Entertainment
Tinders top dating trends and predictions for 2025
Cuffing season is in full swing and 2024 is nearing its end, which means it’s time for Tinder‘s annual Year in Swipe. Each year, the ubiquitous dating app reveals year-long trends and what they could mean for dating in the future.
Here’s what defined dating in 2024, according to Tinder, and what may be in store in 2025:
Tinder’s top 2024 dating trends
This year, “pickleball” was the fastest-growing mention in people’s bios (+148 percent). This is followed by “freak” (+118 percent) — likely users asking for someone to match their freak. “Deserve” rounded out the top 3 with +95 percent mentions.
Tinder users stated their top communication style was “better in person,” followed by being a “big-time texter,” then “phone caller,” then “bad texter.” “Video chatter” ranked at the bottom.
In terms of love styles (similar to the love languages), the top 5 from highest to lowest were: time together, touch, thoughtful gestures, compliments, and presents.
Tinder also measured the fastest-growing emojis on the app: the pink bow, cloud, backpack, palm, and owl.

Fastest-growing emojis in Tinder bios.
Credit: Tinder
Tinder’s 2025 dating predictions
Singes are “loud looking”
“Looking for…” was Tinder’s top bio mention in 2024, according to global data from Tinder bios, descriptors, and interests from January 1 to October 1 this year. Despite Tinder’s longtime reputation as a “hookup app,” insights from the app’s Green Flags study show that’s not always the case: 53 percent of men want a romantic relationship, and 68 percent of women want the same.
Mashable After Dark
Manifesting “kiss-met” love
Manifest is the Cambridge Dictionary’s word of the year — and young singles are proving that true. Nearly 20 percent of 4,000 18-30 year-old daters surveyed said they’re creating vision boards to manifest their ideal relationship in 2025. Tinder introduced an interactive vision board tool so users can create one in-app and share it with friends and family.
Tinder predicts that daters will “embrace the magic of the unplanned” in 2025, moving away from strict “rules” (and, hopefully, icks).
“Micro-connecting” is in
Tinder also predicts the rise of “nano-ships” and “micro-connections” — such as good morning texts (textuationships, naturally) or stealing a glance at a cute stranger on the subway (eyecontactship). While it may seem silly, Bumble also discussed micro-mance behaviors in its 2025 dating trends forecast — so there might be something to this.
Both apps also discussed renewed optimism in their users, which they would need in the next year considering daters are getting sick of dating apps. Around a quarter of surveyed singles said they’re focusing on joy and positivity, and bringing an optimistic outlook to their dating life, according to that same survey of 4,000 18-30 year-olds. Bumble found that 87 percent of users experienced positives of dating this year.
Daters are streamlining their rosters
A quarter of surveyed singles are choosing fewer, more meaningful connections to keep their energy and excitement for dating alive, Tinder states. This may be the result of what apps predicted during the height of the pandemic: Daters will become more intentional and seek deeper connections.
Daters also aren’t deciding their rosters alone: They’re enlisting the help of friends and the stars. This year, 60 percent of singles turned to friends for dating advice, and almost 20 percent asked a friend to pre-screen their date by checking out their social media profiles. Nearly half of singles said they plan to rely on their friends to navigate the dating world next year (Bumble also found the same, in terms of guy friends helping women in their lives).
Astrology is also influencing how singles choose dates. Nearly 40 percent of singles said that “astrology love predictions” will shape who they date next year. (Virgos, Geminis, Leos, Scopios, and Sagittariuses received the most “likes” of all the Zodiac signs in 2024.)
Golden Retrievers wanted
Nearly 45 percent of singles want a “Golden Retriever” type in 2025: loyal, friendly, energetic, and optimistic. Here are some other qualities singles are prioritizing next year:
-
Trustworthiness (40 percent)
-
Physical attraction (35 percent)
-
Shared values (31 percent)
-
Emotional availability (30 percent)
-
Shared interests (28 percent)
Here are the top deal-breakers:
“Singles are embracing intentionality in their dating lives — being upfront about what they want and refusing to settle,” Tinder CMO Melissa Hobley said in the announcement. “These trends are all about empowering choice — whether it’s confidently stating your needs while Loud Looking, savoring serendipitous moments through Kiss-mets, or finding meaning in micro-connections with Nano-ships.”
Entertainment
How Stargate SG-1 Used A Classic Trope To Emotionally Wreck Its Fans
By Jonathan Klotz
| Published

Garfield and Friends said it best: “Oh no, we’ve resorted to an evil twin storyline.” Star Trek: The Original Series did it the best with Mirror Universe Spock, and ever since, it’s been a lazy excuse for every series to use when they run out of ideas. The exception is Stargate SG-1’s sixth episode, “Cold Lazarus,” which plays with the trope by making the twin less evil and more confused.
When fans say they skip this episode when rewatching, it’s not because it’s a lazy, poorly written episode. In fact, it’s the opposite. The ending of “Cold Lazarus” is a pivotal character moment for Jack O’Neill (Richard Dean Anderson) and a gut punch to the audience.
Stargate SG-1’s First Evil Twin

“Cold Lazarus” opens with the SG-1 team on a planet that doesn’t look like Vancouver (it was a giant pile of sulfur at the port of Vancouver). The desert landscape is dotted with shattered blue crystals that look like the remnants of a civilization until we see a crystal eye-view of O’Neill, a mysterious light knocks him out, and all of a sudden, a second O’Neill is looking down at the first. Turns out, the crystals are the civilization.
Fake O’Neill is trying to figure out who O’Neill is and what SGC is all about. When he pulls out photos of his family, it takes Samantha Carter (Amanda Tapping) by surprise. O’Neill’s never mentioned his wife, Sara, or his son, Charlie. Confused, the Fake O’Neill goes to the home, where Sara is disgusted he’d come by and thinks it’s a sick joke that he’s asking about Charlie. If you’re wondering if you missed a key part of O’Neill’s backstory, don’t worry, this is the first time that either Sara or Charlie is mentioned, and tragically, we soon learn why.
No One Ever Dies

Charlie shot himself with O’Neill’s gun. Fake O’Neill starts to piece this together when he goes into Charlie’s old room and breaks down, prompting Sara and him to finally have the conversation about their shared grief. Back in SGC, the crystal’s nature is revealed to be an energy alien calling itself Unity, which accidentally killed a Jaffa, and the Goa’uld shattered them in retribution. That’s when O’Neill stumbles back through the Stargate, and the team realizes the mistake they made.
The Fake O’Neill is soon captured at a local hospital, suffering from Earth’s radiation, where he explains that he sensed O’Neill’s pain after he took his form and wanted to help ease the suffering, as nothing ever truly dies to Unity. To prove its point, Unity transforms into Charlie, giving O’Neill and Sara one last chance to see their child. Fans who haven’t lost a child can understand the emotion, but for fans who have, this scene is emotional torture, in the best way possible.

Jack knows this isn’t Charlie, but he talks to him like he is, and then they walk together through the Stargate back to Unity’s planet. It’s a beautiful moment that explains so much about O’Neill’s throwing himself into work and how even his friendships remain professional. “Cold Lazarus” may have started out with the “evil twin” trope in full effect, but the ending is proof that even early during its run, Stargate SG-1 was going to be the greatest.
Entertainment
Star Trek’s Scariest Episode Secretly Answered Fans’ Oldest Complaint
By Chris Snellgrove
| Published

Star Trek is a long-running franchise filled with tropes, some of them more annoying than others. For many fans, the dumbest trope that keeps popping up is when there’s only one ship that can save Earth from one catastrophe or another. It always begs the question: why isn’t the seat of the United Federation of Planets better protected? It certainly feels like such an important planet would have its own fleet for protection rather than relying on a long-range vessel like the Enterprise to warp in and save the day.
However, it seems that Star Trek’s scariest episode might have secretly answered fans’ oldest complaint about the franchise. Over on Reddit, user u/Wallname_Liability presented a compelling theory: that in the Star Trek: The Next Generation two-parter “The Best of Both Worlds,” the collection of Starfleet vessels lost fighting the Borg at Wolf 359 was the home fleet. This theory would help explain that Earth was typically better-defended than we might imagine and why there were fewer ships to protect the planet in later movies and shows.
My Borg Friend’s Back (And There’s Gonna Be Trouble)

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, most of the adventures take place in deep space because the intrepid crew has an ongoing mission to explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, and (come on, you know you’re already saying it out loud) boldly go where no one has gone before. But in “The Best of Both Worlds,” a Borg Cube starts heading directly for Earth. The Enterprise crew tries to develop a weapon that can defeat this implacable foe, one who seems nearly unstoppable after they assimilate Captain Picard. Meanwhile, a fleet of Starfleet ships assembles at Wolf 359 for one last stand against the Borg.
Unfortunately, that entire fleet is wiped out. The Borg makes it to Earth, but the Enterprise manages to stop these bionic baddies after rescuing Captain Picard. Data exploits Picard’s connection to the Collective and puts the cube to “sleep,” and it explodes soon after that. Picard and his crew get a mostly happy ending, but the same can’t be said for the crew of the ships that fought at Wolf 359. All vessels were lost, and only a handful of people survived, including Benjamin Sisko and Liam Shaw.
Resistance Was Futile

According to this Redditor’s theory, the fleet that assembled at Wolf 359 was the home fleet assigned to (among other things) protect Earth. Some of the ships were likely already at Earth (possibly undergoing repairs or retrofits), and others might have been located near some of humanity’s older colonies. But everyone would have had to have been close enough to Earth to quickly warp to Wolf 359, a real star system that is only eight light-years from humanity’s home planet.
Why is the idea that this was the home fleet so important? In various Star Trek episodes and films, there has often only been one ship (usually the Enterprise) close enough to save Earth. In Star Trek: Generations, for example, the Enterprise-B is on a shakedown cruise, but it’s the only ship close enough to save the El-Aurian refugees from the threat of the Nexus. In Star Trek: The Motion Picture, only the Enterprise can intercept V’ger. In Nemesis, the Enterprise is the only Starfleet ship capable of preventing Shinzon from killing everyone on Earth, and so on.
The Best Of Trope Worlds

This trope can get frustrating when you start comparing Starfleet to, say, the United States Navy. How insane would it be if the whole country had to keep relying on a single ship to save us from major existential threats? Star Trek asks us to repeatedly believe that there’s only one ship within spitting distance of the entire solar system that can take care of the crisis du jour. It’s completely unbelievable, but this Wolf 359 home fleet theory helps make these frustrating moments make more sense.
It’s entirely possible that, in the time of Star Trek: The Original Series and its spinoff movies, there wasn’t a home fleet. Starfleet was a lot smaller back then. Remember, the original Enterprise was one of only 12 Constitution-class vessels. However, both The Motion Picture and The Voyage Home had Earth being attacked by seemingly unstoppable alien forces. In each case, the only man who could stop things was James T. Kirk, but Starfleet must have known he wouldn’t be around forever. Therefore, sometime before The Next Generation premiered, they developed a home fleet that could protect the Earth from overpowered alien attackers.
The Worst Massacre In Starfleet History

Or so they thought. The Borg wiped the floor with the fleet at Wolf 359, which helps to explain why the admiralty needed to assemble an ersatz fleet in First Contact. They were still rebuilding from earlier losses, and most spare vessels were probably being ordered to areas of interest as the Dominion War loomed near. Speaking of which, that war is the most likely reason that the Enterprise was the only ship that could help in Nemesis. The movie took place four years after the Dominion War ended, and once more, Starfleet would have needed time to fully rebuild its fleet.
Obviously, these are only theories, but they are compelling ones. It makes sense that Starfleet would have learned its lessons from V’ger and the Alien Probe and developed a home fleet, only for it to be destroyed by the Borg at Wolf 359. Afterward, the next big Borg attack and the Dominion War destroyed many vessels, all while requiring the existing fleet to stretch that much thinner. Fortunately, Earth was in good hands. No matter how bad the war with the Dominion got, Captain Sisko and Admiral Ross ensured that there was always a fleet or two close enough to protect paradise, even from those pesky Breen.
Entertainment
Ben Stiller Makes The Same Screwball Comedy For The Fourth Time In New Trailer
By TeeJay Small
| Published

Paramount Pictures dropped an announcement trailer for their upcoming film, Focker In-Law, last week, and it immediately caught my attention. As you can probably tell from the title alone, the film is the fourth installment in the Meet The Parents film series, which originally kicked off in 2000. While I loved the original film and enjoyed parts of the 2004 sequel, I can’t help but feel frustrated that we’re getting the exact same movie for the fourth time. From the trailer, it looks like Focker In-Law promises to add some comedic beats from Ariana Grande, but little else.
A Strong Start And Slow Decline
In case you’re not hip to the franchise, the original Meet the Parents tells a very straightforward comedic story of an obnoxious, anxious man named Gaylord Focker (Ben Stiller), as he encounters his girlfriend’s family for the very first time. Focker wants to take this opportunity to get the family’s blessing to propose, but he’s mired by a series of misunderstandings and social faux pas at every turn. To make matters worse, Focker must contend with his girlfriend’s domineering ex-CIA father, Jack (Robert De Niro).
The second film, Meet The Fockers, introduces some fresh talent, flips the script on Jack a little bit by taking him out of his comfort zone, and ratchets up the tension as the happy couple navigate their upcoming wedding and a premarital pregnancy. It’s sort of unnecessary, but it’s a harmless way to squeeze more laughs out of a pretty simple premise. Then, in 2010, we got Little Fockers, which produced absolutely no memorable moments whatsoever. Seriously, Ben Stiller even took to X this week to say “I stand by the first two” installments in the franchise, ignoring the third film entirely.
The Same Old Jokes For A New Generation

Now, it looks like we’re due for the same material a fourth time with Focker In-Law. Greg Focker is still an awkward, bumbling mess, while the aging Jack flexes his people skills and dunks on his son-in-law for having a stupid last name. Meanwhile, a new generation of Focker men have emerged, with Greg’s son Henry (Skyler Gisondo) planning to propose to his girlfriend, Olivia Jones (Ariana Grande). From the trailer, it looks like Grande plays an FBI hostage negotiator, who wishes to pry Focker Jr. away from his emotionally topsy-turvy family in favor of a life of relative normalcy.
Will I watch this movie as soon as it comes out? Almost certainly. But will I have any memory of seeing it within hours of leaving the theater? I’ve got my doubts. The truth is, Focker In-Law could have been an opportunity to completely reshape the characters in fun and exciting ways. We could have had Greg really come into his own with age, assuming a more confident and bullish attitude. We could have even seen him and Jack get on the same page for once, and work together to test Ariana Grande’s worthiness to enter the coveted “circle of trust.”

Instead, it seems like we’re due for another 90 minutes of Robert De Niro rolling his eyes at Ben Stiller, and conflicts driven by characters who refuse to sit down and explain themselves in plain English. The trailer reveals that even minor side characters from the other film are returning to do their same schtick. I’m not mad about Focker In-Law basically recycling the Meet The Parents script for the fourth time, but I am a bit disappointed, since I know for a fact that Stiller, De Niro, and the others are capable of putting out something much stronger.
In fairness, this is all a reaction to a single trailer. There’s an extremely minute chance that Focker In-Law subverts all my expectations, and delivers a new comedy classic that can hold its own. There’s a similarly likely chance that the earth is obliterated by a meteor before the film hits theaters, but I won’t be holding my breath either way. If this film is what Ben Stiller needs to finance a third season of Severance, then I’m content to buy 50 tickets and give Focker In-Law the best damn opening weekend I can.
