The Blue Ribbon Panel on Biodefense Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense is funded by OpenPhil and works in the US FWIW.
OTOH, I think if it became a talking point in debates it could wind up with more funding, but would also risk becoming politicized, which could be bad for the efficacy of the approaches that end up being used.
Very interested in the right answer here. Wikipedia says "90% alcohol rubs are more effective against viruses than most other forms of hand washing." (And I'm hoping it will generalize to the 70% concentration I typically use.) But here's a 2019 article that seems to show weak effectiveness against flu.
We'll ship soon after LessWrong does. When I last discussed with them, they were hoping to ship this quarter. The full version has collaborative editing features, but they might ship a non-collaborative version sooner.
My experience with it is confined to the SF tech world, where it is extremely common. Though usually it is offered to employees of the hiring company only. Maybe you could limit it to a group of people you then email about it.
We've been experiencing intermittent outages recently. Multiple possible causes and fixes have not turned out to fix it, so we're still working on it. If you see an error saying: "503 Service Unavailable: No healthy endpoints to handle the request. [...]" Try refreshing, or waiting 30 seconds and then refreshing; they're very transient errors. Our apologies for the disruption.
I really like this (I think you could make it top level if you wanted). I think these of these are cases of multiple levels of cooperation. If you're part of an organization that wants to be uncooperative (and you can't leave cooperatively), then you're going to be uncooperative with one of them.
I don't know if there is a designated place to leave comments about the EA Forum
Your shortform works if you like. Also:
• Use the Intercom box in the bottom right part of your screen ↘️
• Email Aaron or me (the CEA staff who work on the Forum)
• Send Aaron or me a private message on the Forum
The 'Community Favorites' section keeps listing the same posts over and over again. I don't see the point of having a prominent list of favorite posts in the home page that changes so little. I suggest expanding the list considerably so that regular visitors can still expect to see novel posts every time they visit the homepage.
I basically agree with this. For context, I view it as a way to discover posts that you missed if you took a break from the Forum for a while. If you have seen the same ones over and over, it's no longer serving that purpose. I like Oli's suggestion about hiding posts you've seen N times; you could also do a weighted randomization of the posts. This feature isn't a development priority for the Forum right now, but if LessWrong makes it we’ll port it. It also might make it to the docket after our current batch of improvements.
I'm donating my entire giving to the Donor Lottery. If I win I can spend much more time researching and non-profits will be able to devote more resources to answering my questions. Given these advantages, and the fact that I am variance neutral, I believe this makes the Donor Lottery strictly better than my other options.
Disclosure: I worked to set up the first version of CEA's Donor Lottery before I switched full time to the Forum, and continue to work for CEA, which still runs it. This was the project that CEA pitched me that helped convince me to work here though, so I'd say my enthusiasm for donor lotteries predates my conflict of interest.
I don't know the history of the term or its relationship to Copernicus, but I can say how my forgotten source defined it. Suppose you want to ask, "How long will my car run?" Suppose it's a weird car that has a different engine and manufacturer than other cars, so those cars aren't much help. One place you could start is with how long it's currently be running for. This is based on the prior that you're observing it on average halfway through its life. If it's been running for 6 months so far, you would guess 1 year. There surely exists a more rigorous definition than this, but that's the gist.
Hi, I saw this and asked on our slack about it. These was a leftover figures from when the post was in draft and the grants weren't finalized; someone's now fixed it. If you see anything else wrong, feel free to reach out to email@example.com.
I'm interested in the answer to this question; I was just discussing it when discussing the EA Forum on a team retreat. I'm interested in the creation of reference documents in general. Something I was thinking about very brainstorm-y, no plans to implement in the near term) was to add a type of post to the EA Forum that allowed either direct editing or inline suggestions by not-the-author.
You can think of the backstop funder as being a regular participant who happens to enter with the amount necessary to bring it to the promised pool size. This was basically the way we viewed it for the first lottery. The newer incarnations have shifted towards the view of the backstop funder as part of the infrastructure of the lottery. It's not much of a meaningful change, just a expression of the likelihood that the funder will want to do something with the winnings other than fund the lottery the next time and some (ambiguously intentional) nomenclature shifts.
[Content note: contains fundraising-y content, I'll let the mods decide what they want to do. Doing this in a personal capacity.]
I find myself with an awkward 9 days between a team retreat in FL and a family Xmas gathering in Atlanta. I would guess I would be a fairly good fit to trial this as I have two years of experience at a community building EA org (CEA, where I currently work) and did local group organizing before that.
I'm considering doing something other than flying back to California for that time, potentially doing something like an EA residency in an east coast city. If someone wanted to see this happen and offered to cover my expenses, I'd be more likely to do it. If someone wanted to see this happen in their city and would lend a couch, that would also be good. If someone merely has a suggestion of a city / event to visit, that’s still helpful.
 I can list more attributes including caveats and potential reservations if people express interest.
When I wrote this comment, I also wrote the following.
I've noticed a difference between a few types of apologies: i) I regret that I took the action and think that I should not have, ii) I think I made the right call with the information I had at the time, but it's turned out bad and I regret that, and iii) I think I made the right call, but I regret the necessary negative consequences. It seems to me you're claiming iii, which makes it weird to be under mistakes.
I now think you maybe did mean it as i or ii? Specifically
While often this was the right trade-off
Implies that sometimes it was the right call and sometimes it wasn't. This is pretty nit-pick-y but if you agree it's not type iii, maybe you could change it to
While often this was the right trade-off for Leverage 1.0 where the focus was advancing our ideas, sometimes it wasn't and in either case this makes the job of communicating our work moving forward challenging.
I don't have a fully-formed gestalt take yet, other than: thanks for writing this.
I do want to focus on 3.2.2 Communication about our work (it's a very Larissa thing to do to have 3 layers nesting of headers 🙂). You explain why you didn't prioritize public communication, but not why you restricted access to existing work. Scrubbing yourself from archive.org seems to be an action taken not from desire to save time communicating, but from a desire to avoid others learning. It seems like that's a pretty big factor that's going on here and would be worth mentioning.
Ah, so like, in the "real world", you don't have a set of people, you end up recruiting a training class of 80% would-be-strikers, which influences the culture compared to if you recruited for the same breakdown as the eventually-selected-team?
I also like the analogy, let's run with it. Suppose I'm reasoning from the point of view of the movement as a whole, and we're trying to put together a soccer team. Suppose also that there are two types of positions, midfield and striker. I'm not sure if this is true for strikers in what I would call soccer, but suppose the striker has a higher skillcap than midfield. I'll define skillcap as the amount of skill with the position before the returns begin to diminish.
Where skill is some product of standard deviation of innate skill and hours practiced.
Back to the problem of putting together a soccer team, if you're starting with a bunch of players of unknown innate skill, you would get a higher expected value to tell 80% of your players to train to be strikers, and 20% to be midfielders. Because you have a smaller pool, your midfielders will have less innate talent for the position. You can afford to lose this however, as the effect will be small compared to the gain in the increased performance of the strikers.
That's not to say that you should fill your entire team with wannabe strikers. When you select your team you'll undoubtedly leave out some very dedicated strikers in favor of someone who trained for midfield. Still, compared to the percentage that end up playing on the team, the people you'd want training for the role leans more towards the high-skillcap positions.
There are all sorts of ways this analogy doesn't apply directly to the real world, but it might help pump intuitions.
 For American football, the quarterback position definitely exhibits this effect. The effect can be seen clearly in this list of highest-paid players.
Karma is awarded definitely as a recognition of the usefulness of the contribution. The user's overall karma is an unprincipled straight addition of those "usefulness scores". Still, it's the closest thing the site has to it's trust in the user and we use it to award: a) More influence in the form of higher-powered votes b) More ability to moderate one's own posts (ability to moderate personal blogposts at 50 karma, and those that have been promoted to the frontpage or community at 2000)
Off-the-cuff objection: this works inasmuch as karma is a game to get a fancy high number. But if you think of karma as the measure of the site's trust in a user, I don't want the site to trust the user less because they have elected to reward other users.
Sorry I missed this! I should have used the subscription feature on the subscription announcement post. Yes, (to my surprise, tbh) it is limited at 5. I'll forward the question to the author of the feature.
Next time can you submit this as a linkpost to your blogpost? When that happens we tell Google that your blogpage is the "canonical link". As it is, Google thinks we might be stealing your content and slightly decrements our search rankings.