this graph is also fairly misleading by putting OpenPhil on the same footing as an individual ETG-funder, although OpenPhil is disbursing wholly 1000x more funds
See my reply to Ozzie.
Also, do you think by moving the nodes around you could reduce the extent to which lines cross over each other, to increase clarity?
I added three additional graphs that use different layout algorithms in here. I don’t know if they’re any better.
Personal opinion: the circular layout seems more useful. I like that it more clearly demonstrates a) entities that are connected to only one other entity in the graph (example: Inst. Phil. Research is only connected to BERI, Thiel is only connected to MIRI), and b) how many arrows are going into each node (example: it’s easier to see that MIRI has the widest range of supporters of this group, followed by CEA and CFAR).
See my reply to Ozzie.
I added three additional graphs that use different layout algorithms in here. I don’t know if they’re any better.
Personal opinion: the circular layout seems more useful. I like that it more clearly demonstrates a) entities that are connected to only one other entity in the graph (example: Inst. Phil. Research is only connected to BERI, Thiel is only connected to MIRI), and b) how many arrows are going into each node (example: it’s easier to see that MIRI has the widest range of supporters of this group, followed by CEA and CFAR).