This has been mentioned in other posts about the US election, but people who don't live in the US (the majority) should be careful when donating to charities working on US elections as there are strict rules about donating to political organisations.

Could it be that their reasoning is this: These three problems are connected in some way, therefore, by tackling some root cause, all these problems can be solved at once?

This line of reasoning is something I've anecdotally also heard from several NGOs and activists.

I'm wondering if advocating for cycling infrastructure could be more beneficial here. It's much cheaper and faster to develop, faces less opposition and cycling also has health benefits for the user and less externalities than public transit. 

Why are April Fools jokes still on the front page? On April 1st, you expect to see April Fools' posts and know you have to be extra cautious when reading strange things online. However, April 1st was 13 days ago and there are still two posts that are April Fools posts on the front page. I think it should be clarified that they are April Fools jokes so people can differentiate EA weird stuff from EA weird stuff that's a joke more easily. Sure, if you check the details you'll see that things don't add up, but we all know most people just read the title or first few paragraphs.

Good point. I'm going to do that right away! Edit: You can sign up here.

Thanks for the comment. I agree with your criticism. It would be nice to have a newsletter similar to how the EA Opportunities Board newsletter works. I decided against that for a few reasons:

• The newsletter should indeed be automated, but this increases complexity and initial time investment. This is a time investment I'm currently not able to make.
• There needs to be a steady flow of project submissions before such a newsletter makes sense. I found it really hard to guess this, as we tend to only see successful projects posted. Maybe everyone has a folder with 10 abandoned projects and adds new ones every other month, maybe I'm the only one. I'll maybe re-evaluate this after a month when I'll have some more time to work on this.

Indeed!

Thanks for the feedback and submitting a project! I'll make that field non-mandatory when I'm doing some updates :)

Small question: Do you want anyone to fill in the form or only people working for EA related organisations?

Could you explain more what you mean with this:

 and rising sea levels provide even more reason to expand shorelines

This seems quite counterintuitive to me. Creating more low-lying areas where people will move to that will then flood seems like the opposite of what we want? One way to solve this would be by making the reclaimed land high enough to not flood after future sea level rise, but that'll require much more materials (and hence higher costs). Another way to solve this is with technological solutions like the Netherlands does, but these are very costly, too.

What are your thoughts on this?