I think that stands for Instagram, SnapChat, and Twitter, respectively. Elon Musk officially renamed Twitter to X for whatever silly reason.

None of them really make any sense to me, but I guess are more popular with much younger individuals, like early 20s.


Anyway, to answer the OP's question, even though I'm not that big yet...

If I was to consider such a thing, there's no point in considering anything besides the mainstream platforms. The entire concept is extremely sensitive to "network effect" as I've mentioned in relation to dating web sites in general. In short, the service is far more useful to existing users, the more users in general there are.

After all, what good is some random niche dating web site if there's only 5-6 people in your area, and none of them are even close to your type? Or haven't logged in to the web site in months, or even years?

No, regardless of taste, preference, or type, the mainstream platforms are the only ones to consider using, just for sheer maximum numbers.

In America, that would probably be Match Group (Match, POF, e-Harmony if Christian, Tinder, and maybe some others) and Badoo. OKCupid and Zoosk have lost ground but might still have some users.

In other countries, I don't know. You can probably guess by looking at the Google Play Store or the Apple Store to look a total download count.

Ignore the ads, and anything a so-called "influencer" might say, because they're being paid to say it's good even if it's bad.

Above all, don't lower your standards, but keep your expectations out of web sites like that very low. I have found a lot of people are overly cautious and even afraid - some of it justified to be fair, but not entirely. Most folks out there are decent. In a world where news travels at light speed, the few who are bad, suddenly everyone hears about them. Just make the first meeting in a public place that's quiet enough that you can talk, and you'll be fine.

Instant gratification? I kind of know what you mean. But at the same time, do you want to waste time only to find out something where you know it will never work?

I do have a list of must-haves, and I think most others do too, but I try to keep my list short and reasonable.

For example, if she's not open to having kids, I need to know that as soon as possible. Because if not, a long-term exclusive relationship isn't possible.

Length obviously affects file size, but resolution is the really big one, with an almost exponential effect.

All else equal, a 4K video (3,840 x 2,160) will use 4 times the space as 1080p (1,920 x 1,080).

1080p uses 2.25 as much space as 720p (1,280 x 720).

720p uses 2.25 times as much space as 480p (854 x 480).

Also, 60 frames per second, as smooth and nice as that is, will use twice the space as 30 FPS, but 30 is still pretty smooth. Old TVs were only 24 FPS.

My suggestion would be to downscale the video to 480p, 30 FPS. There's probably free tools that can do that.

Because of network effect, I'd probably advise against any kind of niche or specialized dating web site. Especially if there's a monthly subscription to send and receive messages, and there's no other value proposition.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

There's plenty of fat people on general purpose dating web sites.

But as always, with online dating web sites in general, keep your expectations low, and have reasonable standards. I'm skeptical of the fact that dating web sites are one of the few business models where satisfied, happy customers stop buying.

Also, keep an open mind. For all you know, you might meet your next significant other at a baking class, in the library, at the bar or night club, or even at the grocery store. Or potentially through friends. Maybe you work in an office building, and over lunch you see someone who works at another company in the building. Or after a concert. Point is, you never know!

I wonder how realistic you are being, and I do want you to find someone. You even seem like someone that probably quite a few men might be interested in having by their side.

But, I think you have to understand some men may have jobs where it's not convenient or always possible to text super often throughout the workday. It doesn't mean they're ignoring you. There's also time zone differences.

If you're expecting a 10 minute reply time at all hours of the day, that's not reasonable.

What? Guess I must be more unaware than I thought. I've lived in DFW for years and never heard of such things, at least not on a monthly basis. That and I don't even know what would really go on at one - I can just go to a bar whenever.

Every 2 years there used to be something called the "CurvyExpo" in DFW, but that's not quite the same thing. I think it's more a convention for companies to showcase their clothing lines and cosmetic products, provided they're plus-size friendly or specific. Maybe also a place where amateur models can flaunt their stuff. Either way, it seemed like a place where men of any size would probably feel very out of place.

And sure, COVID may have put the kibosh on a lot of this stuff, but not forever. All that stuff will come back. Video conferencing just isn't the same and most folks get bored and tired of "cabin fever."

One store that sells literally everything I could want or need, at reasonable prices?

I don't think it's politically, or legally possible. Even if it was, free market forces would force it to adapt or go out of business quickly, because apparently I have a lot of esoteric tastes, some of which are sufficiently out of the real-life mainstream, even if possibly within the media mainstream.

But, even if it was somehow possible, possibly in some sort of alternate universe, guess what? I still wouldn't want it.

I'd like to have some variety in where I go. How dull would it be if I only ever shopped at one place, even if it was theoretically possible?

I don't think there's any official guidelines posted anywhere. The next best thing I can really do is just share some observations over the years.

I know some might consider categories of pornography, but I would not. Very often, the categories are incorrectly applied.

As far as I can tell, assuming average height (give or take a few inches or centimeters), it seems the defacto minimum is at least 200 lbs, but that I don't often see the term applied to women under about 220.5 lbs or so.

I know, 220.5 sounds oddly arbitrary, until you realize it's not. Or well, it is arbitrary but not oddly arbitrary. You see, 100 kgs is about 220.5 lbs.

So, a longer term goal of exceeding 100 kgs might be a good goal to shoot for.

200 lbs is a nice milestone, which is around 90.8 kgs. But you know, there's also a wonder psychological milestone about 100 kgs, where you cross the barrier into 3 digits, and how you will always need 3 digits to represent that.

This is pretty much just my opinion, but I think it's not too far off of what most folks would probably say.

Really? I think it would be worthwhile to make a dedicated thread to cover this.

Of course, please be as specific as possible. What sections, what pages seem wrong, etc.