Hi Mikhael, could you clarify what this means? “It is known that they said words they didn’t hold while hiring people”
Rebecca
Karma: 1,820
If you look at ACE’s response, Column W was never meant to be shown in the public version—they dropped the ball by forgetting to follow their standard processes for redacting things at charities’ requests for confidentiality reasons—and the recent deletion was an action they took, not Sinergia.
you can just look at the talk page to see people are leaning this way
Some people are, but I’d say that the overall vibe of that thread is leaning against until at least when it stops being a live issue
“JBS published in 2023 the commitment to banning ear notching by 2023” is a really clunky way of saying two things about the same year (ie I’d expect “by the end of the year” or something, instead of “by 2023”), how sure are you the 2nd 2023 couldn’t be a typo?
the fact you mention it suggests it’s significant to you
This seems like quite a stretch.
What other disciplines would you want to see?
It seems appropriate for a quick take imo
Do we know they are being actually deleted, rather than just taken offline?
What further actions would Trump/Rubio need to take to properly execute the waiver?
Emphasising it being Bush’s legacy might help? Ie that it’s a Republican rather than Democrat achievement
That is what I understood Russell to be saying? See:
I realized that if you were even arguing about abortion, then you must value human fetuses(which look a lot like chicken fetuses) 8,650 times more than tortured, murdered chickens.
Lack of transparency around the full distribution of decision timeframes, and other aspects of the process, means it’s difficult to make an informed choice the first time around. And one bad experience can be enough to burn people long term, particularly if theyre making the reasonable assumption that LTFF is representative of the average funder.
I read Vasco as suggesting exactly that—what is your understanding of what he meant, if not that?
I’m confused by the wording of your bet—I thought you had been arguing than more than 90% are by GV, not ‘more than 90% are by a non-GV funder’
LinkedIn has made automated scraping against their ToS, so anyone attempting this should be aware that their account may get banned
In Catholicism, priests are considered sacred chosen instruments by and for god, to mediate between him and lay people. If a given priest is bad, that throws into question whether god has poor judgement, but god is almighty so he doesn’t make mistakes. (Even more so if the pope is implicated, as his word is the direct word of god). Therefore probably he doesn’t exist.
Only later denominations conceptualise faith as primarily a direct relationship between you and god, in part as a response to this dilemma. But if you’re Roman Catholic, your whole religion is thrown into question by widespread priest criminality, and it seems reasonable to have a more modern response than Martin Luther starting a whole new religion, and just conclude that god actually doesn’t exist.
A list like that could be added to the EA Handbook, which is linked on the forum sidebar
Where does 4a come from? I read the WSJ piece but don’t remember that
Yeah the point about needing to learn the relevant skills/norms makes sense to me. I just feel nervous about assuming that because a kid doesn’t seem to be negatively affected by their parents being suspicious of them, that they aren’t—knowing how much of a negative effect from another person on your wellbeing and sense of self you ought to tolerate is also a thing to be learned.
No one is critiquing Daniela’s personal life though, they’re critiquing something about her public life (ie her voluntary public statements to journalists) for contradicting what she’s said in her personal life. Compare this with a common reason people get cancelled where the critique is that there’s something bad in their personal life, and people are disappointed that the personal life doesn’t reflect the public persona- in this case it’s the other way around.