Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 5 Jul 2025 23:03 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Larks’s comment on: Buy­ing your way out of per­sonal ethics

  Yes, agreed.

  I don’t believe it to be utilitarian to arbitrarily link two unrelated actions (donating money and, separately, taking a life).

  The reason for taking the life would never be because it’s enjoyable or convenient, it would only be if it is in direct service of saving the other lives.

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 18 Apr 2025 19:34 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱’s comment on: Danny Lip­sitz ’s Quick takes

  Update for anyone else who may find it useful:

  You need to fill out Form 8283: https://​​www.irs.gov/​​pub/​​irs-pdf/​​f8283.pdf

  You can calculate the “Fair Market Value” of the stock(s) you donated by averaging the highest and lowest price of that stock on the day you donated it. I used this page to find that, but you can replace “MSFT” in the URL with whatever stock it is you sold.

  https://​​www.wsj.com/​​market-data/​​quotes/​​MSFT/​​historical-prices

Danny Lip­sitz ’s Quick takes

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 10 Apr 2025 16:20 UTC

  6 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Danny Lip­sitz ’s Quick takes

  Is anyone in the U.S. savvy with how to deduct from your taxes the value of stocks which have been donated to eligible charities? The stocks have been held for decades with a very high value and capital gains. Would love help as my tax guy hasn’t seen this before.

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 19 Feb 2025 20:51 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Vasco Grilo🔸’s comment on: U.S. Egg Price Opportunity

  Amazing. Yes, super relevant. Will read now.

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 19 Feb 2025 18:32 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: dan.pandori’s comment on: U.S. Egg Price Opportunity

  Thanks! I guess I’ve been spoiled with a life partner who is a very good baker and being in NYC where there are already some incredible vegan bakeries. But in my experience even many grocery store cookie mixes are vegan if you just substitute aquafaba or something, and I personally cannot tell the difference.

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 19 Feb 2025 4:04 UTC

  4 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: artilugio’s comment on: U.S. Egg Price Opportunity

  Would certainly be willing to entertain this as plans come together.

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 18 Feb 2025 22:31 UTC

  4 points

  2 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Davidmanheim’s comment on: U.S. Egg Price Opportunity

  No idea, but could be great down the line. I bet way more red tape and just a lot more people in the chain of command who you’d have to convince, but who knows, there may be a sweet spot for medium-large companies looking to save money 🤷‍♂️

U.S. Egg Price Opportunity

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 31 Aug 2024 2:04 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Jason’s comment on: Far­mKind’s Illu­sory Offer

  Disclaimer: I am mostly skimming as there’s a lot to read and haven’t gotten through it all. But I do believe part of the idea with FarmKind is that the donors are already sympathetic to animal charities, and agree with the premise of effective animal charities, but also just want to get some warm fuzzies in as well. As opposed to most of their money going to something they do not agree with or have any care for.

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 3 Feb 2024 3:16 UTC

  1 point

  2 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Luke Moore 🔸’s comment on: Round­ing Up Effec­tively at Supermarkets

  Thanks, Luke. When I have some more time I might brainstorm next steps on this including how to put together a team. If so, I’ll reach out!

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 3 Feb 2024 3:15 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: david_reinstein’s comment on: Round­ing Up Effec­tively at Supermarkets

  Thanks for the feedback. The way I envision it, it wouldn’t require any profound change of anyone’s attitude. There are so many businesses doing round-up for charity around the world. If someone were to sleuth around and put in the time, surely they could identify the low-hanging-fruit of businesses that are happy to change their round-up charity at the credit card reader without much convincing.

  Of all the people in the position to change the setting on the credit card reader at their small business (if that’s even how it works) some of them may be receptive to this for reasons like:

  -they’re receptive to some very basic compelling stats about a specific EA charity without having to subscribe to EA

  -they don’t really care what the charity is anyway and will change it if someone asks

  Of course, I like your vision of the potential scope of this. Perhaps if there’s any success with some small businesses here and there that don’t take much convincing, down the line there could be more involved campaigns to get much larger supermarket chains, fast food joints, and payment processing companies to feature selected effective charities that are palatable to the general public.

  I wonder how much thought even large companies put into this, though. In the non-profit world, are there huge, competitive campaigns to secure a spot on the round-up button at Walmart? Or is it more like, some random executive arbitrarily decides to feature St. Jude as the beneficiary?
  

[Question] Round­ing Up Effec­tively at Supermarkets

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 17 Nov 2023 19:38 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Re­vis­it­ing Guide Dogs and Blind­ness Prevention

  Thanks for posting. I’ve been trying to find the best place to donate in blindness prevention for a few giving cycles now.

  Intuitively, it feels like interventions without the direct goal of mortality prevention, like preventing blindness, could achieve nearly as much good over the years as preventing deaths.

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 30 Oct 2023 20:29 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Sup­port­ing grass­roots effec­tively: You can give to the most effec­tive char­ity in your com­mu­nity, even if none of them have “data”

  Thanks for writing, and great meeting you back in August.

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 14 Feb 2023 21:09 UTC

  0 points

  1 ∶ 1

  on: New EA Pod­cast: Cri­tiques of EA

  For me the ironic thing about critiquing current practices of EA is that it is, in itself, an act of EA.

  The same can’t necessarily be said for critiquing the underlying premise of EA.

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 5 Feb 2021 3:00 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: A frame­work for dis­cussing EA with peo­ple out­side the community

  Hey Aaron—really want to sit down and read this thoroughly when I have a moment. Someone sent me the link to your post, otherwise, I haven’t been on EA Forum for a minute.

  That said, I did a talk on just this topic back at the EA Global “Unconference” over the summer. Would love to maybe be in touch about this idea...the link to my talk is here:

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 30 Nov 2020 1:33 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Michael St Jules 🔸’s comment on: In­tro­duc­ing the EA Funds

  Ah, okay. So tractability is built into the term “most important”?

  I thought they were two separate concepts: https://​​concepts.effectivealtruism.org/​​concepts/​​importance-neglectedness-tractability/​​

  I agree that all that really matters is how effective a particular intervention will be in reducing suffering for the amount of money you plan to donate. Other metrics (especially neglectedness) are just heuristics.

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 29 Nov 2020 1:12 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: In­tro­duc­ing the EA Funds

  Kind of unrelated, but I’ve wondered about these first two considerations that people use to pick a charity, as listed above:

  1) which cause is most important
  2) which interventions in the cause are most effective

  Couldn’t there be a cause that is extremely important but just that don’t have any good interventions? Maybe there is a “most effective” intervention for this cause, but it’s still not that good, and donating to that intervention doesn’t really result in much.

• Danny Lipsitz 🔸 🌱 29 Nov 2020 0:24 UTC

  4 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: ozymandias’s comment on: Fact check­ing com­par­i­son be­tween tra­choma surg­eries and guide dogs

  I hate to admit it, but I think there does exist a utilitarian trade-off between marketability and accuracy. Although I’m thrilled that the EA movement prides itself on being as factually accurate as possible and I believe the core EA movement absolutely needs to stick with that, there is a case to be made that an exaggerated truth may be an important teaching tool in helping non-EAs understand why EAs do what they do.

  It seems likely that Peter Singer’s example has had a net-positive impact, despite the inaccuracies. Even I was originally drawn to EA by this example, among a few of his others. I’ve since been donating at least 10% and been active in EA projects. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

  We just have to be careful that the integrity of the EA movement isn’t compromised due to inaccurate examples like this. But I think anyone who goes far enough with EA to learn that this example is inaccurate, or even cares to do so, will most likely already have converted into an EA mindset, which is Mr. Singer’s end-goal.