Woa this is cool.

Global Food Partners created a producers directory called cagefreehub.globalfoodpartners.com for Asia sellers. GFP has done a lot of work to reach out to sellers for it, maybe useful to chat with gfp more about what it is and if it could be useful for Africa. (note: I am the web developer of cagefreehub)

both Apple's App Store and Google Play Store have policies in place that require you to provide clear and transparent communication to users about charges before processing in-app purchases.

Apple's App Store Review Guidelines state that you must "clearly and accurately describe the in-app purchase and its terms" to users before they initiate the purchase. This means you need to provide sufficient information about the charge, such as the price, what the user will receive in return, and any applicable terms or conditions. It's essential to obtain explicit user consent before processing any charges.

Similarly, Google Play's Developer Policy Center requires that you "clearly disclose the price, currency, and the specific functionality or content users are purchasing" and "obtain explicit consent from the user before charging them." The pricing information should be presented in a way that is easily understandable to users.

To comply with these policies, it is common practice to display a clear and prominent dialog or popup within your app, informing users about the charge and requesting their consent before proceeding with the purchase. This popup should provide a clear description of the purchase, the associated cost, and any relevant terms or conditions.

Thus, having a button to click that charges 1$ isn't possible without a popup between each click.
Anyone got ideas for alternatives?

Instead of campaigning for farm animal welfare reforms and animal welfare certified meat, animal advocates could better focus on campaigns to reduce or eliminate animal-based meat and promote animal-free meat substitutes.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the benefits of farm animal welfare reforms may be lesser.

The other benefits of welfare reforms(which you mentioned like higher prices) may also influence behavior when switching from a stepping stone. 

How the lesser benefits may impact overall interventions may be a question that requires further investigation.

Thanks for the write up!

I totally agree that when working on particular solutions the neglectedness of the solution is the important factor not just the problem area.

But I am slightly hesitant to be in full agreement with the meaning change because it is dependent on working on specific solutions, rather than working on a problem area more broadly, or just building career capital around a problem.

For Podcasters, I really like the Hear this idea podcast :3

Excellent.

The parent of this comment shouldn't happen.

Paradox!

see the post footnote:

"I looked at the number of people who had marked something as “most valuable,” and then divided by [karma score]^1.5. All of these were marked as most valuable by at least two people. 

Just dividing by karma didn’t change the list much, and dividing by karma^2 penalized karma too much. I played with a few other ways of modifying the “underrated-ness” metric, but they didn’t seem better."

+60% on scientific devaluing on poc(true or false) deterring poc from participating.

Not sure if overall would be good though. The clearerThinking podcast w/Magnus Carlson say that allowing misinformation to be voiced may be effective at reducing misinformation. Ex. can point out why the view may fall short.