaka
Not a study, but it has certainly been mentioned before. Here's a relevant
discussion (and YC alternative to Tinder) where the same topic is discussed
(ctrl-F tinder).

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8454405](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8454405)

------
sarasastro
How does this take boobs into consideration ?!

~~~
Padding
I love how this is a perfectly valid question given the context .. even if the
phrasing may be somewhat off.

Back to topic, I'd think boobs (and other parts of the body that aren't part
of the face) won't have much impact on prefrences.

Would you really reject someone because of their cup size, despite their
pretty face? Similary, would you accept someone just because of their cup size
despite their less-than-pretty face?

I mean sure there are people out there for whom this may be a valid concern,
but it won't for the vast majority. So the question then really only is where
you draw the line - what about asymmetric boobs and other body features?

~~~
D-Coder
Why shouldn't cup size be important to many people?

"Would you really reject someone because of their face, despite their
excellent cup size? Similary, would you accept someone just because of their
face despite their less-than-excellent cup size?"

------
omaranto
_All were in agreement that it is not creepy, though some felt it was
borderline._

I wonder how much of the feeling that this was not creepy came from the fact
that he wrote the code himself. To me these two sounds pretty different:

"I came up with an algorithm that attempts to choose people and starts
conversations the same way I would."

"I'm using an app I found that chooses people and starts conversations for
me."

Come to think of it, neither sounds exactly creepy to me. The first sounds
awkward but the second just sounds lazy... My point is that there is a
difference between writing the code yourself and just using it.

~~~
draugadrotten
_All were in agreement that it is not creepy, though some felt it was
borderline._

If I was sitting face to face with a creepy guy I would also not challenge him
that his actions are creepy. I would just do anything to calm him down, then
leave at first opportunity.

~~~
omaranto
That's a good point.

------
allendoerfer
That was step one. Now write a social network for your university.

~~~
hippich
in this case it seems it should be social network for bots. with tinder's
users faces as avatars :)

------
solve
You should try shuffling around this pipeline a bit. Instead of:

See face -> Score face -> Yes them only if score is good

Try:

See face -> Yes to all -> Score the faces of people who Yes you back

Also would be really interesting to create multiple Tinder profiles with
different pictures, and see the beauty score distributions of people who
Yes'ed each different picture.

That would be a very nice, automatable dating A/B testing experiment.

------
ErikBjare
> Another person thought it was really cool and wanted the full tour.

This could easily be mistaken as a metaphor for sex.

------
brosky117
Reminds me of anaface.com (where they tell you how attractive you are based
off of symmetry).

I'm married so this is just plain entertainment for me but I think there are
some genuine use cases for this on the Tinder side of things. Think about it.

If Tinder knew your preferences and was able to analyze the faces of all the
users nearest to you, it could make your feed so much more relevant. In the
end, Tinder's success is directly proportional to the number of dates it sets
up. Basically, the more "attractive" people you encounter in your feed, the
more frequently users will engage with and return to the app. I'm biting off
an idea that is too big for me to chew but I imagine huge potential here.

~~~
JimboOmega
Kind of. You need attractive users who will interact with you, not just that
you get to swipe.

Honestly, taking guys swiping out of the equation until women have swiped them
would already massively improve the experience for most users. I've run into
plenty of guys complaining that in a week and hundreds of swipes, they get
none in return; and women complaining that the app must be broken because
everyone they swipe right to already liked them back.

Of course Tinder is interesting already because it's gotten people to buy into
the bare minimum effort side of things - unlike other sites which generally
try to find good matches based on personality, shared friends, or anything.

~~~
duderific
> Honestly, taking guys swiping out of the equation until women have swiped
> them would already massively improve the experience for most users.

My understanding is that the app Coffee Meets Bagel does exactly this.

~~~
JimboOmega
In a strange coincidence I downloaded that very app about 3 hours ago. But
their site was down or not accepting signups or something, so I left it aside.

Anyway, from what I can tell, it's selling point is that it gives you one
match a day... as opposed to the endless waves of matches of OkCupid or
Tinder.

Whether or not that's actually a better experience, I don't know, but I do
know a few female friends who like it. So that's enough to get me interested.

------
acannon828
Just to make sure I'm understanding how this works:

    
    
        1. Faces are simply averaged for "Yes" and "No" training swipes.
        2. Each one of these two "average" faces are mapped to an Eigen space (where the Eigen vectors are computed from the training sets? or were they preprocessed with some other dataset?).
        3. For every new face, the bot maps that face to the same Eigen space and makes a Yes/No decision based on whichever model vector it's closest to (either the "Yes" vector or the "No" vector).
    

...right?

~~~
acannon828
If that's the case (I think it is but correct me if I'm wrong) wouldn't it
make more sense to compute the Eigen-representation of each training face
first, then average those Eigen face representations as opposed to the cropped
faces themselves?

------
goblin89
I imagine paid services offering this functionality are about to come up and
rise and make news with their profits. Perhaps Tinder will have its own built-
in. The potential is certainly there.

Automatic messaging would be especially neat. Bots can take the time-wasting
initial conversations all to themselves, after exchanging with each other more
or less predefined templates they’d employ a crude ML-enhanced algorithm to
estimate whether their respective human masters would like to take it from
there or let it slip. Less awkwardness, less uncertainty, more efficiency.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
The problem is that no matter how clever you make your algorithms in the end
dating is about people. And if the person isn't interesting then nothing else
matters.

There are other things worth optimizing in ones life besides technical
sophistication. Interpersonal skills are a big one.

------
ac166
I can't quite articulate why fully, but to me this article sums up everything
that's wrong with programmers and the community in general (of which I
consider myself a part). :(

~~~
waspleg
From Jurassic Park:

Dr. Ian Malcolm: If I may... Um, I'll tell you the problem with the scientific
power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it.
You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the
knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You
stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you
could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged
it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now

[bangs on the table]

Dr. Ian Malcolm: you're selling it, you wanna sell it. Well...

John Hammond: I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our scientists
have done things which nobody's ever done before...

Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with
whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.

------
randomsearch
Precision and recall stats needed.

------
cinquemb
Pretty cool. I really like that people are exploring ways to come in contact
with one another. I wonder if someone would add a meta data filter that if a
twitter /Instagram /vine handle is found, grab the max tweets, vines, posts
(filtering out reposts/tweets perhaps) and see how they cluster compared to
past selections/interactions.

------
EGreg
Of course humans are way more advanced at this. We can look at more than
faces. We can look at a person turned slightly to the side, and size up their
body, face, hair, read their expression, and what they're trying to say, in a
fraction of a second.

Let's see how eigenface figures that out.

Until then, swiping right for everyone may be a better strategy for straight
guys.

------
UUMMUU
I do like seeing Scala being used more.

------
tibbon
The predefined message trees were kinda terrible, "I can't wait to introduce
you to my mom"?!?!?

Aside from that, its pretty neat.

Edit: kinda wish it ran data analysis on multiple threads/cores. Edit2: It
seems to be taking up 61 threads right now in fact... so its doing that quite
well.

~~~
TheHypnotist
At least tell you are a fan of moms??

------
anantzoid
It's surprising to see that the Messaging bot actually worked out pretty well
(according to the author) given the fact that StanfordNLP's sentiment analysis
really sucks sometime. Probably because the initial chat messages are very
similar and generic.

------
JeremyMorgan
So how does it handle the plethora of ladies who post pics of themselves with
another guy? Or other girls?

~~~
cheald
FTA: "Only pictures with single, identifiable faces are used (to filter out
false positives)."

------
th0br0
Awesome. Thought about doing something similar a while ago but this certainly
beats what I had in mind ;)

------
kirk21
Could do some A/B testing on your own pics + description to see what works
best.

~~~
kpierce
Yeah I was wondering if someone had built this feature. Put 15 or so pictures
with descriptions. Use some spintax to optimize. Same with messages.

------
kirk21
Anyone that can create a noob proof walkthrough to get this thing running?
Thanks.

~~~
touristtam
it is actually in the readme: install sbt, run the commands. That's assuming
you have cloned the repo on your local machine and are running the commands
from within the local repo.

------
pkfrank
>Another person thought it was really cool and wanted the full tour.

Innuendo?

------
ikonos_de
What template was used for the interface from the screenshot?

------
saiya-jin
How many of you folks have found a long lasting, good quality date via Tinder?
Serious question, no pun intended. For me, albeit using it for only cca 6
months, it was useless. Same for people around me.

Yes, I got tons of likes, many conversations, a few dates that could be more
if wanted, but women available via this were mostly... uninteresting. I am a
bit picky (I am quite sporty type, and silicone beauties whose idea of perfect
sunday is basically doing nothing while showered in luxury repulse me). Never
been looking for one night stands or similar, that's for poor folks with daddy
(and other) issues. Those kind of "relationships" tend to take more from
person than give, and after some time, meeting such a person is rather sad
story (or, more blatantly who wants to seriously date slutty used opposite
sex).

Well, once you've got things to offer to women that they want, you can, and
will be picky. I kept telling myself, it's just another way of meeting people,
like all others. But for me, tinder crowd ain't doing the "game" seriously
enough. Maybe location didn't help (Geneva, on border with France, and to be
polite general French mentality towards relationships ain't compatible with
mine).

So I found amazing girl via other ways (climbing), dropped whole tinder app
into oblivion. Nice idea, and kudos to this guy for really getting max out of
concept, but not for me. And seeing success rate around me, just going to a
stupid bar, dressing nicely and just be a man women want gives you way more
reward for any effort. But it cannot be done from couch, can it :)

~~~
karmacondon
To quote /r/ShowerThoughts: "The problem with Tinder is that you only meet
people who are at a point in their lives where Tinder makes sense"

~~~
rflrob
The same was true of singles bars before we had OKTinderList. Even if neither
person really likes singles bars per se, having a culturally agreed upon way
to meet people has some value, and once you've met your person of choice
there, you don't need to ever go back.

------
iopq
Can someone also make a bot that goes on dates with women to filter them? With
your face and conversational data, of course, or they'd think it's weird.

------
matthewmacleod
_All were in agreement that it is not creepy, though some felt it was
borderline_

It definitely is creepy, though.

~~~
sjtrny
How? It isn't invading anyone's privacy or personal space. The actions the bot
performs are exactly the same as what humans do.

~~~
jarman
>exactly the same

That's why. People take pleasure in expressing base instinctive behavior (and
Tinder is mate choosing, refined to laboratory grade purity), but like to
pretend it's something more dignified, not something that can be done by basic
machine, be it organic or semiconductor.

------
ha292
A person is not a face.

Dating sites of all shades "sell" us a person at various levels of depth and
according to our interests.

Our interests can be deep, or can be shallow.

Tinder is "selling" shallow+fun (Appearances, nearness, sexual adventure).

Shallow + fun sells. Look at a magazine.

Eigenfaces takes the idea a step forward. Automate shallow+fun+selection.

Remember the vaporized alcohol craze ?

~~~
driverdan
What's your point? Everyone knows Tinder is primarily for hookups and is
shallow.

------
ttty
I think that what you like is average.. therefore you will like the average..
as expected.

If everyone will use a bot like this then only the beautiful girls will
receive likes. Pointless.

If only you will use the bot then you will have a certain advantage over
others.

This remembers me a guy that was a mathematician and found his wife with math.
Was on another dating site.

I never used tinder.

~~~
Quiark
Since Tinder already shows you almost nothing else but photos, we are already
in the situation you describe. OTOH, there's always a gradient, not everyone
can have the prettiest girls.

