I think a 2x2 rather than 1x3 seating arrangement would be more natural. Currently it feels like you and Arden are too far away to make it a cosy chat vibe. I agree with Jamie that the topics should be impact-relevant, rather than just friends chatting about random things.

The work tests that don’t require a single sitting still do have a max number of hours

I find it’s very rare to have to do the work test in 1 sitting, and I at least usually do better if I can split it up a bit

It sounds like you would benefit from greater prioritisation and focus. (Eg see: https://calnewport.com/dangerous-ideas-college-extracurriculars-are-meaningless/).

I don’t think it requires years of learning to write a thoughtful op-ed-level critique of EA. I’d be surprised if that’s true for an academic paper-level one either

Mainly advice on intermediate steps to get more domain-relevant experience.

Have you applied for 80k career advice?

The point I’m trying to make is that there are many ways you can be influential (including towards people that matter) and only some of them increase prestige. People can talk about your ideas without ever mentioning or knowing your name, you can be a polarising figure who a lot of influential people like but who it’s taboo to mention, and so on.

I also do think you originally meant (or conveyed) a broader meaning of influential - as you mention economic output and the dustbins of history, which I would consider to be about broad influence.

Andrew Tate is very influential, but entirely lacking in prestige.

This is interesting, thanks. Though I wanted to flag that the volume of copyediting errors means I’m unlikely to share it with others.