Trump recently said in an interview (https://time.com/6972973/biden-trump-bird-flu-covid/) that he would seek to disband the White House office for pandemic preparedness. Given that he usually doesn't give specifics on his policy positions, this seems like something he is particularly interested in. I know politics is discouraged on the EA forum, but I thought I would post this to say: EA should really be preparing for a Trump presidency. He's up in the polls and IMO has a >50% chance of winning the election. Right now politicians seem relatively receptive to EA ideas, this may change under a Trump administration.

I intend to strong downvote any article about EA that someone posts on here that they themselves have no positive takes on.  If I post an article, I have some reason I liked it. Even a single line. Being critical isn't enough on it's own. If someone posts an article, without a single quote they like, with the implication it's a bad article, I am minded to strong downvote so that noone else has to waste their time on it. 

Quick poll [✅ / ❌]: Do you feel like you don't have a good grasp of Shapley values, despite wanting to?  (Context for after voting: I'm trying to figure out if more explainers of this would be helpful. I still feel confused about some of its implications, despite having spent significant time trying to understand it)

Is EA as a bait and switch a compelling argument for it being bad? I don't really think so 1. There are a wide variety of baits and switches, from what I'd call misleading to some pretty normal activities - is it a bait and switch when churches don't discuss their most controversial beliefs at a "bring your friends" service? What about wearing nice clothes to a first date? [1] 2. EA is a big movement composed of different groups[2]. Many describe it differently. 3. EA has done so much global health stuff I am not sure it can be described as a bait and switch. eg https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ip7nXs7l-8sahT6ehvk2pBrlQ6Umy5IMPYStO3taaoc/edit#gid=9418963 4. EA is way more transparent than any comparable movement. If it is a bait and switch then it does so much more to make clear where the money goes eg (https://openbook.fyi/). On the other hand: 1. I do sometimes see people describing EA too favourably or pushing an inaccurate line.   I think that transparency comes with a feature of allowing anyone to come and say "what's going on there" and that can be very beneficial at avoiding error but also bad criticism can be too cheap.  Overall I don't find this line that compelling. And that parts that are seem largely in the past when EA was smaller (when perhaps it mattered less). Now that EA is big, it's pretty clear that it cares about many different things.  Seems fine.  1. ^ @Richard Y Chappell created the analogy.  2. ^ @Sean_o_h argues that here. 

Do you believe that altruism actually makes people happy? Peter Singer's book argues that people become happier by behaving altruistically, and psychoanalysis also classifies altruism as a mature defense mechanism. However, there are also concerns about pathological altruism and people pleasers. In-depth research data on this is desperately needed.