In response to comment by bbarth on LW's first job ad
Comment author: Aleksei_Riikonen 18 September 2010 05:25:51AM 1 point [-]

This isn't a matter of being non-open (except on the part of the employer, which is their valid choice). It's just a matter of not putting in the effort to make it obvious at the very first glance to newcomers whether the job ad is trustworthy or not.

To be honest, I don't consider it a particularly demanding task even for newcomers to determine that they won't exceptionally probably be screwed if they send their info. But if you're worried about it, no-one is stopping you from sending an anonymised application, saying that you'd give your more personal details if the potential employer first communicates more about itself to you.

Comment author: mranissimov 20 September 2010 09:09:52PM 2 points [-]

God, the people here go on and on about such a trivial issue! Sorry if I offend anyone, but really. Petty microanalysis of the type seen nowhere else on the Internet. If you don't like the ad, don't apply. If you don't want to promote it, don't. Is it really worth having a debate about whether it is worth promoting?

Comment author: wedrifid 16 August 2010 07:57:52AM 1 point [-]

Not to my knowledge... but Eliezer makes his words far more prominent that you do.

Comment author: mranissimov 04 September 2010 03:24:10AM 1 point [-]

Only on LessWrong. In the wider world, more people actually read my words!

Comment author: mranissimov 16 August 2010 07:24:11AM 3 points [-]

Just to check... have I said any "naughty" things analogous to the Eliezer quote above?

Comment author: alyssavance 13 July 2010 05:39:45PM *  0 points [-]

Possibly. Contact Aruna Vassar (aruna.vassar@intelligence.org) for more info.

Comment author: mranissimov 14 July 2010 06:11:02AM 0 points [-]

If you attend the Summit as a volunteer, don't expect to see many of the talks.

In response to comment by Rain on Abnormal Cryonics
Comment author: CarlShulman 26 May 2010 09:27:01PM 5 points [-]

I sent Anissimov an email asking him to clarify. He may have been netting out Summit expenses (matching cost of venue, speaker arrangements, etc against tickets to net things out). Also note that 2008 was followed by a turnover of all the SIAI staff except Eliezer Yudkowsky, and Michael Vassar then cut costs.

Comment author: mranissimov 26 May 2010 10:08:31PM 15 points [-]

Hi all,

I was completely wrong on my budget estimate, I apologize. I wasn't including the Summit, and I was just estimating the cost on my understanding of salaries + misc. expenses. I should have checked Guidestar. My view of the budget also seems to have been slightly skewed because I frequently check the SIAI Paypal account, which many people use to donate, but I never see the incoming checks, which are rarer but sometimes make up a large portion of total donations. My underestimate of money in contributing to my underestimating monies out.

Again, I'm sorry, I was not lying, just a little confused and a few years out of date on my estimate. I will search over my blog to modify any incorrect numbers I can find.