Finding love has become a corporate, and scientific, endeavor.

As reported in this New York Times article:

“Once upon a time, finding a mate was considered too important to be entrusted to people under the influence of raging hormones. … But now some social scientists have rediscovered the appeal of adult supervision — provided the adults have doctorates and vast caches of psychometric data. Online matchmaking has become a boom industry as rival scientists test their algorithms for finding love.”

The first company, the article mentions, to breach the “don’t-try-this-yourself” science of online matchmaking, eHarmony, relies on 29 “core traits,” such as emotional temperament, to match people.

As expected on the capitalist playing field, the companies with the help of scientists are duking it out in an effort to draw customers to their match-making sites.

For instance, an anthropologist parlayed her research into the neural chemistry of people in love into the site Chemistry.com, which was set up by Match.com. Another algorithm-based site is Perfectmatch.com.

Just because scientists and equations are involved, does that make for more than a love potion?

Past research, reported here at LiveScience, revealed that online dating suffers from the same pitfalls as meeting up in real life: Finding the perfect match is difficult and can involve “blood, sweat and tears.” Often, online daters are expecting sparks to fly when they come face-to-face with whom they’ve associated with a person’s profile. In fact, about 10 million people (64 percent of online daters) think online dating helps people find a better match because of access to a larger pool of potential dates.

But when they realize the real-life date is exactly that — real — their expectations get deflated.

In the larger picture, looking back at strings of lousy relationships, one has to wonder whether computer or human is better equipped to choose that perfect mate.

For the millions of Americans who work from home, does the teleconference-in-your-slippers lifestyle equal a stress-free, productive one?

Research published in a recent issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, reported by LiveScience, suggests this alternative work arrangement is a win-win set-up. But today in this New York Times article, home-workers relay the troubles involved, including distractions from children, the short trip from the bedroom to the office (which can mean a beckoning computer or a beckoning bed) and feelings of isolation.

“There are no cigarette breaks,” said Sid Holt, a media senior vice president who set up his office in a barn a few steps from his house, in the Times article. “You’re either working too hard or not hard enough,” he said.

Also in the Times article, Holt gives a tip for balancing work hours: Schedule your home-office time similar to a nine-to-five one with a structured daily routine.