This is possibly slightly helpful toward your goal of identifying the most important institutions in the world: https://www.facebook.com/groups/733606323454075/permalink/734308670050507/ (graph without explanation at: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/josh3425/viz/tableua_1/Sheet1 )
The main difference between the programs is that Panama’s provides a path to citizenship without ever staying very long in-country, while Paraguay’s is maintainable as a permanent resiidency with only short occasional visits, but to gain Paraguayan citizenship you must spend the majority of 3 years in-country. One source for this (though I’ve looked at many): https://nomadcapitalist.com/second-passport/paraguay/
FWIW, a lawyer I’m speaking to about these options says that Paraguay’s program is expected to change in the near future as well; they sit on the Paraguayan committee that’s working on amending the law.
I largely like this video, but I also think it’s good to be aware of some shortcomings of this: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/KShgaczKHwvxBbQXK/i-want-to-do-good-an-ea-puppet-mini-musical (can’t get permalink to work from mobile, but intended here to link to my comment on that post).
We can use this mean monthly karma to scale all our posts by simply dividing the karma every post has by the mean karma of the month it was published. This allows us to determine which posts received the most praise in relation to how active the forum was at the time it was published.
I expect that the variance has fluctuated over time. If this were true, something like standard deviation away from the mean would be significantly more informative than simple adjustment on the basis of the mean.
FWIW, I also expect https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ngdvhPQ2NaLHCpG9T/getting-a-feel-for-changes-of-karma-and-controversy-in-the?commentId=fcEudfKQDzgZsnhhW that the point made in this comment is valid, and therefore it may be ~impossible (unless the timing of votes is preserved) to understand reception at-the-time.
I’m bothered by a certain type of way I observe a significant number of EAs orienting toward the non-EA world. To me, it feels like there can be a lack of understanding, appreciation, and respect for the work/thoughts/opinions/accomplishments/culture of non-EAs that I sometimes find particularly naive and alienating. These experiences in particular drive me to have hesitance in self-identifying as an EA.
FWIW, the three mentioned names to me point to different focuses:
EA for Jews: Seems to imply a customized form of EA more tailored to Jews; makes me think of donation opportunities in Israel, or Jewish giving groups, or something.
Effective Tzedakah: Feels all about affecting Jew’s donations to be more effective and less about things like research or careers. It does seem, of these three, the most accessible to non-EA Jews you may hope to attract, but possibly not beyond donations.
Jews in EA: Points to being an affinity group of EAs who want to get together with other Jews. Doesn’t seem like a recruitment organization, but (mainly) a group for those already in EA.
I do think any of these names can be used for the entire multitude of goals this initiative may have, but the focus and first-interpretation of the name seems likely to be understood quite differently.
Thanks, I was unfamiliar with their estimates for the proportion of the community they estimate.”We estimate there are around 2315 highly engaged EAs and 6500 (90% CI: 4700-10,000) active EAs in the community overall.”https://www.rethinkpriorities.org/blog/2020/6/26/ea-survey-2019-series-how-many-people-are-there-in-the-ea-communityThat source also provides some other sources for estimates.
I’ve just realized today (~5 days after posting) my footnotes did not transfer from the Google Docs draft. If you are returning to this post after previously reading it, you may want to take a brief look at the footnotes, as there are some potentially valuable resources linked in them.
There’s some discussion of this in the comments on LessWrong, including identification of some inaccuracies in this post, that you may want to check out.
It’s unclear to me if my application was successfully submitted. I hit ‘submit’ (eventually multiple times) and did not see a confirmation message nor did the page change. There may be a bug in the submission of the form.
(Edit: I did receive an email confirmation of my application, however)
I am not trying to claim that EA orgs do not meet basic living thresholds, but rather that “There are many organizations offering amounts that many likely find greatly constraining to living off of.”
I think it’s quite common for EA job offers to be in the $40-$55k range (there are also many well above this range), with multiple instances of being significantly lower than that (e.g. $30k).
I believe that there are many that find these potential salaries to be greatly constraining.
People don’t value money
This section, in order to apply to people, seemingly assumes something like “beyond meeting their basic needs” or “beyond meeting some threshold amount.”
I believe that there’s a very good chance that many EA orgs are not meeting the threshold amount of many people whom they are targeting. There are many organizations offering amounts that many likely find greatly constraining to living off of.
I think this section would be more applicable if the market you were commenting on largely paid well; instead I think it is highly variable with a sizable constituency of poorly paying jobs.
It’s worth noting that a large part of the argument there (but far from all of it) would not apply to this question unless you were in such an influential position that you could have a meaningful effect on whether or not the war took place at all.
1) There are a number of plausible (>1% probability) scenarios in the next hundred years that would result in a “civilizational collapse”, where an unprecedented number of people die and key technologies are (temporarily) lost.
Are you saying here that you believe the scenarios add up to a greater than 1% probability of collapse in the next hundred years, or that you believe there are multiple scenarios that each have greater than 1% probability?
This was fun to watch, and I’m sure to produce. For the most part I really liked it!
There was one part that struck me as off-base, around 1:22, where it says “Where otherwise they’d likely die!”. There were a few reasons I found these few seconds problematic:
1. I felt that it implied TLYCS charities help save the lives of people who will otherwise die… e.g. it made me picture life-saving surgeries for people in critical care units. While there are many TLYCS charities that I’m unfamiliar with, no typically recommended EA global development organizations that I’m aware of prevent likely death. Rather, those that do save lives, help prevent disease, and as far as I know in no case the percent likelihood of death of an individual anywhere near 50% or greater without the intervention.
2. It felt like it was making light of the issue at that point as well. I think it would have been easy to continue the playful tone with a sad face and a bit of quietness at that time, with a slow ramp up of the volume later. Instead, it just breezed past it in a way that felt upbeat to me. FWIW, I also think that what felt to me a bit like making light of death made the video less credible to me.
Other, more minor, feedback:
1. I think it would likely have been better if shorter, or otherwise somehow more dynamic to justify the length. While there were a lot of great parts, I found it a bit repetitive and lost interest a bit.
2. I imagine the majority of the audience is American, and therefore I imagine the video would be better received, on average, if the main actor had an American accent rather than one of another country. An alternative could be to have the lyrics incorporated into the video to help with listening comprehension.
3. At 1:54, I was surprised by some of the icons. I’m not sure if there’s a drinking water charity TLYCS suggests or not, but that’s a less typical intervention for EAs to endorse. I also thought the mosquito would look better with a red circle and line over it or something.
I’m curious if there’s a deployment strategy? I see the number of views is relatively low (currently 1.5k).
The founders of bigleagueimpact.org attended the 2015 EAG and expressed a very similar goal. I’m not sure what’s happened since; it looks like they were either unsuccessful or there may have been some value drift.
With that in mind it was an easy call for me to make, and I committed the remaining $23,500 from the donation lottery, as well as some personal funds on top of that. Notably, EpiFor is now conducting its next funding round, and I continue to suspect that more donations may have a substantial (though high variance) impact—particularly since funding is currently affecting which opportunities they pursue.
Thanks for sharing Tim. If anyone would like to discuss a potential donation of $5,000 or more, please feel free to reach out to me at firstname.lastname@example.org