Especially if you keep some money for yourself, it’s a good deal. Setting up the account is a minor inconvenience, so a disproportionate number of people are not going to do anything about this. Taking a cut for yourself allows you to take whatever cut you want to overcome said inconvenience: if you think it’s about 10 dollars annoying, you keep 10 dollars, and then 40 (80) goes to SIAI.
The compensation cancels out with the annoyance, and you’re left with fuzzies.
That is why I praised and upvoted it, but I don’t think it’s what User:Kevin intended. I think he intended to answer your question
why should I extend them $50 of credit for 50 days
with “you get $2.50”. I believe this intended meaning is obvious because he quoted your question and provided an answer in the form of a situation where you get $2.50.
Especially if you keep some money for yourself, it’s a good deal.
It seems to me that either it it’s better for SIAI to have the money, in which case it’s a worse deal, or it’s better for you to have it, in which case keeping all of it is the best deal. I don’t see why keeping some of it would be optimal.
There is a third case that may occur: you don’t sign up, nobody gets the money. From all perspectives this is a bad thing. If you pay yourself some money, you decrease the proportion of “no money” to add to the proportion of “SIAI gets money”. Keeping 5% means the SIAI gets 95 dollars (matched) instead of 100 - but if it makes a significant dent in the chances of the SIAI getting 0 dollars then the expected outcome is higher for paying yourself than it is for sending it all to the SIAI.
That said, you could use this justification to overcome the inconveniences, and re-evaluate at the moment of donating to the SIAI, and decide to donate the full amount.
My entire objection is that I don’t think I will get the $50, (“It’s not the interest I’m worried about; it’s the principle.”), either by ING not giving it, or by requiring me to spend $50 worth of my time.
Do you now see why arguments that assume ING acceptably comes through are therefore non-responsive? (Because it’s frankly taking a while.)
My entire objection is that I don’t think I will get the $50
Could you elaborate on why? “ING not giving it” is unlikely, “requires >$50 of my time” seems unlikely—the website in question says it will take 5 minutes to sign up, each of the three transactions will take ~5 minutes, donating will take ~5 minutes, spending or transferring the bonus $50 down the line will take ~5 minutes… that’s half an hour. So please, I would like to know why you don’t think you will get the $50.
Can we first agree that given my position, the points you were actually arguing in an attempt to change my mind were not relevant?
With that said, the evidence provided by Rain and Kevin indicate that that is a non-sleazy offer, so the only question is whether this is worth my time. And I think you’ve significantly underestimated the time this will actually take (since you can’t do all of that in a batch) and my time value/hour. Still worth considering though.
Can we first agree that given my position, the points you were actually arguing in an attempt to change my mind were not relevant?
Sure. I figured since the top level post specified in a footnote that it was genuine and not at all sleazy, and both top level posts and Louie have good track records, you must have had some other reason. Of course, if you value your time much higher than I do, you might need comparatively more evidence to be convinced of that.
I upvoted and praised it because it’s a good point regardless of its irrelevance.
Then would you please elaborate on what about it is a good point? I don’t understand if your point is that
even if you keep some money for yourself, it’s a good deal; or,
you should donate ~$50 to SIAI anyway, even if this deal didn’t exist, jerk-face; or,
hey, by advancing the $50, you can take advantage of the doubling; or,
something else entirely
as well as why you believe that intended meaning was obvious.
Especially if you keep some money for yourself, it’s a good deal. Setting up the account is a minor inconvenience, so a disproportionate number of people are not going to do anything about this. Taking a cut for yourself allows you to take whatever cut you want to overcome said inconvenience: if you think it’s about 10 dollars annoying, you keep 10 dollars, and then 40 (80) goes to SIAI.
The compensation cancels out with the annoyance, and you’re left with fuzzies.
That is why I praised and upvoted it, but I don’t think it’s what User:Kevin intended. I think he intended to answer your question
with “you get $2.50”. I believe this intended meaning is obvious because he quoted your question and provided an answer in the form of a situation where you get $2.50.
It seems to me that either it it’s better for SIAI to have the money, in which case it’s a worse deal, or it’s better for you to have it, in which case keeping all of it is the best deal. I don’t see why keeping some of it would be optimal.
There is a third case that may occur: you don’t sign up, nobody gets the money. From all perspectives this is a bad thing. If you pay yourself some money, you decrease the proportion of “no money” to add to the proportion of “SIAI gets money”. Keeping 5% means the SIAI gets 95 dollars (matched) instead of 100 - but if it makes a significant dent in the chances of the SIAI getting 0 dollars then the expected outcome is higher for paying yourself than it is for sending it all to the SIAI.
That said, you could use this justification to overcome the inconveniences, and re-evaluate at the moment of donating to the SIAI, and decide to donate the full amount.
My entire objection is that I don’t think I will get the $50, (“It’s not the interest I’m worried about; it’s the principle.”), either by ING not giving it, or by requiring me to spend $50 worth of my time.
Do you now see why arguments that assume ING acceptably comes through are therefore non-responsive? (Because it’s frankly taking a while.)
Could you elaborate on why? “ING not giving it” is unlikely, “requires >$50 of my time” seems unlikely—the website in question says it will take 5 minutes to sign up, each of the three transactions will take ~5 minutes, donating will take ~5 minutes, spending or transferring the bonus $50 down the line will take ~5 minutes… that’s half an hour. So please, I would like to know why you don’t think you will get the $50.
Can we first agree that given my position, the points you were actually arguing in an attempt to change my mind were not relevant?
With that said, the evidence provided by Rain and Kevin indicate that that is a non-sleazy offer, so the only question is whether this is worth my time. And I think you’ve significantly underestimated the time this will actually take (since you can’t do all of that in a batch) and my time value/hour. Still worth considering though.
Sure. I figured since the top level post specified in a footnote that it was genuine and not at all sleazy, and both top level posts and Louie have good track records, you must have had some other reason. Of course, if you value your time much higher than I do, you might need comparatively more evidence to be convinced of that.