Is there a non paywall version or a summary you could share? I’m guessing this is the tool you are talking about? https://www.amazon.com/TheraBand-Tendonitis-Strength-Resistance-Tendinitis/dp/B07NX7JXXH
That sounds right to me
Thanks for the clarification! I agree that there are lots of ways that spending money on yourself can make you more productive, and a gym membership seems plausibly like one of those for you. I’m just pointing out that not all ways of spending money on yourself improve your productivity (which is a claim you might not endorse, but seems to have gotten some traction in EA).
This is great. Much more eloquent than my post.
Arguments 2 and 3 mostly seem like arguments against having a life outside of work—am I reading that right?
Yes, if you want to maintain flexibility to jump on new projects if exciting opportunities arise, you probably shouldn’t have much of a life outside of work. (Note: I personally do have a fairly involved life outside of work, and am fine with that trade-off. I’m just pushing back against the claim that no trade-off exists.)
Thanks Claire and Luke for writing this!I have hired security consultants a couple of times, and found that it was challenging, but within the normal limits of how challenging hiring always is. If you want someone to tell you the best practices for encrypting AWS servers, or even how to protect some unusual configuration of AWS services, my guess is that you can probably find someone (although maybe you will be paying them $200+/hour).My assumption is that the challenge you are pointing to is more about finding people who can e.g. come up with novel cryptographic methods or translate game theoretic international relations results into security protocols, which seems different from (and substantially harder than) the work that most “information security” people do.Is that accurate? The way you described this as a “seller’s market” etc. makes me unsure if you think it’s challenging to find even “normal”/junior info sec staff.
Thanks for writing this up! I’m really excited to see such a detailed model of nuclear winter risk. As Kit mentioned, the guesstimate model is easy to understand and play with.
I’d be very interested to know if there are posts that both criticize something EA in a cogent way as this post does and don’t receive large numbers of downvotes.
Hallstead’s criticism of ACE seems like one example.
Most of the comments in the EA forum are pointing out serious factual errors in the post (or linking to such explanations). The LW comments are more positive. The simpler explanation to me seems like the issues with his posts were hard-to-find, and unsurprisingly people on the EA forum are better at finding them because they have thought more about EA.
Thanks for writing this up!Question about One for the World: the average American donates about 4% of their income to charity. Given this, asking people to pledge 1% seems a bit odd – almost like you are asking them to decrease the amount they donate.One benefit of OFTW is that they are pushing GiveWell-recommended charities, but this seems directly competitive with TLYCS, which generally suggests people pledge 2-5% (the scale adjusts based on your income).It’s also somewhat competitive with the Giving What We Can pledge, which is a cause-neutral 10%.I’m curious what you see as the benefits of OFTW over these alternatives?
Thanks so much for writing this! It looks like a really thorough investigation, and you found more concrete suggestions than I would’ve expected.Regarding psychological safety: Google also found that psychological safety was the strongest predictor of success on their teams, and has created some resources to help foster it which you might be interested in.
Cool. I think that is a helpful segmentation.But are you saying a) there are lots of people in cohort 2 who are great candidates so we should go after them, or b) there are not very many people in cohort 2, but because they are from some underrepresented demographic we should still go after them?
I think the EA community has gotten caught up in the observation that “there are a lot of smart people willing to work for way below market” and lost track of the question of “what’s the right way to structure EA compensation to maximize impact?”
Not sure I fully understand this. You’re saying something like: “it might be true that increasing wages will have only a small increase in the number of candidates, but those new candidates are unusually impactful (because they are from underrepresented groups) so it’s still worth doing?”
Thanks for writing this Jon!
“But I believe many EAs are resistant to raising salaries as a way to close talent gaps because they conflate willingness to work for low pay with fit for a job”The claim I have heard most frequently is not this but rather that labor supply is inelastic below market rates. E.g. there are people who really want to work for you (because of your mission or the prestige or whatever), and to them being paid 60% market rate is basically the same as being paid 90% market rate. So raising your compensation from 60% to 90% market rate won’t actually attract more candidates.(I modified your picture here to show this – you can see that the quantity supplied Qs is very close to the equilibrium quantity supplied Qs*.)I don’t know if this is actually true (it seems simplistic, at the least), but it seems consistent with everything you’ve written above yet still doesn’t imply EA organizations should focus on raising salaries.
Thanks for considering this! I believe you are considering what I would call “earning to give” as an insurance agent. 80 K has more info on earning to give, if you have not already seen that: https://80000hours.org/articles/earning-to-give/Building on Gordon’s answer: LLCs are pass-through entities, which means that you can deduct donations up to half your revenue/income. You could consider something more elaborate (e.g. a corporation owned by a nonprofit foundation, like Newman’s Own), but that’s probably unnecessarily complex.
I didn’t realize they had discontinued the chicken products. That’s too bad
Weaker evidence shows that psychedelic experiences positively predict liberal and anti-authoritarian political views, trait openness
Increasing openness does not seem uniformly good, e.g. SSC wrote a speculative blog post that psychedelic use may make one “open” to pseudoscience, conspiracy theories etc. I’m curious if you have thoughts on this?
Thanks for thinking of this! My experience is that, in both for-profit and nonprofit spaces, the limiting constraint is not knowledge that fundable projects exist. Rather, it’s the lack of due diligence on the projects (and people who can do that sort of DD).In for-profit angel investing, usually one investor will take the “lead”, meaning that they do a full examination of the startup: speak with customers, audit the financials, do background checks on the founders, etc. Other investors will invest conditional on the lead signing off. Certain groups will usually prefer to lead or not; some of them will make investments into hiring lawyers, accountants etc. to help them do this due diligence, whereas others will prefer to just defer to other lead investors.I’m not aware of any entity similar to a lead investor in the EA community. People sometimes suggest just following on with OpenPhil (i.e. only donating to organizations which OpenPhil grants to) – this doesn’t seem unreasonable, but it does mean that many organizations will be left unfunded.