Strong endorse. This is good, and not Goodharted on genre-fitting or seeming professional.

Urk, I wasn't trying to make fun of the prize. I think it's good. I was just trying to be silly-funny. This now a place where I can't rely on infinite charity, so I have to beware of how my silly-funny gets interpreted.

When people already well-respected in the community criticise something in EA, it can often be a source of prestige and a display of their own ability to think independently. But if a relative newcomer were to suggest the very same criticisms, it will often be interpreted very differently. Other aspiring EAs might intuitively classify them as "normie" rather than "EA above the pack".

So depending on where in the local status hierarchy you find yourself, you might have very different perceptions on how risky it is for community members in general to voice contrarian opinions.

Mh, I'm relieved. ^^

I still feel like it's in the water. But maybe the suspicion and the public speculation is what keeps it there. If everyone openly speculates on whether there's a widespread anti-animal-welfare bias in EA, it fuels distrust and schism and thereby makes it be a bias for the opposing side.

On the other hand, positively speaking about the value of big-tent EA, intermingling, and small-world networks, may make people pay more attention to incipient distrust and try to heal it. We want a world where aspiring EAs can find other EAs to talk to about all potential causes, lest their prioritisation be overly influenced by their arbitrary initial positions on the social graph.

I'm hoping to be rewarded for all the information hazards I've been keeping to myself, but, alas, I've been keeping them to myself so I can't prove it. And the virtue is somewhat negated by the fact that I'm hinting at their existence in the first place. :3

I'm honestly confused and surprised you got rejected, based on reading your linked application. I would probably have found it valuable to talk to you at a conference like this, for insights into how you do what you do, because you clearly do some of it well.

I just really hope it isn't anti-animal-welfare bias, because I do so hope that EAs with different priorities keep intermingling.

Oh. Personal take here, but I think this is just exceptionally excellent. Something to learn from. Thanks! ^^

In addition to enabling drop-down boxes for commonly used jargon, it would be great if drop-down boxes were an editable feature. I frequently try to balance my explanations so that they're able to cover the inferential gaps without being too longwinded. One way of dealing with this is to make separate articles for people with different backgrounds like what Arbital does. But I think I prefer just having drop-down boxes for deeper or alternative explanations that not everyone needs.

I think I have a tendency to explain/talk things with much simpler models than I actually operate with, and I should adjust. But to be clear, I think yeah, EAG(x) shouldn't be exclusively optimised as on-ramps. What I meant by "specifically optimised" wasn't "exclusively", but I realise I wasn't being very clear. And I agree that retreats sound more conducive to friendships than online interactions for most people.

What I hope for is just that the a virtual hub/coworking office that's always accessible (this could be EAGT, but anything that serves the purpose is fine) is advertised at EAG(x)s as a way to keep in touch with the people you meet. And perhaps that CEA helps advertise the coworking week starting at the 24th to give it some credibility. But that's only if you think it's a good idea, and I don't want to come across as too much of a salesperson. :p

I'm on a vacation 'till Monday, so I won't be optimising the document much until then, but thanks for noticing us. Have a happy weekend!