nonzerosum

• nonzerosum 7 Apr 2017 22:34 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: How ac­cu­rately does any­one know the global dis­tri­bu­tion of in­come?

  Thanks for this and thanks as always for all the fantastic 80,000 Hours content.

• nonzerosum 15 Apr 2017 17:56 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: In­tro to car­ing about AI al­ign­ment as an EA cause

  Thanks for sharing and formatting it so nicely to post here.

• nonzerosum 20 Apr 2017 17:33 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Up­date on Effec­tive Altru­ism Funds

  This is excellent. How might you evaluate fund managers? Do new fund managers have to have an existing relationship with anyone on the team?

• nonzerosum 20 Apr 2017 19:39 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Up­date on Effec­tive Altru­ism Funds

  Do you have any thoughts as to what the next funds added might be? Does the manager come first, or will you announce things you’d like to have funds in, where you don’t yet have a manager?

• nonzerosum 20 Apr 2017 19:39 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Up­date on Effec­tive Altru­ism Funds

  What is the internal process for adding a new fund or manager? What happens after the form is submitted—is it a casual discussion amongst the team, or something else?

• nonzerosum 20 Apr 2017 19:40 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Up­date on Effec­tive Altru­ism Funds

  What does an ideal fund manager look like?

  (Many questions because I’m really excited and think this is fantastic, and am really glad you’re doing it)

• nonzerosum 21 Apr 2017 1:15 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Remmelt’s comment on: Up­date on Effec­tive Altru­ism Funds

  Excellent point.

  My suggestion for increasing robustness:

  Diverse fund managers, and willingness to have funds for less-known causes. A high diversity of background/​personal social networks amongst fund managers, and a willingness to have EA funds for causes not currently championed by OPP or other well known orgs in the EA-sphere could be a good way to increase robustness.

  Do you agree? And what are your thoughts in general on increasing robustness?

Note: Jeff Be­zos posted on Twit­ter to­day ask­ing for philan­thropy ideas

• nonzerosum 14 Sep 2017 22:12 UTC

  0 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: EA Sur­vey 2017 Series: Cause Area Preferences

  I don’t think it’s appropriate to include donations to ACE or GiveWell as ‘cause prioritization.’ I think ACE should be classed as animal welfare and GiveWell as global poverty.

  My understanding is that cause prioritization is broad comparison research.

  Cause prioritization looks at broad causes (e.g. migration, global warming, global health, life extension) in order to compare them, instead of examining individual charities within each cause (as has been traditional).

  https://​​causeprioritization.org/​​Cause%20prioritization

• nonzerosum 16 Oct 2017 1:30 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  Error

  The value
    NIL
  is not of type
    SIMPLE-STRING
  when binding #:USER-ID163

• nonzerosum 17 Oct 2017 18:48 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Anti-trib­al­ism and pos­i­tive men­tal health as high-value cause areas

  Interesting post.

  The first thought that came to my mind is related to the other post on this forum about psychedelics.

  My interpretation is therapeutic psilocybin experiences can create a feeling of all being part of the same team /​ global interconnectedness. I wonder if this would lead to less tribalism. It seems like it very well may.

  “In 6-month follow-up interviews, participants were asked: ‘Did this treatment work for you, and if so how?’ and responses were analysed for consistent themes (Watts et al. 2017). Of the 17 patients who endorsed the treatment’s effectiveness, all made reference to one particular mediating factor: a renewed sense of connection or connectedness. This factor was found to have three distinguishable aspects: connection to (1) self, (2) others and (3) the world in general (Watts et al. 2017).”

  References

  https://​​www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/​​pubmed/​​28795211 via a friend.

Has some­one mi­grated/​ex­ported the .im­pact Hack­Pad?

• nonzerosum 8 Dec 2017 4:23 UTC

  0 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Kirsten’s comment on: [Er­ror com­mu­ni­cat­ing with LW2 server]

  Thanks, will do!

Where can I donate to sup­port in­sect welfare?

An easy way for char­i­ties to in­crease rev­enue: Add Ap­ple Pay and Google Pay to dona­tion checkout

• nonzerosum 18 Mar 2018 20:34 UTC

  0 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: An­i­mal Char­ity Eval­u­a­tors In­tro­duces the Recom­mended Char­ity Quiz

  Nice!

  One possible improvement: To reduce the ‘cognitive load’ of doing the quiz, make it so that all of the choices e.g. “It is not very important” are replaced with “It is not very important that [x]” to reduce the need to read the whole question or re-reference the question when reminding yourself what each of the choices represent before selecting one.

• nonzerosum 18 Mar 2018 20:40 UTC

  0 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: An­i­mal Char­ity Eval­u­a­tors In­tro­duces the Recom­mended Char­ity Quiz

  Also, I went through the quiz, got recommended a charity, clicked to donate, but then closed out at the page that asked for all my information.

  I’ve donated to a few charities recently, and I believe that I would’ve donated (not large but not zero) if it let me do it with Google Pay so that I could’ve done it in ~5 seconds rather than 1 minute or so.

  [See also this post that I just made on the forum: http://​​effective-altruism.com/​​ea/​​1m6/​​an_easy_way_for_charities_to_increase_revenue_add/​​]

• nonzerosum 24 Mar 2018 18:54 UTC

  0 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Jamie_Spurgeon’s comment on: An­i­mal Char­ity Eval­u­a­tors In­tro­duces the Recom­mended Char­ity Quiz

  Got it, thanks for passing it along and understood!

Con­cept: EA Donor List. To en­able EAs that are start­ing new pro­jects to find seed donors, es­pe­cially for peo­ple that aren’t well connected

• nonzerosum 17 Mar 2019 1:06 UTC

  6 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: toonalfrink’s comment on: SHOW: A frame­work for shap­ing your tal­ent for di­rect work

  Yes. This makes me think of investor Keith Rabois’ notion of “barrels” vs “ammunition”:

  If you think about people, there are two categories of high-quality people: there is the ammunition, and then there are the barrels. You can add all the ammunition you want, but if you have only five barrels in your company, you can literally do only five things simultaneously. If you add one more barrel, you can now do six things simultaneously. If you add another one, you can do seven, and so on. Finding those barrels that you can shoot through — someone who can take an idea from conception to live and it’s almost perfect — are incredibly difficult to find. This kind of person can pull people with them. They can charge up the hill. They can motivate their team, and they can edit themselves autonomously. Whenever you find a barrel, you should hire them instantly, regardless of whether you have money for them or whether you have a role for them. Just close them.

  https://​​firstround.com/​​review/​​Keith-Rabois-on-the-role-of-a-COO-how-to-hire-and-why-transparency-matters/​​

  The attitude you’re describing reminds me of the attitude that Keith Rabois refers to as a “barrel.”