I don’t think people should use this site to promote their personal blogs. Sure, you can add a link to your blog at the bottom of your post, but this teaser excerpt BS is really irritating. I don’t click through just out of principle.
If you have something to say, post the whole thing here. If I like what you have to say, I might check out your other stuff, but I’m not going to be forced into it.
Fwiw, while I much prefer full cross-posts, in practice we can't actually force people to do stuff. Insofar as people are making the choice between "not post on LW, while posting elsewhere" and "link post on LW" I still prefer the latter.
But note that we generally don't curate (or at least have a higher bar for curating) posts that are not fully crossposted, so there's at least some incentive to post the full text on LW.
I prefer lesswrong-specific posts, and while I like them less, I'm happy to have both crossposts and linkposts. My comment was intended to be a hint that a linkpost should be labeled as such (and I do appreciate a summary or excerpt) or a crosspost should be complete.
I agree with this sentiment. I am in favor of link-posts that are also cross-posts; this is the best of both worlds: readers don’t have to leave Less Wrong to read the post (and thus get to take advantage of LW’s or GW’s far superior features to those of most blog software), and there’s a clear link to the originating blog if a reader wants to check out more of the author’s stuff.
However, there is a caveat: sometimes copying over a post is quite impractical, at best. (Such was the case with one of my posts.)
I do also think link-posts are fine. I personally prefer short-excerpts over no excerpt, but a lot of people seem to be annoyed by it, so I would generally recommend copying over the whole thing (and I am happy to set up crossposting for people so that that happens automatically when you apply a tag on your blog).
I think it's intended to be an excerpt of the whole post, though I do think it would be better if the post made that clear
This post uses several directions in the recent (about 100 years) evolution of domesticated chickens (mostly, broiler chickens) to be a chilling illustration of the scenario "The Mindless Outsourcers" in The Future of Human Evolution (Nick Bostrom, 2004).
According to Nick Bostrom, there are two possible ways for future evolution of humans to result in a bad end for humans, because what end up being evolutionarily fit is not "nice". Two possible bad outcomes:
This is not just a threat for humans. Modern chickens are already evolving in such a state, and will become possibly even more mindless as time goes on.
Featherless broiler chickens are a thing, and they have some distinct advantage for factory farms in hot climates: they don't need much air-conditioning, saving money and electricity.
Then there's the blind chicken, which is also a thing, though not yet promoted. As described by Paul Thompson, in The Opposite of Human Enhancement: Nanotechnology and the Blind Chicken Problem (2008):
And there's something even more far-out, brainless chickens. From The Future of Eggs (1993):
This idea has been taken on by an artist who created a sculpture as a demonstration of concept. From Farming the Unconscious (2011):
Outsourcing everything: nutrition, exercise, defecation... all to humans. All that's left for chickens to do, is to grow meat. They would become truly vegetative, no longer animals.
Some philosophers have written about it too, as in Why We Should Genetically ‘Disenhance’ Animals Used in Factory Farms (2018), which is exactly as the title says.
Let's see: no feathers, no eyes, no brain... yes, the Mindless Outsourcers!
And there's Winston Churchill, Fifty Years Hence (1931):
At this point, the dechickenization of chicken would be complete.