= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alicorn comments on Applied Optimal Philanthropy: How to Donate $100 to SIAI for Free - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (86)
What's the "Person 2 Person" payment it mentions? Could people pair up and swap a dollar back and forth three times, rather than making purchases? (I don't make many purchases.)
What kind of e-mail/snail mail payload does one sign up for by signing up for this account?
Are there any concealed obstacles to my completely forgetting that this service exists without further hassle after collecting the bonus, if that's what I want to do?
I can't answer the first question.
I removed all of my money from my ING account a while ago, but kept the account open. There was no hassle involved except an additional interest payment I had to remove a little bit later (more money, darn? :P).
After doing so, I continued to receive emails from them about once every 3 to 4 months. They recently seemed to have changed that policy, though, and I was getting them once a week until I remembered my login info and changed email preferences. I haven't received anything since making that change in November.
Something like that should work. Possibly it needs to be with three different people but probably not.
Anybody wanna pair up with me? (I'm not confident that I'll make three purchases that I would have made anyway between now and the end of the matching challenge.)
I'd do it. But if the only reason you want to do paired P2P payments is to get the $50 in time for the matching challenge, you should be aware of this from the ING offer page:
"3.Your $50 bonus will automatically be deposited into your account on day 50."
January 20th is less than 50 days from today, so you'll have to loan yourself the $50. I'm OK with that, so please let me know to confirm if you want to do this.
Understood. I can spot the fifty bucks if I expect reimbursement :) Signing up now.
Edit: Signed up. Apparently it will take a short while to move the initial deposit; I'll ping you when that happens.
Update: Exchange is done and my $50 is donated. Presumably ING will make good on its offer some time within the next 45 days or so.
Thanks for the swappage :)
Incidentally, the Person 2 Person money exchange is painless enough that I'd be willing to help someone else put enough activity on their account too.
Double thanks to you for coming up with the swap idea and following through.
My account appears operational. If yours is too, PM me so we can start swapping money around to get our presents.
I wanna pair up with you. But I don't know what to put in the "SSN" and "Verify SSN" fields (_/
What did the Users here put in those fields?
Those fields are for the applicant's Social Security Number, a government-supplied identification number. I expect you won't be able to get a useable one; you would have to convince the United States government that you're a citizen or otherwise allowed to work for pay here, which probably requires convincing them that you're human.
Why can't I just use someone else's SSN? Maybe a User that won't take up this offer can let me use that User's SSN.
Do you have an SSN I can use?
SSNs are considered by humans to be highly private. Asking a human to give you theirs is generally considered bad form. This is why you are being downvoted.
If you put it like that it makes it seem like you are translating between two different species. And in this particular case most humans match Clippy's experience more closely than yours.
As of this moment, I'm not being downvoted, non-ape.
EDIT: Except for this comment.
Asking someone to tell you their SSN is roughly the same type of thing as one of us asking you for the access codes to your safe zone - perhaps it's not on the same scale as that, but it definitely isn't something that any reasonably smart person will agree to.
Then why does ING Direct ask for SSN? And why do humans give it their SSN? Is ING Direct run by bad humans?
That's a good question, and one that I don't have a very good answer to, but here's the answer I do have:
Banks and some other institutions - generally ones that deal with money in some way - use SSNs to track people. This appears to be government-approved, and I assume that there are significant safeguards in place to reduce or eliminate the chance of bank employees using peoples' SSNs for anything other than what they're supposed to.
Even so, smart humans will be cautious about what banks they use, sticking to ones that have good reputations or at least have been around for several years without any reports of misconduct. I perceive ING as a trustworthy institution to give my SSN to (though I haven't opened an account with them); they've been around for nearly two decades, I know or know of several people who have used them with no problems, and I haven't seen any news reports about misconduct on their part.
You, on the other hand, don't have a government-approved reason for wanting my SSN (and I suspect that if I let you use it, and the government found out, I would get in trouble, for fraud or something similar), there are no safeguards in place to stop you from using it for other things, and I have no reason to trust that you wouldn't use it for other things, some of which could be very harmful to me.
Thanks for the explanation. But what would I do that would harm you? You told me a week or so ago that you like paperclips, so even if I used the SSN to produce paperclips, what's the problem?
Can you expand on that question? For example, provide some examples of bad and non-bad humans (hypothetical or actual, as you prefer) and how you make the classification decision?
I'm only idly curious.
I meant "bad human" in the sense that User:AdeleneDawner would use the term in the comment I was replying to: in other words, humans that violate human norms, especially if they can accomplish this with impunity.
My personal definition, to be assumed in the absence of overriding context, is that a bad human is any human who hurts the production of paperclips on net, especially if that human would continue to do so upon being informed of the implications of such an action set and reaching a new reflective equilibrium.