>>815428361. Those are not Tinder stats
2. There is no methodology or definitions or raw data or anything to clarify how those were calculated
3. It has literally zero to do with what you claimed. It's not even apples and oranges, it's more like vacuum cleaners and groundhogs. You couldn't even explain in your own words what that graph supposedly shows, much less how it supports your point of view.
And now you will move the goalposts again.