tobytrem

• tobytrem 8 Dec 2023 10:09 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Lizka’s comment on: Lizka’s Shortform

  I think around 5-10 mins? I tried to compare everything I cared at all about, so I only used multipliers between 0 and 2 (otherwise I would have lost track and ended up with intransitive preferences). The comparison stage took the most time. I edited things in the end a little bit, downgrading some charities to 0.

• tobytrem 6 Dec 2023 9:07 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Kirsten’s comment on: to­bytrem’s Quick takes

  Thanks for letting me know Kirsten! Good way to start the day :)

• tobytrem 5 Dec 2023 15:46 UTC

  1 point

  3 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Nathan Young’s comment on: Nathan Young’s Shortform

  Looks okay to me now. How is it for you?

• tobytrem 5 Dec 2023 10:26 UTC

  11 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: to­bytrem’s Quick takes

  There is still plenty of time to vote in the Donation Election. The group donation pot currently stands at around $30,000. You can nudge that towards the projects you think are most worthwhile (plus, the voting system is fun and might teach you something about your preferences).
  
  Also- you should donate to the Donation Election fund if:
  a) You want to encourage thinking about effective donations on the Forum.
  b) You want to commit to donating in line with the Forum’s preferences.
  c) You’d like me to draw you one of these bad animals (or earn one of our other rewards):

  

  

  

  NB: I can also draw these animals holding objects of your choice. Or wearing clothes. Anything is possible.

to­bytrem’s Quick takes

• tobytrem 4 Dec 2023 17:28 UTC

  25 points

  8 ∶ 0

  on: GWWC’s eval­u­a­tions of evaluators

  I’ve decided to curate this post. An evaluation of the evaluators, written up by an independent organisation, is a valuable resource for donors and the evaluators themselves. Even though EA charity evaluators are often pretty good at marking their own homework, I’d be happy to see it no longer being a necessity. This project gets up a step closer.
  
  Additionally, I think the response from the evaluated organisations is wonderful. I’d like to highlight ACE’s response which exemplifies truth seeking and collaboration, while pushing back on some of the substance of the report, and making their reasoning clear in doing so.

• tobytrem 30 Nov 2023 10:30 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Akhil’s comment on: A fund to help pre­vent vi­o­lence against women and girls

  Thanks Akhil!

• tobytrem 30 Nov 2023 10:29 UTC

  8 points

  3 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Yarrow Bouchard’s comment on: Or­ga­ni­za­tions That Eval­u­ate Charities

  I’d add that this page of Giving What We Can’s website as a good place to look. They act as a hub for the evaluations of several charity evaluators (as well as recently doing their own research on the quality of those evaluators). Giving to one of their funds is one of the best ways to give money to the top charities in a given cause area.

2023 Fu­ture Perfect 50

• tobytrem 29 Nov 2023 12:16 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: A fund to help pre­vent vi­o­lence against women and girls

  Hi Akhil. This seems like a great idea!
  To clarify- is this a new fund, or are new charities being added to an existing fund? I couldn’t tell from this line:

  I am very excited to announce the addition of several highly impactful charities focused on preventing violence against women and girls to The Life You Can Save’s help women and girls fund, and their all charities fund.

  Thanks!

• tobytrem 28 Nov 2023 10:48 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Klara Schmidt’s comment on: How would your pro­ject use ex­tra fund­ing? (Marginal Fund­ing Week)

  Bumping this slightly- Match Funding ends today!

• tobytrem 24 Nov 2023 15:22 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Dona­tion Elec­tion rewards

  I’m starting a thread here for poorly drawn animal rewards. The first is a hedgehog:

  

• tobytrem 24 Nov 2023 11:04 UTC

  10 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Hayven Jackson’s comment on: Where are you donat­ing this year, and why? (Open thread)

  Hi Hayven- yes, you’re very welcome to post here.
  Thanks for caring about animals and the people around you!
  If you’re interested in helping the most animals you can with some of your donations, you may be interested in this recent post from the EA animal welfare fund. Giving What We Can recently evaluated them as a top rated fund for animal welfare, so they are likely to be one of the absolute best places you could donate to help animals.

• tobytrem 23 Nov 2023 14:49 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Peter Wildeford’s comment on: Hello from the new con­tent man­ager at CEA

  The difference in role titles reflects the fact that Lizka is the team lead (of our team of two). From what I understand, the titles needn’t make much difference in practice.
  
  PS- I’m presuming there is a disagree react on my above comment because Lizka can in fact do everything at once. Fair enough.

• tobytrem 23 Nov 2023 14:39 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Joseph Lemien’s comment on: Hello from the new con­tent man­ager at CEA

  Thanks for putting these together. This doesn’t currently seem obviously bad to me for (I think) the same reasons as Isaac Dunn (those examples don’t show valueless reacts, and most cases are much clearer). However, your cases are interesting.

  I agree with your read of the reactions to Ben West’s comment.

  In the question about my role, perhaps it is slightly less clear, because “I agree that this is a good question” or “I have this question as well” could probably be adequately expressed with Karma. But I also doubt that this has led to significant confusion.
  
  In the reaction to your comment, I’d go with the agrees saying that they echo the statement in your tl;dr. The disagree is weirder- perhaps they are signalling disencouragement of your encouraging Lizka’s sentiment?

  
  (Perhaps how perplexing people find agree/​disagree reacts to comments which don’t straightforwardly contain propositions maps to how habitually the reader decouples propositional content from context.)

  
  I’ll keep an eye out for issues with this- my view is loosely held. Thanks again for raising the issue.
  

• tobytrem 23 Nov 2023 14:13 UTC

  17 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: AMA: GWWC re­search team

  How large is the comparison class for charity evaluators? When you are defining best practice for a charity evaluator, do you have a small set of charity evaluators in mind, or do you find examples in analogous evaluation projects and platforms (perhaps some that are nothing to do with EA, or nothing to do with charity in general)?

• tobytrem 23 Nov 2023 14:09 UTC

  23 points

  1 ∶ 0

  on: GWWC’s eval­u­a­tions of evaluators

  Bumping that GWWC’s research team is running an AMA here. They will respond to questions there until Tuesday 28th 9pm UTC.

• tobytrem 23 Nov 2023 11:19 UTC

  3 points

  1 ∶ 0

  in reply to: ABlank’s comment on: ABlank’s Quick takes

  This is fantastic, thanks for making it!
  (insofar as this helps, there is a sequence for Marginal Funding Week)

• tobytrem 23 Nov 2023 10:35 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Arturo Macias’s comment on: How we ap­proach char­ity staff pay and benefits at Giv­ing What We Can

  Hi Arturo Macias,
  This is a reminder that there is a Forum norm to stay on topic. Your comment here does not respond directly to NunoSempere. If you respond more directly to a point that’s been made, then you are more likely to receive positive engagement on the Forum. You can consider this a warning from the moderation team: a comment of this type alone wouldn’t normally warrant a warning, but you appear to have commented in a similar manner multiple times in the past, for instance, here, here and here.
  Best, Toby (from the Forum moderation team)

• tobytrem 22 Nov 2023 10:43 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Vasco Grilo’s comment on: Eco­nomics of An­i­mal Welfare: Call for Abstracts

  Just in case you haven’t seen it yet, here is a popular post agreeing with you, published this week. And the response from OpenPhil.