I would have personally filed for bankruptcy and not made use of connections to get bailed out
So you would have avoided paying the venue that rescued you in an emergency? That seems worse than letting open phil give you money.
Or you could have just ended the conference, screwing over people who rearranged their lives and paid for flights for the conference? Even if you think the reputational damage will hit only the organizers and not EA in general, that’s a lot of damage to people who did nothing wrong.
I think there are very reasonable questions to be asked about the organizers and the process that got them funding in the first place. But once they were at day 2 of a conference, OP paying for a second venue seems like the best of a bad set of options.
I absolutely believe my above comment, but am unhappy that it is my only response to this post.
I have a lot of disagreements with this post, both factually and in principle, and I wish it had been written very differently. But my guess is that many people who read this will walk away with a more accurate picture of the world. Not a pareto improvement, they’ll have less accurate impressions of some parts, but it overall represents an improvement, and that’s good. And people can correct the false parts, so the net improvement might be even higher.
So you would have avoided paying the venue that rescued you in an emergency? That seems worse than letting open phil give you money.
Or you could have just ended the conference, screwing over people who rearranged their lives and paid for flights for the conference? Even if you think the reputational damage will hit only the organizers and not EA in general, that’s a lot of damage to people who did nothing wrong.
I think there are very reasonable questions to be asked about the organizers and the process that got them funding in the first place. But once they were at day 2 of a conference, OP paying for a second venue seems like the best of a bad set of options.
I absolutely believe my above comment, but am unhappy that it is my only response to this post.
I have a lot of disagreements with this post, both factually and in principle, and I wish it had been written very differently. But my guess is that many people who read this will walk away with a more accurate picture of the world. Not a pareto improvement, they’ll have less accurate impressions of some parts, but it overall represents an improvement, and that’s good. And people can correct the false parts, so the net improvement might be even higher.