This is cool, insightful, and creative. Thanks for making this post.
I do take issue with a prerequisite being 60+ hour weeks… there are many highly successful executives who work much less than that. Hours don’t necessarily correlate to production, and I expect unnecessarily including that in this post could filter out people who are very worth hearing from.
Would love your list for Colorado, taking the standard deduction.
Thanks for sharing. I’m adding this to my potential research agenda, kept here: https://airtable.com/shrGF5lAwSZpQ7uhP/tblJR9TaKLT41AoSL and https://airtable.com/shrQdonZuU20cpGR4
I found this compelling, but I feel confused about what I’d be signing up for from a time-investment perspective (hours, days, weeks?).
First, I want to support this suggestion:
If you do give it a try, consider leaving comments here on how much time you invested, how far you got, and how the whole thing was for you.
Responses of this kind will be quite helpful from my perspective, especially if the commentors share a bit about their background as well.
Given that comments of that type do not currently exist, I’d be excited for Holden and/or others in the know to post what their predictions would be if e.g some comments were made. What are your expectations for people’s time investment and results, especially by background?
Not an expert, but my understanding is that the entire Cold War, which started 10+ years earlier, was very much centered on nuclear risk between the two superpowers. I feel like not only did one person foresee risks very much like the Cuban Missile Crisis… the whole world did.
They may be willing to direct it to a charity that will give it to an individual, eg https://www.theissresearch.org/.
This job posting existed: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/social-impact-advocate-canva-foundation-at-canva-2664448885/?originalSubdomain=au
May have been high impact?
The Slack used for the fellowship is no longer being used
Someone in favor of the policy may respond to some of your concerns (e.g. the latter ones) with this sort of argument: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6uwLq8kofo4Tzxfe2/long-covid-is-not-necessarily-your-biggest-problem
You use “we” a lot in this write-up; is there a coauthor or organization that was a part of this?
From my perspective, technically, Google Wave qualifies with the words you’ve written, but I don’t think it’s in the spirit of what you’ve written. (“Cheap” makes me think you’re looking for physical-world inventions, which is probably worth being more explicit about.)
If I’m wrong and it does qualify, there’s a number of web app examples.
Here’s the actual paper: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29070/w29070.pdf
There’s a benefit, probably the main benefit IMO, that I don’t feel like the above or any commenters address.
I claim that:
Profile pictures will make “who wrote what” more identifiable and memorable
There are many ways in which this could be good:
--- A: It will become easier to recall (and then potentially discuss) content that someone wrote when meeting them in-person / on zoom. I’ve had the experience multiple times at EA Globals where I interact with someone, then look them up, and realize there were topics they’ve written about that I would have loved to discuss, if only I recalled that they were the ones who wrote it.
---B: It will be easier to build ideas around individuals, such that you know better how to relate to their content. For example, there are usernames that post often on the Forum, but I currently often don’t readily recall if I’ve found their previous articles accurate and insightful. Often I don’t click on these titles, because I’m time-constrained. If I had a better model of whose work I’d appreciated or not appreciated in the past, I could better select what content I consume in the future (digitally, in person, or on zoom). This applies regardless of my selection algorithm… e.g. “read more of what I like”, “read more of what is popular but my prior is I won’t like”, “see how this person’s thoughts are developing”, etc. It also gives me more opportunity to make better decisions on who I interact with, how much I understand them, and in what ways.
----- I understand that many may see this as a negative (becoming too focused on who the author is), but I personally expect that building better models / having richer information is generally valuable.
Thanks, that’s helpful info.
In 2020, I estimate about 14% net growth, bringing the total number of active EAs to 7,400.
Do you think this growth rate applies to the “Highly-Engaged EAs” classification as well, of which there were estimated to be 2,315 in the 2019 Rethink Priorities analysis?
Is this an estimate for the “Active EAs” at the end of 2020, or as of July 2021?
(Caveat to others that if you look at these estimates in Rethink Priorities initial 2019 report, you’ll find that while they are well-informed, they are quite rough, so precise estimates have limited value.)
I really appreciate this sort of thorough update.
There are a large number of comparisons to only a single previous value. For example:
The average morale reported for Q2 was 7.03/10, compared with 6.45/10 in Q1.
For each instance, I’d value the inclusion of additional historic data or the acknowledgment of when more historic data isn’t available (because it wasn’t measured).
I did not review the model, but only 75% of hours being unpaid seems much too low based on my experience having gone through the job hiring process (including later stages) with 10-15 EA orgs.
Do you have or know of some data on post-move (SWB vs prior, income vs prior, etc)? I’d find that more interesting than pre-move interest.
Thanks!