Is it really that good? Sure, if you want to sell them a customer and have one to hand over, that’s a thousand bucks. But you have to have a customer to sell them, and the customer has to be willing to be sold, and your contact with that customer-company has to be one who’s not on LW emself already to take advantage of this directly, and meanwhile many people who don’t qualify will encounter this timewasting post. I think this is getting past your filters because outright buying customers is not common except under the terminology “referral bonus” (when existing customers sell other customers to the company—and even that is less shady, because the selling customer has an idea of the quality of the service!).
If a dozen companies offered us comparable amounts in exchange for our word-of-mouth advertising services to their target audience on a monthly basis, and the only lip service they paid to Less Wrong’s purpose was explicitly suggesting that Singinst might be our charity of choice, and that we were Less Wrong readers (“you’ve read the Sequences! You have $INGROUP_TRAITS!”) and that Singinst has hired them for something (“Costco: grocer of choice for large households of Singularitarians, such as those at the celebrated Minicamps!”), that would be more blatantly not-on-topic after a while. This is just numerically less overwhelming. You sort of acknowledge this (“for now”) but while anything could get wearing if it were posted too much, this isn’t like posts about decision theory or posts about signaling or something. This is an ad.
“Costco: grocer of choice for large households of Singularitarians, such as those at the celebrated Minicamps!”
Haha, I didn’t think of that. It’s a fair point.
It would be grating if a dozen companies made posts like this every month, but that isn’t the case. I’m trying to make it easy to donate, in a community where akrasia is an obvious problem and many of us are not old enough to have made much money yet. Perhaps you’re disgusted by it, but do you really think it’s bad on net?
It would be grating if a dozen companies made posts like this every month, but that isn’t the case.
I’m a little wary of this. You think it would be bad if other people acted in a way similar to you in sufficient number? What determines who “gets” to reap the benefits of being the exception?
Yes. Yes, I do think it is bad, and I wish it would not be here. I don’t happen to wish it authoritatively enough to click “ban”, but I do wish it enough to say so.
I would not have complained about an Open Thread comment that straightforwardly detailed the offer without being so salesy.
So, to be clear: you are bothered by salesiness, not the offer itself? So much so that you considered banning me from Less Wrong? I don’t think you’re being a consequentialist right now.
I’d like to discuss this with you through email, if you care enough to make the time.
I am bothered by the salesiness and the location as a toplevel post. If it had been a non-salesy Open Thread comment it would have been sufficiently unobtrusive, and sufficiently not-annoying, that I would have let it pass without remark.
I cannot ban people, I can only hide posts.
I can’t say I have any reason to be interested in talking to you outside this format.
Good point. Too many people with the same name gets confusing. (I have two friends called “Christine”. Recently they both went and got married… to brothers. Now facebook has all sorts of trouble working out who I’m referring to!)
What if posters who wanted to post ads like this had to pay to SI/LW/CFAR? This way we would be getting more value out of this. Or may be we should have a separate section (my “shit lesswrongers say” detector just went off) for this kind of stuff?
I’ve started to learn programming a few times but wouldn’t say I know any to speak of. The $VARIABLE convention is pretty easy to pick up when one hangs around programmers.
Is it really that good? Sure, if you want to sell them a customer and have one to hand over, that’s a thousand bucks. But you have to have a customer to sell them, and the customer has to be willing to be sold, and your contact with that customer-company has to be one who’s not on LW emself already to take advantage of this directly, and meanwhile many people who don’t qualify will encounter this timewasting post. I think this is getting past your filters because outright buying customers is not common except under the terminology “referral bonus” (when existing customers sell other customers to the company—and even that is less shady, because the selling customer has an idea of the quality of the service!).
If a dozen companies offered us comparable amounts in exchange for our word-of-mouth advertising services to their target audience on a monthly basis, and the only lip service they paid to Less Wrong’s purpose was explicitly suggesting that Singinst might be our charity of choice, and that we were Less Wrong readers (“you’ve read the Sequences! You have $INGROUP_TRAITS!”) and that Singinst has hired them for something (“Costco: grocer of choice for large households of Singularitarians, such as those at the celebrated Minicamps!”), that would be more blatantly not-on-topic after a while. This is just numerically less overwhelming. You sort of acknowledge this (“for now”) but while anything could get wearing if it were posted too much, this isn’t like posts about decision theory or posts about signaling or something. This is an ad.
Haha, I didn’t think of that. It’s a fair point.
It would be grating if a dozen companies made posts like this every month, but that isn’t the case. I’m trying to make it easy to donate, in a community where akrasia is an obvious problem and many of us are not old enough to have made much money yet. Perhaps you’re disgusted by it, but do you really think it’s bad on net?
I’m a little wary of this. You think it would be bad if other people acted in a way similar to you in sufficient number? What determines who “gets” to reap the benefits of being the exception?
Yes. Yes, I do think it is bad, and I wish it would not be here. I don’t happen to wish it authoritatively enough to click “ban”, but I do wish it enough to say so.
I would not have complained about an Open Thread comment that straightforwardly detailed the offer without being so salesy.
So, to be clear: you are bothered by salesiness, not the offer itself? So much so that you considered banning me from Less Wrong? I don’t think you’re being a consequentialist right now.
I’d like to discuss this with you through email, if you care enough to make the time.
That seems likely. Alicorn is a professed deontologist.
I am bothered by the salesiness and the location as a toplevel post. If it had been a non-salesy Open Thread comment it would have been sufficiently unobtrusive, and sufficiently not-annoying, that I would have let it pass without remark.
I cannot ban people, I can only hide posts.
I can’t say I have any reason to be interested in talking to you outside this format.
You are missing out! He’s quite good looking, rather charming and generally fun to have around.
Sure, but his name’s Michael, and I know too many of those.
Good point. Too many people with the same name gets confusing. (I have two friends called “Christine”. Recently they both went and got married… to brothers. Now facebook has all sorts of trouble working out who I’m referring to!)
What if posters who wanted to post ads like this had to pay to SI/LW/CFAR? This way we would be getting more value out of this. Or may be we should have a separate section (my “shit lesswrongers say” detector just went off) for this kind of stuff?
I’m just curious, have you been learning programming? Gratz if so.
I’ve started to learn programming a few times but wouldn’t say I know any to speak of. The $VARIABLE convention is pretty easy to pick up when one hangs around programmers.