Data point: I wasn’t there for this but Justis is a friend of mine, and on an interpersonal level he’s one of the chillest, highest-contentment-set-point people I know. He doesn’t brim over with cheerleading or American dynamism, but my default assumption is if someone calls him a downer they can’t mean interpersonal affect.
This particular piece was aimed at contractors for whom guesstimate is at the absolute limit of their mathematical ability, so squiggle definitely wouldn’t work for them.
I haven’t used squiggle but did use the thing between it and guesstimate. I did like having more power to fine tune my estimates and could imagine myself valuing still more control. But if I could add one feature to guesstimate it would be better integration of sources and estimates. Both the guesstimate comment interface and writing a separate document are quite clunky.
It’s 3 days, but it’s hundreds of people mixing with people from all over (so high chance someone has something other people don’t), many of whom arrived in mass transit (last minute chance to catch something), are sleeping less and eating worse than normal (stressing the immune system), continuously talking in mostly crowded rooms (easy spreading).
Even if you don’t think covid is unusually dangerous, I think standard cold and flu risk, and the fact that high co2 reduces efficacy, justifies caring a lot about air quality.
I submitted criticism to the red teaming contest that was (in part) about the lack of exactly this kind of post, so I’m really happy to see it. And I agree with your broad points of going vegan by default, providing lots of options, and having animal products available but off to the side.
But I want to quibble about one one and a half things...
By now, most milk users will be fine even if you are exclusively offering plant milks. (Oatmilk is the tastiest but has no protein; soymilk is great for protein and also tastes pretty good.)
How sure of you are this? My understanding is all of the !milks have some combination of issues: gluten contamination, taste, allergens, lack of protein, lack of trace nutrients, texture, or astonishing amounts of simple sugars.
Similarly for !meat: nothing has the taste and the nutrition and the texture and the lack of allergens. I also know lots of omnivores (including myself) who would rather than an honest plant-based protein source like legumes or tofu than something in the meat uncanny valley.
Dairy and meat aren’t perfect either, even before the ethical issues- lactose intolerance is common, and poorly handled meat is dangerous. Which is why I really like the mix-and-match idea.
My sense is most grantmakers are okay with pivots in response to new information, and the specific project idea is serving the purpose of “identify the area the kind of problem you are trying to solve” and “information about your reasoning and execution skills”.
One reason I didn’t want funding for this yet is I didn’t think I could write something sufficient to check alignment between myself and funders- the chance I’d want to pivot in ways they didn’t like was unacceptably high. I have a grant for a different project that feels very different: I’m not following the plan I laid out at the beginning but I feel very confident the funders won’t feel misled by my application, that they’ll be happy I found options better than my original plans, and that any disappointment they feel will be because reality was disappointing rather than because I made bad choices.
(I have informed my regrantor of major changes and the feedback was “whatever you think is best”)
I do think there would be advantages if funders either gave individual unrestricted funding, or paid a premium to cover the uncertainty of living from one short-term grant to the next. But there would also be advantages to stronger funder feedback, so I don’t know what the right move is.
Depends on how you’re defining idea. This one was both not very specific and had multiple sources (not just Jasen and I), so I think all the value is in the execution. But part of the execution is defining the idea more specifically; I’ve seen ideas shared later in the process, that had no implementation but were quite specific and drew on a lot of specialized knowledge, that I think would deserve some recognition. Not necessarily a lot, but >0.
In this case it was very mutual so it was easy. If that hadn’t been true: standard start up advice is that ideas are cheap, execution is what matters, so don’t credit the inventor very much. That definitely holds in our case. Moreover this specific starting idea just wasn’t very specific or actionable: it’s only becoming so via a lot of work from both of us. So 0 credit to either of us for idea seed seems about right here, although I might owe a different person a few shares for a small catalyst.
I think it would be different for something like the Charity Entrepreneurship’s idea library, where there are non-founders who put substantial work into vetting and developing the idea.
apologies, i mixed threads and thought your comment was about youtube ads, not podcasts, in part because podcast ad insertions frequently are host read outs
I’m surprised Google hasn’t managed that
Totally possible. I have red so I don’t see YT ads and I haven’t run into embedded ads in this campaign either.
yes for embedded ads but youtube itself inserts ads that I assume are quite well targeted
newer fancier systems insert the ad at download time so it can be updated, but I don’t believe targeted.
yeah I was archive binging two related shows and heard the same betterhelp ad hundreds of times.
GWWC is another source of data. 40% of EA survey takers who signed report not meeting their commitment (that year), and presumably the rate among non-survey takers is much higher. I couldn’t find direct data from giving what we can that was more recent than 2014.
I wonder if you could rough numbers on this from EAF analytics? Look for people who used to post frequently and then dropped off, and then hand check the list for people who are known to stayed in the movement.