I can confirm this is correct.
By the way, a similar modelling approach (Beta prior, binomial likelihood function) was used in this report.
I can confirm this is correct.
By the way, a similar modelling approach (Beta prior, binomial likelihood function) was used in this report.
One could also consider a policy to provide to any Russian who has a STEM PhD (or similar work experience) a long-term visa. Such a visa could eventually lead to permanent residency. I don’t know if this has a realistic chance of becoming law. Maybe in Canada, a country that’s unusually friendly to immigration?
Buying back rights
Another idea would be, before the book is published, to propose to the publisher to give them a lump sum in exchange for the rights after ~3 years. My impression is books usually make most of the money right after they are published, so such a deal may be attractive to the publisher. Also if you’re an in-demand author you have a lot of leverage at the beginning.
That wasn’t my understanding of it:
You can usually only apply for a Global Talent visa if you have successfully applied for an endorsement to prove that you are a leader or potential leader.
You can apply for the visa without an endorsement if you’ve won an eligible award.
I find the title of this post misleading.
The title says “A new media outlet focused on philanthropy”. But in the body we learn that Puck is “focused on the inside conversation in Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Wall Street and Washington”, which seems more accurate based on their website.
It says right there on the page it’s for “top scientists”. That’s very different from anyone with a PhD.
No worries. Can you edit the title?
I don’t think there’s that’s as much ambiguity here as you’re making out. You can just look up the conditions of the visa. It would be interesting to see a random sample of people who received the visa though.
Thanks for this article! In my view, it’s a really good contribution to the debate, and the issues it raises are under-rated by longtermists.
I do feel uneasy about being given joint credit with Toby Ord for the model (and since this is now public I want to say so publicly). Though I may have made an expository contribution, the model is definitely the work of Ord.
In my undergraduate days of 2017, based on Ord’s unpublished draft, I wrote this article. I think my contributions were:
A more explicit (or, depending on your perspective, plodding and equation-laden) exposition of the Ord model
Longer discussion (around 7,000 words vs Ord’s 3,000)
Some extensions of the model
I now view the extensions as far less useful than the exposition of the core model proposed by Ord; the extensions were not worth mathematising. At the time I had a fondness for them—today I look back upon that as somewhat sophomoric. Indeed, this article uses none of my extensions (at least as of the last time I read a draft). So I don’t think it’s correct to say the model is even in part due to me.
By the way, Ord’s model has now been published as appendix E of The Precipice, but in even more summary form than the unpublished document I looked at in 2017. This shortening might lead someone looking at the published record today to underestimate Ord’s contribution and overestimate mine. My article does credit him for everything that is his, and so is a good source for the genealogy of the idea.
I just discovered this related and entertaining passage from Tim Harford’s The Undercover Economist (2005).