Extremely interesting article -and I'd love to see other posts exploring your assumptions!

I had a chance to meet a private foundation's leader in Europe recently (raising and donating several millions / year). Interestingly, they also mentioned TBP and I'm now wondering whether it was to somehow position themselves as opposed to some sort of highly demanding grantmaking.

I do think TBP and EA are compatible, to some degree. We should not confuse (1) "having a very high bar for anticipated effectiveness" and (2) "having a very high bar for evidence of impact". It is quite simple to apply for a grant from most EA grantmakers. In my (certainly limited) experience, if you want your grant to be renewed (and, supposedly, increased), you'll probably have to provide significant evidence, and I think it's fair enough.

I suppose non-EA funders might:
- Have actually little knowledge of EA or the EA funding landscape
- Be discouraged by the depth of analysis that they can see from GiveWell
- Be annoyed or discouraged by EA's frequent, strong claim of "making decisions based on evidence" (btw, this claim is so often advertized that I'd assume that it can be conflated with a reliance on frequent reports from and control over grantees).

Also, maybe it's be worth distinguishing different cases, in particular:

• Funders of "traditional" animal welfare or GHD charities;
• Funders of more "exotic" projects (global catastrophic risks, community-building, forecasting...), which usually cannot rely as much on historical data for evaluation.

In the meantime: good spot. I assume they assumed that an experienced "finance" person could probably take on this part-time role pro bono.

I see on the website (https://www.non-trivial.org/program) that the short course is no longer presented. Now it is all about the fellowship. Is there a reason?

Maybe also advertise the Slack in here? https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/groups/wiDFRkBrgfiXrPcmb

Very happy to see this! But for information, the Slack link is expired (if you update it, be careful because it's in multiple places in the article) @SofiaBalderson  @Cameron.K 

In a scenario where this tech works as well as we are dreaming of and has generalized in hundreds of millions of buildings: isn't there a risk of a general weakening of our immunity systems, making us more vulnerable over the medium-long run? 

Basic logic behind this question: certain/many classes of virus eradicated from many modern buildings => our bodies are generally less prepared to encounter it in other settings.

(epistemic status: I'm very ignorant in these fields)

Your next question seems like a crucial point to me. Bed nets are imperfect but since mosquitos can feed on on other animals, I suppose mosquito populations don't disappear when entire regions use bednets more often, they just slowly become less malaria-infected.

Very enthusiastic about this project, which I agree can fill an important gap in the learning journey. I will follow with great interest!

I think it would be relatively simple to replicate for languages other than English in the future. (after this passes beta phase, of course!)