I read Vasco as suggesting exactly that—what is your understanding of what he meant, if not that?
Rebecca
Karma: 1,757
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.
I’m curious if you remember how you felt about these things as a child, or where you get this model of kids’ psychology from? as this was basically the opposite of my experience as a kid.
I would have thought ‘my tummy hurts’ would be fairly easy to articulate, but possibly I’m overrating the relevant abilities
As someone without kids, I’m a bit confused by this—why would it not be the default to e.g. ask her why she needs to go again from the second time onwards?
In that case I suspect there’s not disagreement, and you’re just each using ops to mean somewhat different things?
How does a programs staff role differ from an ops role?
No, the standard donor is meant to be a different audience, someone who isn’t seeking to maximise effectiveness—that’s why the post asks EAs not to be standard donors.
If all the effective charities have similar levels of effectiveness, then the bonus donor probably doesn’t care about having influence within that subset?
I find it very difficult psychologically to take someone seriously if they use the word ‘decels’.
It not about being charitable, it’s about what is the most straightforward explanation. I agree he is anti democratic, but this is not an example of that, and it makes it harder to convince people when you lump true and false things in together.
I think it’s important to get the facts right and to present the best case when trying to persuade someone who disagreees with you to change their mind.
When he tells people they won’t need to vote anymore after this election that’s not rhetoric.
This one is a bad example. When I first heard he’d said this, as an Australian my initial reaction was ‘he probably means that they won’t need to if they don’t want to, voting isn’t compulsory in the US and an insane amount of resources seems be spent each election on getting people to vote at all’. And sure enough, when asked by journalists what he’d meant, he said that Christians tend not to vote in these elections, and so he’s trying to convince them they should do so in this election because he’ll ban abortion and then they can go back to their non-voting.
I’m not sure that’s true, though I may be biased by my own case
I don’t have twitter so I can’t view the thread, but bankruptcy of a company for facilitating $500m of damage being caused (the monetary threshold of the bill) doesn’t seem very mild?
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.