I thought this was a great Shortform post!

• The book for hiring managers I've seen referenced most often is Who. If you're not sure what "resources" to look at, that's probably a good starting point.
• "Apply too often rather than not often enough": I often tell people this, because:
  • Some people tend to underestimate their qualifications or suitability. You might be one of them!
  • (What JJ said about getting practice)
  • Even if you don't get the job, you might get a referral to other jobs if you do well during the process (I was hired this way, and I've helped at least one other person get hired this way)
  • EA-aligned orgs are generally quite open to feedback; if you find a specific process confusing or overly time-consuming, you can tell the org this; I think they'll be much more likely than most orgs to make changes in response (improving the experience for other applicants)
• I'm not sure about the "application drafting" approach, but I recommend something similar: If a job interests you, look at an org's website (or LinkedIn) to find people who have that job or similar jobs. Look at what they did earlier in their careers. Consider sending a brief, polite email with a question or two, or asking for a quick call. Sometimes, people will just give you great advice for free. 
  • And even if no one responds, you've still gotten a much better sense for how these career paths operate in the real world (which isn't always as restrictive as the stories we tell ourselves about getting a job).

Welcome, Caleb! I'm always excited to see people with unusual specialties on the Forum; every bit of expertise matters.

Given that the navigation bar text refers to an article with a capitalized title, I think its current capitalization is correct and consistent. It's possible that "action" in "Take action" should be capitalized, though; I'll give that some thought.

I think that this may make sense / probably makes sense for receiving payment for book reviews. But I think I'd be opposed to discouraging people from just posting book summaries/reviews/notes in general unless they do this. 

Yep, agreed. If someone is creating e.g. an EAIF-funded book review, I want it to feel very "solid", like I can really trust what they're saying and what the author is saying. 

But I also want Forum users to feel comfortable writing less  time-intensive content (like your book notes). That's why we encourage epistemic statuses, have Shortform as an option, etc.

(Though it helps if, even for a shorter set of notes, someone can add a note about their process. As an example: "Copying over the most interesting bits and my immediate impressions. I haven't fact-checked anything, looked for other perspectives, etc.")

I worry sometimes that EAs aren’t sufficiently interested in learning facts about the world that aren’t directly related to EA stuff.

I share this concern, and I think a culture with more book reviews is a great way to achieve that (I've been happy to see all of Michael Aird's book summaries for that reason).

CEA briefly considered paying for book reviews (I was asked to write this review as a test of that idea). IIRC, the goal at the time was more about getting more engagement from people on the periphery of EA by creating EA-related content they'd find interesting for other reasons. But book reviews as a push toward levelling up more involved people // changing EA culture is a different angle, and one I like a lot.

One suggestion: I'd want the epistemic spot checks, or something similar, to be mandatory. Many interesting books fail the basic test of "is the author routinely saying true things?", and I think a good truth-oriented book review should check for that.

This is a good comment! Upvoted for making a reasonable challenge to a point that often goes unchallenged.

There are trade-offs to honesty and cooperation, and sometimes  those virtues won't be worth the loss of impact or potential risk. I suspect that Holden!2013 would endorse this; he may come off as fairly absolutist here, but I think you could imagine scenarios where he would, in fact, miss a family event to accomplish some work-related objective (e.g. if a billion-dollar grant were at stake).

I don't know how relevant this fact is to the Gates case, though.

While I don't have the time to respond point-by-point, I'll share some related thoughts:

• My initial comment was meant to be descriptive rather than prescriptive: in my experience, most people in EA seem to be aligned with Holden's view. Whether they should be is a different question. 
  • I include myself in the list of those aligned, but like anyone, I have my own sense of what constitutes "standard", and my own rules for when a trade-off is worthwhile or when I've hit the limit of "trying". 
  • Still, I think I ascribe a higher value than most people to "EA being an unusually kind and honest community, even outside its direct impact".
• I don't understand what would result from an analysis of "what types of unethical behavior could be condoned":
  • Whatever result someone comes up with, their view is unlikely to be widely adopted, even within EA (given differences in people's ethical standards)
  • In cases where someone behaves unethically within the EA community, there are so many small details we'll know about that trying to argue for any kind of general rule seems foolhardy. (Especially since "not condoning" can mean so many different things -- whether someone is fired, whether they speak at a given event, whether a given org decides to fund them...)
  • In cases outside EA (e.g. that of Gates), the opinion of some random people in EA has effectively no impact.

All in all, I'd rather replace questions like "should we condone person/behavior X?" with "should this person X be invited to speak at a conference?" or "should an organization still take grant money from a person who did X?" Or, in a broader sense, "is it acceptable to lie in a situation like X if the likely impact is Y?"

As always, it's a real pleasure to read FEM's writeups.  I hope to see another report in ~6 months as I'm figuring out my giving for the year  :-)

We definitely want to add wiki contribution data to user profiles (it's a natural accompaniment to the lists of users' posts and comments), though the timeline for that project isn't yet established.

(For people who don't follow the link to the festival announcement post, it seems worth noting that these prizes are "In the form of donations to an EA Funds-eligible charity of your choice.")

I've added this detail to the post for clarity. Thanks!

I'll check in with EA Funds about whether they have any plans to add those options.