They may be willing to direct it to a charity that will give it to an individual, eg https://www.theissresearch.org/.

This job posting existed: https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/social-impact-advocate-canva-foundation-at-canva-2664448885/?originalSubdomain=au

May have been high impact?

The Slack used for the fellowship is no longer being used

Someone in favor of the policy may respond to some of your concerns (e.g. the latter ones) with this sort of argument: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6uwLq8kofo4Tzxfe2/long-covid-is-not-necessarily-your-biggest-problem

You use "we" a lot in this write-up; is there a coauthor or organization that was a part of this?

From my perspective, technically, Google Wave qualifies with the words you’ve written, but I don’t think it’s in the spirit of what you’ve written. (“Cheap” makes me think you’re looking for physical-world inventions, which is probably worth being more explicit about.)

If I’m wrong and it does qualify, there’s a number of web app examples.

Here’s the actual paper: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29070/w29070.pdf

There's a benefit, probably the main benefit IMO, that I don't feel like the above or any commenters address.

I claim that:

1. Profile pictures will make "who wrote what" more identifiable and memorable
2. There are many ways in which this could be good:

--- A: It will become easier to recall (and then potentially discuss) content that someone wrote when meeting them in-person / on zoom. I've had the experience multiple times at EA Globals where I interact with someone, then look them up, and realize there were topics they've written about that I would have loved to discuss, if only I recalled that they were the ones who wrote it.

---B: It will be easier to build ideas around individuals, such that you know better how to relate to their content. For example, there are usernames that post often on the Forum, but I currently often don't readily recall if I've found their previous articles accurate and insightful. Often I don't click on these titles, because I'm time-constrained. If I had a better model of whose work I'd appreciated or not appreciated in the past, I could better select what content I consume in the future (digitally, in person, or on zoom). This applies regardless of my selection algorithm... e.g. "read more of what I like", "read more of what is popular but my prior is I won't like", "see how this person's thoughts are developing", etc. It also gives me more opportunity to make better decisions on who I interact with, how much I understand them, and in what ways.

----- I understand that many may see this as a negative (becoming too focused on who the author is), but I personally expect that building better models / having richer information is generally valuable.

Thanks, that’s helpful info.

In 2020, I estimate about 14% net growth, bringing the total number of active EAs to 7,400.

1. Do you think this growth rate applies to the "Highly-Engaged EAs" classification as well, of which there were estimated to be 2,315 in the 2019 Rethink Priorities analysis?

2. Is this an estimate for the "Active EAs" at the end of 2020, or as of July 2021?

(Caveat to others that if you look at these estimates in Rethink Priorities initial 2019 report, you'll find that while they are well-informed, they are quite rough, so precise estimates have limited value.)