242A. DatingOS: Replacing Dating Apps with Trust Apps, Part 1.

I’m preparing to explain that dating apps are moving towards trust-promoting symmetrically authenticated models, which largely don’t exist yet. I’ve been working on the technology for these for the last 16 years in anticipation of this transition. To explain what that is, and why such a radical change is going to be favored going forward, I need to explain the problems that trust apps will solve. Here in Part 1 I explain the problems, and in Part 2 I provide the solution proposal.

Here I will be explaining what has changed in dating culture over the last 20 years since dating went online, and what problems have arisen that demand solutions. While I’m not a “traditional” person myself in any sense of the word, I’m not going to be critical of traditional relationships in any way here. My purpose is to explain why we moved away from those roles, and how this created cultural stress that can be slow to work out on a societal level.

The point of culture is to create standardized norms and rules so that people don’t have to guess about what’s appropriate in every situation, if you are native to that culture. But since cultural norms have disintegrated so quickly, there are no existing cultural standards in dating anymore. Cis hetero men and women have different expectations as to what a new culture should look like and that is creating conflict that contributes to the Gender War. As technology and economics are changing faster than culture can keep up, I don’t expect this situation to resolve itself in my lifetime.

I will do my best to explain first what “tradition” used to mean, and then discuss the separate goals that cis hetero men and women are currently seeking. The modern situation is further complicated by men and women changing their roles and goals as they get older, due to both biology and economics. Of course if you are an outlier, I think that’s fantastic. Thus some of this might not apply to you personally.

Pre-Historic Mating Behavior

If we go back more than 8000 years, people lived in tribes and had little if any language skills. Thus we didn’t really have traditions yet, and whatever customs we did have likely were specific to local areas as you couldn’t jump on a bus or plane and share your customs with others beyond a limited distance.

Other apex mammalian predators tended to have about 3 mating adult females to every mating adult male. You can see that gender biology facilitates this. Some of the “excess” men in this scenario just die off due to hunting and travel accidents, and some are involuntarily non-mating. Humans are unusual compared to other predatory mammals in that they are high endurance hunters. They aren’t particularly fast, but due to their incredible endurance they can just follow prey until the prey collapses from exhaustion. The only limit is that without refrigeration you have to be able to return your kill back to the tribe in a timely fashion before it spoils.

This presented pre-historic humans with more opportunities to have travel accidents compared to other mammals that had smaller hunting ranges. But having less surviving males wasn’t really a problem since humans were not monogamous for the vast majority of their time on Earth.

Because women would get pregnant and this made them more dependent on others for nutrition and protection, they would seek out the top male prospects. Thus, like other mammals, they would share the top men instead of “spreading it around” to all the men.

6000 B.C. to 1960 A.D.

With the introduction of agriculture, men stayed with the women and since the men were not dying prematurely they had similar numbers to the women. This also allowed grain to be traded, and the concept of rank and wealth was introduced. Slavery and Feudalism happened. It was in the best interest of whoever was at the top of these hierarchies to not waste resources having men fight over mating rights.

Thus religions were created and the most successful of these promoted monogamy. It worked because there was now an economic advantage to having that. Of course these rules only applied to the servant class, lords could do whatever they wanted. While the systems of government changed over time, the dissolution of Tribes and creation of smaller Families was a stable and widespread cultural tradition.

Now that we had traditions, everyone knew what was expected of them for the duration of their lives, long before they reached adulthood at age ~13. Human lifespan stayed steady at around 32 years until medicines were discovered. This number is a bit deceptive in that infant mortality was so high that half of children didn’t make it to adulthood. Those that did make it to adulthood could expect to live about 50 years. This gave enough time for a woman to have up to 20 children in her lifetime, as Adam Smith described in The Wealth of Nations (1776). Smith talked about how to get rid of excess children in section Book 1, Chapter 8, which is not pleasant reading.

Smith also explained how resources were distributed to families, with enough excess provided to allow every family to raise two non-productive children at any particular time. By this standard, even the lowest 18th Century serf was wealthier than most modern (2026) adult “Freemen” who can’t afford that many children.

Smith also advocated for the end of slavery since, as he explained it, Freemen were cheaper than slaves. So over time laborers were paid in currency to create the illusion that they were not subject to servitude.

Birth Control and The Rise of Women

Culture was about to change radically. The US FDA approved birth control in 1960. While there was some minimal safety net for widowed white single mothers going back to 1935, by 1962 the government allowed unmarried women and even non-white women to receive government support if they were raising children alone. Thus the institutions of marriage, monogamy, and perhaps even religion were put on life support. This also paved they way for interracial marriages (like the one that produced me a few years later) and a slow reduction in racism.

During World War 2 women, like my grandmother Marjory, were helping the war effort by doing jobs normally reserved for men. Marjory was making bomber ordinance in El Segundo, California for Howard Hughes while her younger brother was battling in the skies above Germany. He would die there and not return. It became clear that women could do a lot of the jobs that men could do, even some dangerous jobs. The USA was much more unified then than it is today and people were very willing to sacrifice to win that war. I loved to hear Marjory’s stories about the introduction of “grey” margarine (before they added food dye) and other things we take for granted now.

This was important for two very big reasons:

• Women wanted equal access to jobs and education, and equal pay for equal work.

• Employers wanted to add women to the labor pool because more workers would mean more supply of labor. Supply and demand means that more laborers in the labor pool would allow employers to pay everyone less.

That paying everyone less was super important to the master class. They were thinking of themselves, not necessarily the good of the nation. Over time they would develop numerous technologies that would optimize this process and allow them to pay ever less for employees. Of course our lords had to pay laborers at least enough that they didn’t starve to death, but that was the floor and the ultimate goal.

The problem here is that this left nothing for child creation and raising. So child birth progressively slowed world-wide until it became clear we were going to run out of children. Conventional economists act like they don’t know why it’s happening, but this is disingenuous among qualified experts.

Meanwhile, having come off of the gains in status earned in WW2, the more militant women’s rights activists were approaching the task of expanding their power in society with military levels of organisation. I can’t fault them in any way for that, and given my military roots I appreciate this. Women’s studies programs started popping up at universities by 1970. They conducted research with the goal of expanding women’s rights and powers, and projecting power into key gatekeeper fields like education, human resources, and psychology.

To cement that power, they blocked the creation of men’s studies programs, eliminated pro-male gendered laws and guidelines, and replaced them with pro-female gendered laws and guidelines.

• Gendered: Pertaining to or favoring one gender. Prior to 1960, anything “Gendered” likely meant “favoring men”. Today, anything Gendered likely means favoring women. In an interesting twist of fate, the same hormone technologies that led to the sexual revolution are now being used by people wanting to transition to a different gender. Again, this is more change than some people are ready for. People born men are taking advantage Gendered laws and spaces, because that’s the smart move. People don’t complain about women transitioning to men, because there is no Gendered advantage there.

As a full explanation with receipts would take up too much time here, I’ve already done that research which you can find in my Gender Economics and Dating Economics papers, and my paper explaining gender bias in research.

So how did this affect courtship and relationship roles?

Traditional Dating Operating Systems (Dating OS)

Cultures, and especially religions, set rules that their members are indoctrinated with almost from birth. A lot of work goes into setting rules for courtship as this is a critical and high stakes part of life. Traditionally (i.e. back when we were monogamous) people would seek to find a life partner, get married, have children, and stay with that partner until “death did them part”.

People were expected to have genders that matched their birth sex (“cis”), and be heterosexual (“het”). Life was simpler but there were perhaps less freedoms and far less sanctioned diversity. I’m old enough to have grown up when life was still fairly Traditional, though Californians were always trend setters. Thus even 50 years ago we were redefining gender roles and dating expectations. I don’t think I was ever Traditional myself, so if I get anything wrong here I apologise.

I call Traditional dating programming (the rules-set everyone had to learn) Dating Operating System 1.0 (Dating OS 1.0). Early on (closer to 1960) it was expected that men would maintain a full time job and women would maintain the house, raise the children, and perhaps have a part time job. As the master class optimized the system to maximize their revenue, the prices of everything went up. Meanwhile wages went down, and men who resisted were purged. Those jobs went to women and since 1960 men have 25% less jobs and women have 100% more jobs.

Of course this was sold as empowerment so the transformation to two-income households was rapid. The biggest losers would be women because now they had to join the rat race and would have to choose between work and motherhood. Economics made that choice a lot harder with every generation. As of 2026, according to the Statesman survey, less than 20% of women in the younger generation (which I will call “e” in the following section) plan to have children. As the original survey is pay gated, you can read my analysis here. The master class has optimized the balance of wages and prices almost to perfection. For them. I don’t blame women for adapting, they are given little choice.

Women Upgrade to Dating OS 2.0 (F2.0)

The Dating OS 1.0 for women wasn’t very empowering, so women were under increasing pressure to upgrade to Dating OS F2.0. Free of the restrictions of pregnancy, child raising, religion, and monogamy/marriage, F1.0 was antiquated. Now that culture was breaking down, women were free to follow their biological and economic impulses. Safety issues tend to get ignored but that’s another complex topic I will discuss later.

In prehistoric times women would generally have 1 male supporting 3 females. Then for 8000 years there was monogamy and 1 male supporting 1 female. Under F2.0 there is a drive to optimize financial security. If you can have 5 males for every female, that’s ideal or at least aspirational. This is called “rotational dating”. For bonus points you get the males to commit to being monogamous so that you can get 100% resource transfers from all your men without dilution due to competition from other women.

That’s hard to do since there aren’t 5 men for every woman. Given the choice between having 1 monogamous provider-male or multiple non-monogamous provider-males, the societal trend favors the latter setup since decentralized economic inputs tend to be greater and more resilient to economic shocks. Here I mean if you have 3 men supplying you, and one loses their job, the other two can try to pick up the slack. If you had children with these various men, they are now called “Baby Daddies”, not Fathers.

When a highly ranked woman pulls multiple men, this forces both women and men into non-monogamy. It also leaves a significant number of cis het women in a “man-less” state. This is often called “involuntary celibacy” (incel). That means about 17 million female incels just in the USA. Another ~30 million claim to be “voluntarily celibate”. Of course if they found better options than what they see as available, they might become “voluntarily non-celibate”, but that’s the core problem we are addressing in this series: the failure of dating apps and the culture surrounding them.

Note that women from age 18 to 30 tend to run a different Dating OS compared to women 30+. That’s where this gets super complex, especially when we get into M2.0 and see that men are splitting in a similar way. Women are forced to shift OS due to the expiration date on their eggs which not only affects reproduction, but also hormone levels. Men tend to shift in reaction to women since they are so intensely biology driven, but also because they age differently.

Men Upgrade to Dating OS 2.0 (M2.0)

F2.0 is designed to target the vulnerabilities of M1.0. For M1.0 the OS is pretty simple: provide resources and security in return for physical contact and children. The problem is that F2.0 is optimized to extract resources (often without security) but minimize children as this has a negative economic impact. While the Statesman survey showed that less than 20% of the women aged 30 and under wanted children, the men in that cohort wanted them 80+% of the time. This is the first of many stress points causing gender friction.

This creates a serious problem for men running M1.0. Women running the matching F1.0 are all but extinct in Western culture. Women started organising and upgrading their OS back in the 1960s. Men didn’t want to upgrade as the previous setup worked great for them. Also, men are not organised in the same way that women are, or at least didn’t used to be.

Men have started to organise, perhaps in the last 5 years. That puts them 50+ years behind the women on an organisational level. The first step for men’s rights groups is to educate men that M1.0 is obsolete and perhaps even hazardous. Women got the memo about F1.0 decades ago.

Men under M2.0 are still fairly simple. They seek to optimize intimate opportunities while minimizing monogamy commitments, pregnancies, and wealth transfers. Since M2.0 is a reaction to F2.0, M2.0 works by disguising itself as M1.0 as they know women running M2.0 are hunting men still running M1.0.

Essentially F2.0 was designed to exploit weaknesses in M1.0 and M2.0 was designed to exploit weaknesses in F2.0. Men don’t try to exploit F1.0 since it largely doesn’t exist in the West. If they DO want an F1.0 they become “Passport Bros”. You might see this whole scenario as a bit predatory, or at least manipulative, and I would be inclined to agree with you. That’s how physics, biology, and economics work. Every reaction is countered by an equal and opposite reaction. This is society struggling to restore homeostasis to a very unstable environment.

Of course this can be frustrating for women when men don’t cooperate, and men have the same experience. Some women complain that men running M2.0 are misogynistic. I don’t think that’s true, but if it is then the contrapositive situation (women running F2.0) has to also be true. The Statesman survey showed misandry rates at about three times the misogyny rates. My best explanation for that discrepancy is that men are just trying to survive the ever increasing expectations of women while women feel entitled to access to men running M1.0.

What women call the “Manosphere” is really just men’s rights groups organising to conduct emergency upgrades to their OS. This all comes down to Arbitrage, which I’ve written about here and here. Everyone is trying to get as much as they can from their relationships in an environment where the masters have left them insufficient resources to reproduce. Because the optimization of the masters is so severe, regular people are left confused and desperate. They blame each other since they don’t understand the source of the problem, which is designed to be invisible to lay folk.

Age Related OS Transitions

Biologically women are wired to create more humans and ensure a stable supply of resources and protection for themselves and their offspring. Men are wired to protect all Tribe members, but especially women and children, provide resources, and provide sperm on demand to any ovulating woman. It may be simple, but it’s a formula that has worked so well that we as a species have taken over the planet.

I realize modern humans, being “civilized”, are typically completely in denial about their biology. Men are often demonized or called “dogs” for doing exactly what the winning formula has been for our species for the last 250,000 years. Men rarely complain about women having children, because we all understand that without that we wouldn’t have even been born.

Thus when we look at the data coming from dating apps (OK Data in this case) we find that men are in highest demand by women at age 45. For women, that age is 26. We also find that men aged 40 seek women aged 30. Men at age 45 seek women aged 25. That’s not “men being dogs”, that’s men following their biology. Our species is wired to produce (collectively) as many viable offspring as possible before we die. Technology hasn’t changed our biology much, even as it has extended our lifespans.

Thus women only get about 40 years of eggs because more than that would be pointless. Getting pregnant at the biologically elderly age of 40 would likely have led to death in childbirth prior to modern medicine. The way I see it, complaining about biology is pointless. When I was young, I grew up very poor. While women were quite willing to sleep with me, I wasn’t relationship material because I lacked resources. I quickly learned to go after women twice my age who already had their children or didn’t want them. So I was very intentionally ignoring my biology, because I have the ability to do that. But that wasn’t me denying biology, or judging others for following it.

So how does age affect OS? Let’s make this more complicated by adding an “e” for early (18 to 30), “m” for midlife (30 to 50/menopause), and “s” for senior (50+). So a young woman running F2.0 would be running F2e. A man aged 55 on M2.0 would be running M2s. This gets further complicated in that people generally date and have relationships in the same age category. But sometimes they “jump” and then they will load a totally different OS and behave very differently.

Someone running F2e is, in 2026, going to be MUCH more strongly interested in hypergamy and economic interests than in having offspring. The Statesman survey showed this loud and clear, with women earning more than men in this age category via self-reporting. There is a clear wage gap, but since men and our institutions aren’t used to men earning less, it will take some time before this becomes an issue. If someone running F2e encounters someone biologically attractive running M2e, it’s usually going to be for entertainment only for both parties. If the woman or man is very highly ranked, the other person is going to want it to be long term, but that’s unlikely since highly ranked people (especially in this age bracket) have a lot of options and want to explore them.

Because men running M2e are of such low value in the dating economy, most of them will have an almost impossible time getting dates. Young men have hormone urges that are almost incomprehensible to women. [Listening to women explaining this process with awe, if they “transition” to being male with Testosterone, is very educational] The longer they go without action, the stronger those urges get. If a low ranked F2e goes after a M2e that is getting “super thirsty”, they can score a guy way above their rank. For a night, maybe two. Then the man’s “Thirst Gauge” resets. This is also called “Post Nut Clarity”. Then the woman will get ghosted. There is no point complaining about this. If you want to not get ghosted, find someone with rank-parity instead of being opportunistic.

Low ranked men don’t have this option usually, since F2e’s don’t get that thirsty, and when they do they can flip a higher ranked guy short term. F2e’s likely don’t want children because they don’t want to get stuck with a low ranked male, and because they are being told they should build their careers in order to have financial independence. If a F2e becomes mutually attracted with a high ranked M2m, then everything changes. The M2m is prime “Father” or at least “Baby Dad” material, and the woman will be tempted to update to running F2m prematurely and attempt a long term relationship instead of just flipping the guy. She may continue to run F2e but “accidentally” get pregnant in order to coerce a long term resource transfer. If they both agree to have children, the assumption is that the woman is going to run F2m for her male partner, regardless of her age. A M2m is likely to be totally fine with a 25 year old pregnant partner if he’s looking for children. That’s biologically ideal. But a lot of high ranked M2m’s are looking to rent, not buy, because they can. High ranked M2m’s and F2e’s are top of the biological food chain, and can easily decline monogamy scenarios.

The M2e fatherhood contradiction: I’ve already explained that young men are reluctant to have children because they don’t want to be coerced into a long term resource transfer to the mother. But the Statesman survey showed that 80% of M2e’s want children while less than 20% of F2e’s want children. That seems counter intuitive. My explanation for this is that less than 20% of young men are seen as relationship or even dating material for young women. The <20% that women want to reproduce with have many options and don’t want to have children this early. The other >80% are experiencing 99+% dating rejection rates compounded by 99+% employment rejection rates. Biologically, they are almost entirely negligible. If they could get a guaranteed long term relationship or job, they would jump at it. I think this is the cohort that the Statesman survey is detecting, even though the vast majority of the young male dating activity is coming from perhaps 10% of those men.

By middle age the scenario is reversing. Men are going up in value in the eyes of women and women are going down in value in the eyes of men. Even mid level men are now able to enjoy the opportunities they didn’t have when younger. By this age women have already racked a lot of biological mileage, and they just assume men have also. Post age 30 men are going to finally get to experiment just as the women did starting at age 18 (if not earlier). Thus male “fatherhood potential” is peaking but “fatherhood desire” on the part of the men is minimizing. This is a very serious social and biological mismatch.

The Egg And Intimacy Economy

[If my long term readers point out that this is a budget, not an economy, I will give you a hug. But cut me some slack because there are interdependencies here that are critical]

Because women get all their eggs prior to their birth, 75% of their eggs are already dead by the time they are born. 95% have died by puberty. Puberty signals the start of their biological reproductive maturity. The clock is ticking on those last 5% of eggs and their quality is degrading even if they still can be fertilized. At age 37 95% of those remaining 5% will be dead. The ovaries are almost ghost towns. By their 20s their risk of miscarriage is 10 to 15%, with a 2% chance of a critical genetic error. From 35 to 39 the risk of miscarriage doubles and the genetic risk triples. By age 40 the risk of miscarriage doubles again, to a massive 40%! The genetic risk triples again.

A pregnancy at age 45 is an almost automatic medical emergency with ~75% miscarriage rates and 35% chance of catastrophic genetic errors.

A desperate late 30s or 40s woman wanting to have children is going to see a 45 year old man as an ideal option. A man who has made it to 45 is at the peak of his reproductive options, similar to how women were at age 26. If he’s going to choose a woman to mother his children, if he’s smart he’s not going to risk the horrible odds of that working out positively with a woman anywhere near his age. He’s going to go after the 25 year old, which is exactly what the statistics show they are doing. That’s not sin, that’s biology. [It’s interesting to note that Korean matchmakers have observed the same thing. The “S Tier” M2m’s are only interested in 25ish year old super models.]

A young man is wired to have 3 regular reproductive partners, that’s how mankind has been for 99% of it’s existence. But only the most attractive men achieve that in modern times, with a huge number having zero partners in a year. If you want a young man as a partner, there are fire sales on them. They are giving them away. You can get some great deals. But women, and especially women who want to be mothers, don’t want those men. They want the middle aged men. Unfortunately, those men either want to have the biological activity that was denied them in their 20s, or they want to find a partner who has a very low chance of a miscarriage or genetic error. That means a woman in her 20s.

What is ideal for our masters, which is young women competing with men to drive down labor costs, ended up being very much not ideal for women (and of course men) who want to have children. Thus the results of this mismatch that our masters have created for us is:

• Catastrophic reduction in birth rates world-wide.

• The Statesman survey suggests that we haven’t seen anything yet. South Korea may be panicking with their 0.8 replacement rate (collapse occurs at values below 2.1), but if only 20% of women have 2 children each, that’s going to be a 0.4 replacement rate. If they have one child each, that’s 0.2 replacement rate.

• Women put their careers first and wait until their 30s to have children.

• The men that were falling all over themselves to date them when they were in their 20s start to avoid them. Finding someone interested in a long term relationship (LTR) becomes frustratingly difficult.

• Women blame this situation on men not being cooperative, even though it was created by women not being cooperative in their 20s. Ultimately though, the source is the master class violating the minimum wage rule set out by Adam Smith in 1776, out of greed.

• The only thing that prevents a flood of genetic defects is the low fertility rates (5% per cycle at age 40 vs. 25% in their 20s) and super high miscarriage rates. Try as they might, it’s very hard to have live children once you are age 35+.

I’m an environmentalist. I think it’s great that we are dropping below replacement rates, there are too many humans on Earth. But the reason I’m so concerned is that this massive and species threatening reduction in replacement rates is just the warmup. If we had 80% replacement we would lose half our population (that’s a loss of over 4 billion people) in 100 to 130 years. I would love that. The planet would love that. With 20% replacement we would lose half the people on Earth in just 40 years, and that rate would just continue to accelerate as older people die off and don’t get replaced. I would not love that. There are no rules for how to adapt to this, and conventional economists have no related training. Sure there are some billionaires out there that would love that scenario and have been promoting it, but I don’t think they have properly thought out the consequences.

Special Note about Maternal Age Gaps and Child Abuse

I struggled over whether to discuss this, but I’ve never heard anyone else mention it and I think it is important. I survived a lot of child abuse and I’m no longer shy about discussing it. When Shakespeare wrote “Romeo and Juliet”, our two star crossed lovers were 13 years old. Biologically, they were ready to go. That was the normal “nubile age” when “women” at least got married.

Now that we are “civilized” much of the world has a minimum age of 18. Countries that have much lower age limits, like Japan (13 until 2023, then 16) and Brazil (14), are raising their ages of consent. But you can’t change biology. In prehistoric times children were raised by the tribe, not parents. That usually was the job of grandparents and other older tribal members.

If you wait until age 35 to have children, and then get rid of your baby daddy, you might end up with a male in the household that isn’t the biological father of your kids. That means when you are 50, your kids are 15. In terms of “biological gravity” (if you get my drift), a 15 year old child (especially a girl) is going to have at least 10 times the biological gravity of a 50 year old woman. Yes, that’s a horrible thought in modern times, but biology is powerful stuff. There’s a reason why incest p0rn is so popular.

If you are considering a huge birth age gap (35+ years), and being a single mother, you need to plan for the security of your children. Sure you might have 13+ years to sort that out, but this is at least as important as planning for the university education of your children.

Not Enough Time (Tribute to Michael Hutchence)

It’s a wonderful song and gets to the source of the problem I seek to solve. In tribal times we knew everyone in our tribe from birth to death. Trust, the most scarce resource in modern times, was abundant. Tribes were removed and replaced by religion and feudalism. Then all that was replaced by industrialism. Now in the “Age of Women” the empowerment promised to them came with a hidden and horrible price:

There isn’t enough time for all but the luckiest to have all the things that were promised to them: Education, career, a loving partner, and children. If you could trust everyone around you, you could pull it off, but without trust the best that 90% of us are going to get is 2 of those four things.

Time compression and urgency necessitates a degree of biologically necessary ruthlessness that further degrades trust, for all genders.

We could solve this problem with money, but there isn’t that much money in the world. That’s because there are too many mouths feeding off of a decaying planet. That’s why every animal that overpopulates triggers a die off. If we could create trust, women could do all this with the very limited biological time they have allotted them at birth. While “authentication” today is being weaponized against us by those seeking information asymmetry, symmetrical authentication combined with advanced game socioeconomic meta designs could gamify and accelerate the process of finding a committed mate. The result would be a saving of time, resources, and mental health while drastically reducing the reproductive failure rate.

Making Time Stop

My first job, at the age of 18, was lead sergeant of security of the UCLA Olympic Village in 1984. My second job was working at the top fertility clinic in Beverly Hills. I worked there for years, and helped a lot of women start families. But honestly, you had to be pretty rich to get help there. As my interests spread to neuroscience and economics, and dozens of other sciences, the threat of Demographic Collapse emerged. I’ve had 42 years to ponder the situation and come up with solutions. That’s a long time for a person who wasn’t expected to live past the age of 30, and lived every day like it could be my last.

I believe strongly that I have a practical but high tech solution that can avert the catastrophe. It is human nature that we won’t try new things unless the old things stop working and we become desperate. Well, we are already there, so I don’t think I’m too early.

In the next paper I will detail my proposal.

I can’t make time stop, but I can put us all into a dating bullet time that speeds us up so that we can dodge all those bullets that are currently finding their marks.