I think the educational attainment GWAS you mentioned in footnote 2 was released. How does that update your estimates and why?

About a year and a half ago I seriously considered donating. I went through the screening and got approved to donate. During the screening process a doctor mentioned a study about post-operative pain, which I believe was this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6790588/

IIUC, the study reports that ~1/20 donors reported chronic pain (that they self-report is due to the operation) years after the operation, and that those that do report a significantly decreased quality of life. The study doesn't have any controls, so it's possible that this is mostly due to the donors being mistaken about the pain being caused by the surgery.

That study gave me enough pause that I so far have not gone through with the donation. Curious to hear your thoughts on it.

Seems somewhat related to RadicalXChange stuff. Maybe look into that. They have some meetups and mailing lists.

Having read the account of B-59 in "Doomsday Machine", I think it was higher risk for odds of nuclear weapons hitting the USA.

DC, New York, and San Francisco are among the highest-likelihood-of-being-hit-in-a-full-nuclear-exchange cities in the US

What's the rationale behind New York and San Francisco?

If it's because they are major population centers, what are reasonable estimates + rationale for P(target population | nuclear war)? I would have guessed attacking military sites (and in particular nuclear-related sites) would be much more likely, and I don't think there are major military targets very close to San Francisco.

Agreed. Voting reform and forecasting are already getting attention from some in EA and should be integrated into this larger project IMO.

Relevant: "Towards a longtermist framework for evaluating democracy-related interventions". In particular the discussion of "accuracy" and "liberalism", but it doesn't discuss the topic of "what gets voted on" besides liberalism.

Thanks very much for writing.

How many of these concerns would apply to the "Let markets veto proposed bills" proposal that you mentioned in your summary of Futarchy ?

Or variations on that where some non-Futarchy (e.g., republican) process is used to determine the set of policy proposals that are considered by the markets. You could see this as a dial, where the more demanding this proposal process is, the less scope there is for the markets to choose, and vice versa. 

It seems to me that this would provide what you call a "sanity check" and avoid many cases of Goodhart's law. 

Some hybrid system like this seems promising to me.

I ended up:

• Setting up a living trust.
• Transferring the real estate to be owned by the trust.
• Specifying in the trust that upon my death all assets should be donated to a donor-advised fund (DAF).
• Specifying in the trust how the DAF funds should be donated.

I did this after verifying that DAFs do accept real estate. E.g., Schwab Charitable.

I'm in the USA and I own some real estate. I'd like to have it sold for the benefit of a charity after I die. If anyone has information on the best way to do this, please let me know, and perhaps incorporate it into the guide above.

Thanks!