Why I don't feel commits.to does what I want it to, and what I would prefer instead

[dreev]

@zzq

Another advantage of Beeminder (as opposed to commits.to) is that it makes failing, well, not exactly OK, but something with a well-defined monetary cost. This means that I can make a reasoned decision of whether I am willing to derail or not.

You’re giving me a warm glow here. It’s related to this old post by Bee: Be Nice To Yourself | Beeminder Blog

@zzq

I don’t want to succeed all the time. If I find that I am, I that means I definitely wasn’t aiming high enough.

Ah, beautifully said! In fact, you just inspired me to finally post this:

Derailing Is Not Failing; or, Beeminder Revenue Proportional To User Awesomeness

[adapted from a daily beemail a few months ago] We’ve argued before that Beeminder’s incentives are not at all as perverse as they seem. If Beeminder didn’t help you succeed at your goals then you’d stop using it. We’d have to be very myopic (and certainly wouldn’t have survived 7 (!) years) to want to make people more likely to fail. Still, it would seem too convenient to be true if maximizing Beeminder revenue and maximizing user awesomeness were always entirely identical. Well, being a fan …

@zzq

(Note that I am complaining here mostly that Beeminder doesn’t currently have a way for me to give them money in the way that I want to. (i.e. when I fail my short term goals.))