Thanks! I missed that was disputed
Combine this with the destitute medicare strategy, and have them adopted by grandparents: https://www.jefftk.com/p/adapting-to-means-testing
making this claim
I'm confused: the bit you're quoting is asking a question, not making a claim.
I haven't seen other resources that talk about the cost of college this way, but I also don't spend much time looking at financial planning advice?
The approach in this post is only relevant to a pretty small fraction of people:
I think this is likely enough that a 529 plan or similar does not make sense for our family, but I'm planning to revisit when my kids are getting close to high school (and I have a better sense of their academic standing) before considering a career change.
The Plough link is broken; it should be https://www.plough.com/en/topics/life/parenting/the-case-for-one-more-child
I don't think this is actually a reasonable request to make here?
What do you think the "for life" adds to the pledge if not "for the rest of your lives"?
See the discussion here: https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/10100184609772372?comment_id=10100184674817022
It doesn't account for a very much of the data, unfortunately.
"for life" sounds just as permanent to me, if less morbid, than "till death do us part"
Similar with what you're saying about AI alignment being preparadigmatic, a major reason why trying to prove the Riemann conjecture head-on would be a bad idea is that people have already been trying to do that for a long time without success. I expect the first people to consider the conjecture approached it directly, and were reasonable to do so.