I'm not sure if the article author sees it as in scope, but an obvious problem here is the paradox of choice and the high absolute bar to getting a date. We're

I'm not sure if the article author sees it as in scope, but an obvious problem here is the paradox of choice and the high absolute bar to getting a date. We're seeing numbers in the range of 100s of attempts to start expecting to find a partner. That seems high. If we look back at a hypothetical 1900s village, I don't think people necessarily had 100 partners to choose from. It'd be things like "in the local church group, I can pick between these 10 people and I have a very clear understanding of my relative social rank". The decisions made themselves, a lot of people had so-so relationships and that was acceptable because the alternative was worse. This article is suggesting a much, much higher bar to being in the game than that. A hypothetical dude needs to invest hours solely in finding dates, has to master app use, promotional skills, meet unclear shifting bars and have a good understanding of what signals in the discourse to glom on to and which to ignore as counterproductive. Then multiply that by hundred(s). Some grasp of statistics is recommended. There is a real chance of investing years into a relationship and just having it collapse because a better alternative comes along. Dating has probably gotten harder. That is before even looking at the changing economics of what a relationship is.