Experienced quant trader, based in London. Formerly a volunteer at Rethink Priorities, where I did some forecasting research. Interested in longtermism and meta causes.
Weak disagree but upvoted - I think that Kelsey has played this game enough to know what's up
"I genuinely thought SBF was comfortable with our interview being published and knew that was going to happen. "
This is not credible, and anyone who thinks this is credible is engaged in motivated reasoning.
I still think you should have published the interview, but you don't need to lie about this.
"Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself."
Jonas said that Nathan was making overblown claims here and on Twitter. In particular the inclusion of "and on Twitter" points to Nathan as someone engaged in irresponsible conduct, without addressing his substance, and thus meets the definition of an ad hominem IMO.
My second point addresses your point 2. As I said, there are many people who are knowledgeable about crypto on the forum, and this is a very topical post, so a reasonable person should expect the substance to be addressed in the comments. Adding only vague nonspecific criticisms, while I agree it is not zero information, I think it is worse than staying out of it and posting nothing.
Thanks for the response. I still do not think the post made it clear what its objective was, and I don't think it's really the venue for this kind of discussion.
I think this is an irresponsible ad hominem to be posting without any substance or link to substance whatsoever. There are many EAs who know a lot about crypto and read the forum - if there are substantial criticisms to be made I think you can expect them to make them without this vague insinuation.
Why is this relevant to the EA forum?
I'm pretty sure the answer is no, you can't, for exactly the same reasons as why it would look dodgy to any regulators.
Additionally, the potential reputational harm to EA from this sort of thing probably should be taken into account.
There are enough sufficiently wealthy EAs that you might well be able to get funding from them if you have a good startup plan, without any reputational risk (and if you can't then this would be a weak but maybe valuable signal that your plan is not as good as you think).
That is why I left quite large margins for error, one of which you note, the other being that those 6 were only earning 1m+, not donating.
Demand for plant based meat having peaked is evidence against meat consumption declining, not in favour of it. And I don't think any serious unbiased analysts have suggested that lab grown meat would exceed 10% of global supply by 2040, if it ever becomes viable.
See https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2b9HCjTiFnWM8jkRM/forecasts-estimate-limited-cultured-meat-production-through for a much more typical and pessimistic take.
I would guess that you could ballpark the marginal value somewhere around market prices in the US, which a Google search says is $50-75 per visit. Plausibly this is higher in the UK due to shortages brought on by the lack of a market, this is not clear to me.
Does the NHS ever pay to import blood? If so, that number, times the average cost efficiency of the NHS, which I think is approx £20k per year of healthy life, should not be way off, though of course it is oversimplified in numerous ways.
Given the above, I would be a little surprised if any reasonable version of this calculation got an answer substantially higher than 1 quality adjusted life day.