etjossem

Thank you. Please read directly from the source instead of participating in anything to do with LessWrong.

I referred to "if the title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link" but I get that this may apply in particular to "Washington Post: " etc.

Point about importance vs. endorsement is well taken; I would rather not give any publicity to this project without couching it in explicit criticism, but that's a personal choice.

I don't believe this was a good call. The title was accurate before, and the meaning of the submission has been substantively changed. Now it uses the title of the site - something we're explicitly asked not to do as part of the HN Guidelines.

As a reader, there's a real difference between deciding to upvote the original title (an observer's description of an inherently deceptive project) versus casting a vote on what it's been changed to (a brand name used to promote that project). I would absolutely upvote an article critical of The Spinner - while at the same time, I'd downvote a promotional submission.

OP did not intend to advertise The Spinner, they intended to expose it as a deceptive project without linking to third-party press coverage. The submission title absolutely matters.

If this changes your mind, please go with the original again.

In both the case of the phone and the Peloton, it allows someone who can't afford the item to pay for it on an installment basis. On an individual level that access to credit might be useful, but it's another form of leverage which is not always a great indicator.

In fact, if people are making use of that option unusually often, economists get worried. Prior to a recession, consumers often feel more confident (and take on more financial obligations) than they have the resources to keep up with.

Instead of $1,995 up front, it's $3,783 over 39 months due to a subscription contract bundled with the financing. This is a very clever way to claim "no interest" but actually charge 27% APR. There are absolutely customers who buy this but can't afford it.

Absolutely this. A bubble doesn't look like one until it pops, so you can't just say "everyone's buying $2000 spin bikes, everything must be fine." For starters, Peloton does a majority of its sales through Affirm and other consumer financing instruments, and books them as revenue. It's more accurate to say "everyone is buying $2000 spin bikes using 30% APR installment loans."

In the risks section, Peloton says that their revenue could decline due to changes in credit markets and decisions made by credit providers - a.k.a. if a bunch of people start to default on their expensive luxuries.

"In the future, we cannot be assured that third-party financing providers will continue to provide consumers with access to credit or that available credit limits will not be reduced. Such restrictions or reductions in the availability of consumer credit, or the loss of our relationship with our current financing partners, could have an adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, and operating results."

Murphy's law: "anything that can go wrong, will go wrong"

Muphry's law: "anything that can be mispelled, will be mispelled"

By "tech" is meant "the community." You can't get policy change without enough people getting involved and supporting that change. Do you want to fix this?

Join YIMBY Action. Support pro-housing candidates at the polls. Tell your friends.