al3x

"Letting a person speak" isn't the only impact of inviting that person to your event, particularly an event that facilitates social gatherings and an ongoing dialogue between its attendees. If we just wanted to exchange information as efficiently as possible, we wouldn't bother with the time and expense of in-person conferences. The event provides a social context, and that's why we put so much monetary and cultural value on attendance in comparison to, say, sitting at home and reading an academic paper or a blog post.

As a friend texted me this morning: "the talk on Urbit could have been dismissed on technical grounds". Perhaps it's interesting to you, but it brings very little that's new to the table in terms of research. Urbit's author, meanwhile, has had nothing but invective for people doing valuable research in the relevant sub-fields of compsci that his work touches upon. Purely from a technology perspective, this in an individual who operates in bad faith.

> "And how are we supposed to correct problems in society if we cannot talk honestly about them?"

Pick up a paper. Do you think our society lacks an ongoing discussion of the repercussions of racism? Moldbug has no place in this discussion because the views he's defending – that people of some ethnic backgrounds are subhuman and fit only for slavery – were roundly rejected by society decades ago. Including him would be pandering to a common denominator so low it barely even registers today.

> "Now maybe Alex wishes to cater to the more thin-skinned in his audience"

As I suggested to another commenter: why don't you take a look at who was asking Yarvin's dismissal on Twitter and inquire with them as to whether they would describe themselves as "thin-skinned". Better yet, try asking them in person the next time you cross paths at a tech event. It's easy to characterize the hypothetical "other" in your head. Why not test your own thick skin and look them in the eye when you call them cowards?

The political left in America were made enemies of the state during the era of McCarthyism. People's careers and personal lives were ruined during that Red Scare. That is "silencing". That is "limiting speech".

Who on the right today has been similarly "silenced"? If someone is called out for racism and then voluntarily chooses to exit public life or withdraw further commentary, that's their own cowardly choice. Being criticized does not "silence" anyone.

The right in America has a political and media apparatus that far outstrips that of the left in funding. Worry not: hate is no danger of being silenced in this country. Far-right demagogues continue to fill newspapers, magazines, think tank briefing, the Internet, and airwaves with their ideas despite decades of criticism from the left.

There were a number of people who voiced their objections on Twitter. It's easy to ask the rhetorical question here, but if you really want an answer, go check out what they said.

In particular, people who represent groups that Moldbug treats as subhuman in his writing expressed concern and dismay. Perhaps looking through their eyes for a moment might illuminate why a person would care.

Sorry, I know it's been a long wait. We hope it'll be worth it.

So, a couple reasons:

1. Unless you're doing an absolute ton of spending on your rewards credit card, any fees you pay on your credit card probably wipe out any cash you're getting back. If you're not paying fees yourself, merchants or other institutions may be subsidizing your rewards in ways that aren't sustainable. Many rewards programs have been slashed during the financial crisis of the last several years.

2. Cash-back rewards make your personal accounting more complicated. If you really want to set and meet financial goals, you need to be keeping close tabs on what you spend on what card, how much you're getting back in rewards, what fees you're paying, and where those reward dollars are going so that you're actually accumulating wealth (saving account, brokerage account, etc.). Our model combines an interest-bearing account with the ability to easily track your financial goals. Keeping it all in one place is, in our experience, way easier.

We're not crazy about the idea of rewards programs, but it's also not something we've completely ruled out. If we can find a way to do a rewards program that has clear incentives for our customers, merchants, and our partner institutions, we'll explore that.

"Apple" sounds pretty generic for the name of a computer company :)

Hi, cofounder of Simple here.

Some people are driven to change banks because of interest rates, but those people are not the majority. Most people change banks around major life events: moving, getting married, getting your first job, etc. Or, they change banks when they have an extremely negative experience with their current bank.

Either way, changing banks is a hassle, and we really have to make it easy and compelling. But interest/rewards aren't the only motivation, or even the primary motivation, for switching one's bank according to bank industry research.

We're not going to aggregate your existing accounts, so no, we may not be right for you.

We're also not super interested in getting into white labeling, but it's something we've thought about.

We've considered it. Not something we're likely to do in the next year, but it's on our radar.

No, nothing has changed about our mission but our name.

Like basically every US bank, we issue a debit card. That card needs to be on one of the card networks. We chose Visa for our cards.

What we're issuing is a debit card, not a credit card. It's standard practice for banks.

We've disclosed all of our bank, technology, and processing partners.

I don't think we're likely to allow customers to choose which partner bank holds their funds, but we do make that information transparent.

Hi, cofounder of Simple here.

There's a ton about when and how and if we exit that's out of our control, and I wouldn't presume to predict exactly what's going to happen. But, please know that our goal is not to sell out to a big bank. We're building this because we want to use it, and part of what we want to use is a banking service that's provided by people who are acting in the best interests of their customers.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that going with a smaller or local bank provides a more solid guarantee that you won't be banking with a giant down the road. The economic crisis of the past few years has seen a ton of consolidation in retail banking, and I think there's even more to come.

Daily ATM withdrawal limits are something we have some freedom to adjust, but ATM owners get to set their own limits as well. We're generally trying to make it easy to make substantial withdrawals purchases and such while still keeping a lookout for fraudulent activity.

We're issuing checks, so you can always make a check out to "cash" and take that into any physical bank if need be. Over time, though, I expect products like Square to make it possible to transact with your Simple debit card in places that might have previously required cash or a check.

If you're happy with your current bank, you're probably not our target customer.

I think we're doing some stuff that's pretty different in terms of making your financial data easy to explore and helping you meet savings goals and automatically earn more interest. Those things might not be compelling to everyone, but a lot of people seem interested.