I don’t suppose you would mind clarifying the logical structure here:
The EAIF makes grants towards longtermist projects if a) the grantseeker decided to apply to the EAIF (rather than the Long-Term Future Fund), b) the intervention is at a meta level or aims to build infrastructure in some sense, or c) the work spans multiple causes (whether the case for them is longtermist or not).
My intuitive reading of this (based on the commas, the ‘or’, and the absence of ‘and’) is:
a OR b OR c
i.e., satisfying any one of the three suffices. But I’m guessing that what you meant to write was
I don’t suppose you would mind clarifying the logical structure here:
My intuitive reading of this (based on the commas, the ‘or’, and the absence of ‘and’) is:
i.e., satisfying any one of the three suffices. But I’m guessing that what you meant to write was
which would seem more sensible?
Yeah, the latter is what I meant to say, thanks for clarifying.
FWIW I had assumed the former was the case. Thank you for clarifying.
I had assumed the former as
it felt like the logical reading of the phrasing of the above
my read of the things funded in this round seemed to be that some of them don’t appear to be b OR c (unless b and c are interpreted very broadly).