@panchromaticity
me NOT TO BE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT who
@WomanCorn Agreed. Taskforce, not church.
@retr0id Hm I like long wikipedia articles. Maybe I've internalised that reading the first section is usually enough to get an overview?
But yeah, sometimes an article should really be split up
@retr0id oh my god my eyes are bleeding my ears are ringing which cruel incubus inflicts this typographical nightmare on my bals
@moviemorgz Now I wonder whether she will charge *more* when she become 69 years old
can markets support this
@kaia Not *all* people. One small Gallic villag…
@flengyel (which I *do* think should exist in the world: with altruism ~everybody else is doing the illegible vibes-based fuzzy feel-good interventions—surely there is a comparative advantage here)
Also I deny that the capitalist media cares about the stuff classic EA focuses on—people (surprisingly, I know) don't like hearing about how awful factory farming is, and generally don't care about large numbers of dark-skinned people having shittier lives because easily preventable diseases
@flengyel
As for EA doing "what is measurable in the short term and thus reportable to the capitalist media" — seems false to me. Certainly a lot of wild & out-there stuff with long or non-existent feedback loops (longtermism and trying to prevent extinction) and vague "improve public decision making" goals.
So I like the opposite critique more: EA is *not* doing what it promised to, namely doing the things that are beneficial from a short-term very quantitative perspective.
@flengyel
> Text fails to convey the good-natured skepticism on my end.
Haha it's always the same problem.
this is mostly likely ⚠️ extremely ahistorical ⚠️ but anyway here's what it looks like when you take those rows and project them back into the past
other donors are kept as a constant % of non-billionaires
on top of this crypto donors are ÷10 before 2020 and ÷100 before 2017
I operate by Crocker's rules[1].