I think there’s value in discussing ops decisions. They still represent how an org runs.
The most expensive coffee table I find in my local IKEA is $150, the cheapest $16. I wouldn’t quibble over the outright choice to buy the $150 one and agree at some point spending time comparing items to save cash is not a good use of time. I agree the difference saved between these tables is less than the value of some people’s time, sure.
But $10,000? That’s just unreasonable. That amount of money could save two lives and would be appalling spending if this is true. There has to be a cheaper alternative that can be found in little time. Say 20 minutes. Which would mean there is no one at Atlas whose time is below $30,000 an hour? Hard to believe.
I think I’m more sympathetic to some types of discussion than others.
If someone really established that Atlas spent 100x extra money on a coffee table than it was needed, then I think it would be fair for them to make sarcastic jokes about Atlas coffee tables in public or over the internet.
But I’m much more resistant to a culture where project founders are expected to respond to every similar rumour with a paragraph like “actually, it wasn’t a coffee table, it was a much larger piece of furniture for a bar, and it wasn’t actually $10000, it was $4000. Here is the screenshot of our digital receipt.”
If we establish a culture where every rumour about every similar product purchase is expected to receive an explanation from the relevant organisations, many projects would move much more slowly. If this wasn’t just a rumour, I think it’s more justified to criticise but I still feel resistant to the idea of founders being expected to explain all their weird-looking spending on physical goods that make up less than 0.1% of their budget.
I agree with most of this sentiment (and I don’t like sharing of unsubstantiated rumours). Once the rumour is out there though I don’t see the harm in responding to every rumour with a paragraph. There aren’t that many rumours flying around on the forum. It would take 5-10 minutes to put this particular rumour to bed. I don’t think this would slow down projects meaningfully to respond. Yes it might not make sense to explain tiny percentages of spending, but if that is where the scrutiny happens to fall why not just clear it up quicksmart?
Fortunately @Habryka was here to clear it up, but the head of the org could have also taken a few minutes to quash the rumour.
I think there’s value in discussing ops decisions. They still represent how an org runs.
The most expensive coffee table I find in my local IKEA is $150, the cheapest $16. I wouldn’t quibble over the outright choice to buy the $150 one and agree at some point spending time comparing items to save cash is not a good use of time. I agree the difference saved between these tables is less than the value of some people’s time, sure.
But $10,000? That’s just unreasonable. That amount of money could save two lives and would be appalling spending if this is true. There has to be a cheaper alternative that can be found in little time. Say 20 minutes. Which would mean there is no one at Atlas whose time is below $30,000 an hour? Hard to believe.
I think I’m more sympathetic to some types of discussion than others.
If someone really established that Atlas spent 100x extra money on a coffee table than it was needed, then I think it would be fair for them to make sarcastic jokes about Atlas coffee tables in public or over the internet.
But I’m much more resistant to a culture where project founders are expected to respond to every similar rumour with a paragraph like “actually, it wasn’t a coffee table, it was a much larger piece of furniture for a bar, and it wasn’t actually $10000, it was $4000. Here is the screenshot of our digital receipt.”
If we establish a culture where every rumour about every similar product purchase is expected to receive an explanation from the relevant organisations, many projects would move much more slowly. If this wasn’t just a rumour, I think it’s more justified to criticise but I still feel resistant to the idea of founders being expected to explain all their weird-looking spending on physical goods that make up less than 0.1% of their budget.
I sure think the coffee table is a distraction, but in any case, I left a comment with the story of the rumored coffee table here (TLDR: It’s a really cool art-piece/coffee table that cost around $2200, Lightcone bought it from Atlas a few months ago at list price): https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fMrtoKBFK7p6oRHpu/atlas-fellowship-why-do-100-high-schoolers-need-usd50k-each?commentId=tPDmJWrimG9KpBCfi
I agree with most of this sentiment (and I don’t like sharing of unsubstantiated rumours). Once the rumour is out there though I don’t see the harm in responding to every rumour with a paragraph. There aren’t that many rumours flying around on the forum. It would take 5-10 minutes to put this particular rumour to bed. I don’t think this would slow down projects meaningfully to respond. Yes it might not make sense to explain tiny percentages of spending, but if that is where the scrutiny happens to fall why not just clear it up quicksmart?
Fortunately @Habryka was here to clear it up, but the head of the org could have also taken a few minutes to quash the rumour.