Specifically 'Metta Meditation' is precisely targeted at increasing empathy

Ah thanks! I think I didn't click 'Save' 🤦‍♂️

For some reason it felt quite weird for me to write a bio and I avoided doing that before, even though I think it's very important for our community to get to know each other more personally. So I thought I might use this chance to introduce myself and finally write a bio 😊

My name is Edo, I'm one of the co-organisers of EA Israel. I'm also helping out in moderation for the forum, feel free to reach out if I can help with anything.

I have studied mathematics, worked as an mathematical researcher in the IDF and was in training and leadership roles. After that I started a PhD in CS, where I helped to start a research center with the goal of advancing Biological research using general mathematical abstractions. After about 6 months I have decided to leave the center and the PhD program.

Currently, I'm mostly thinking about improving the scientific ecosystem and particularly how one can prioritize better within basic science. 

Generally, I'm very excited about improving prioritisation within EA and how we conduct our research around it and EA causes in general. I'm also very interested in better coordination and initiative support within the EA community. Well, I'm pretty excited about the EA community and basically everything else that has to do with doing the most good.

My Virtue Ethic brain parts really appreciates honesty and openness, curiosity and self-improvement, caring and supporting, productivity and goal-orientedness, cooperating as the default option and fixing broken systems.

This feels good to me. One problem that may have (but I'm not sure about it) is that it might not capture new causes that are contained in another meta-cause. So for instance, the post about M-Risk is related to policy or x-risk, but is clearly a new cause by itself and yet it may feel inappropriate to vote on it as "other causes".

Regarding norms, some interesting notes from the Tagging FAQ at LW:

1. The goal of tags is to be used as a curated collection over time.
2. Better to not tag events, as they won't be relevant after a short while.
3. Better to tag with more specific tags than broad tags.
4. Vote on tags if you think the post is very relevant to that tag (and so it will show up earlier in the case where people look up through posts on that tag) and downvote when it's less relevant. 
5. Since tags are moderated, it is better to just add many tags and they will be checked for relevance and accuracy. So if you think that some tag would be useful, just go about it. (As a moderator here, I think that tags are very important and I'll gladly spend time going over more tags if that causes more tags to be created)
6. Good tags should have a balance between not being too small to be irrelevant and not being too big so that the list wouldn't help readers going through it and it would take a lot of overhead to tag new posts.
   1. I don't think that we should be that concerned with having a tag that's too big on the EA forum. 
   2. Generally, one can filter through several tags, so I'm not sure what to make of it. @Habryka, I'd be interested in your opinion on this.
7. Tags should avoid being too near other tags. This can be clarified in the description.
8. Tag evolution:
   • The tagging system is collectively applied which limits its ability to maintain tags with high-degrees of subjective nuance.
   • Tags overall experience pressure to be as inclusive as possible. If a concept is at all loosely connected to a topic, someone will apply it.
   • The general result of the above is that a closely related, although theoretically distinct, concepts will end up blurred and having heavy redundant post overlap.
9. Tag names should be as clear as possible, even for people who don't understand it in full neuance.
10. It's perfectly fine to use multiple names when is appropriate.
11. Keep tag names brief. Use $\&$ or $/$ instead of $\text{and}$. (I should rename $Col\le ctions\text{and}Resources$). 
12. Tag description should have the tag name in bold and link to related tags. (again, I should change things 😊)

Curious to know what people here think about the "unusual causes" tag. 

This comes across to me as a bit deprecating so I was thinking that perhaps the name should be changed to something a bit more neutral. Perhaps 'non-standard-causes'. Or even something that might be  biased the other way like 'underdiscussed-causes'.

Aaron Gertler gave the answer that

In my experience, "unusual" when applied to anything other than a person is a quite neutral term. I'd think of "non-standard" as worse, since "standard" implies quality in a way I don't think "usual" does.

So I'd take his view over mine, since I'm not a native english speaker. Still, interested in what you think and what other alternatives are there.

Generally, I think that this tag could be very important for the discovery of new causes so I think that an appropriate name might be important

I tested 1 (added a Collections and Resources tag which I think you'd like 😉), and it works fine and visible to anyone. The tags are moderated, so there is an approval process.

Great! good luck!

By the way, I saw that you didn't upvote your own post - that's understandable, but the norm is to just leave it as it is and upvote yourself :)