All of Josh Jacobson's Comments + Replies

They also wouldn't cover e.g. capabilities companies being reckless or violating commitments they made, unless they break some clear law, and even then protections are pretty limited.

An alternative take on this (I haven’t researched this topic myself): https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/LttenWwmRn8LHoDgL/josh-jacobson-s-quick-takes?commentId=ZA2N2LNqQteD5dE4g

There's a similar post on this forum from a few years back, I believe, with some probably valuable discussion.

Quick Take: Probably the best board members will have some significant hesitance to accept. This is one spot where I think EA is sometimes getting things wrong right now, and where I think e.g. a full hiring round for a board is quite misdirected.

Wrote the following in a Slack thread asking about advice for selecting board members:

(I’m familiar with the US and not other places, so some of this may not exactly be right outside the US.)

1. First of all, your Board has ~complete control over your organization. They can remove the executive, change strategy,

Yeah, that can be significant work.

Some lawyers claim that there may be significant (though not at all ideal) whistleblowing protection for individuals at AI companies that don't fully comply with the Voluntary Commitments: https://katzbanks.com/wp-content/uploads/KBK-Law360-Despite-Regulation-Lag-AI-Whistleblowers-Have-Protections.pdf

I’m pretty surprised it seemed like a large pain. In my experience it’s been easy to secure.

Thanks for sharing!

This isn't on you, but just sharing that the website feels really lacking in detail and salesy. It isn't clear to me at all:

1. What the normal price is
2. Why this would be any better than all the other offerings
3. Why I should particularly go through the significant additional red tape vs. other options
4. If this will be repeatable; after all, being able to compare results over time is likely a huge amount of the value of these things

If you happen to know any of these answers, I'd be interested. Otherwise, this comment is just to help others know some potential issues before they decide whether to investigate further.

D&O insurance should be a consideration as well.

I didn’t read this, but my very first foray into “doing good” was building a web app to fight loneliness via helping people make friends online (2010-2013).

We didn’t get to see what it could become as I became passionate about doing other EA things (joined CEA then) but I’ve sometimes wondered if continuing with that app would have been the right call. I think there’s some chance we had found the right design / product for this space.

Anyway if anyone feels like picking up the codebase or otherwise trying to move forward with a massive loneliness intervention, I’d be open to messaging about it.

I generally/directionally agree, and also wrote about a closely related concern previously: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/tdaoybbjvEAXukiaW/what-are-your-main-reservations-about-identifying-as-an?commentId=GB8yfzi8ztvr3c6DC

FWIW, I would value (for the community) a "how-to" post that describes e.g. branding process more than this type of post which points at various considerations. E.g. something(s) that taught what it means to create a hierarchy of the messages you want to get across, what positioning statements are, etc. and how to create a brand on the basis of those considerations.

Yeah I totally agree that the article was much better than many others on the subject, and that it isn't an easy task. I just thought it was worth acknowledging the shortcomings as well.

There were plenty of shortcomings, I thought, in the New Yorker piece (the only one of the three I've read).

Wow.

If this is a legit cover (e.g. is the one on the print edition, and here, and here), this puts EA in a new era of media coverage.

Most volunteer opportunities likely get mainly posted at https://www.facebook.com/groups/1392613437498240/

These links don't seem to work.

The name seems potentially quite bad. To me, the connotation is that everything in it should be taken with an asterisk. E.g. its meaning as described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterisk#Competitive_sports_and_games

FanDuel ended up crediting my account after doing the same thing, and then reaching out to them on Twitter.

PlayMaverick's only withdrawal option seems to be:

WITHDRAW AT CAGE Get an authorization code and enable you cash withdrawal at the Maverick sports book counter.

So I passed on that one.

SI seems appx. equivalent to Draft Kings, but maybe I'm missing something?

https://www.sisportsbook.com/spt/bet10get300/

Does Maxim Bet at $2k and 3x seem worthwhile? https://maximbet.com/promotions/big-game-supersized-bonus

Personally I I’d dispute the charge with my bank in that instance

Here's what customer service sent me: https://imgur.com/a/W8eIjm5

Caesar's lets you do your free bet first, which messed me up and I ended up doing it on extremely short odds (based on the order above). Just sharing so no one else misses out by doing this!

What the agent said is false. Here's the relevant webpages from earlier today, and a screenshot:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MPVj5jFQq6IJ:https://promos.sportsbook.fanduel.com/promotion%3FpromoCode%3DRF1000AS%26hideFooter%3Dtrue%26hideHeader%3Dtrue+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1QyLKt7hvdcJ:https://support.fanduel.com/s/article/What-is-the-1000-Risk-Free-Bet+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HHeBLwMgPXkJ:ht... (read more)

In ~3 instances I had trouble with the websites, and switching to the mobile apps resolved all 3 of those issues.

If you attempt to place a bet and you get a message that only a fraction of your wager is approved, cancel your bet and look for a new one.

I submitted the whole amount for approval on ~4 books, and each time it was fully approved, so that seems like a good way to go.

I don't think I understand what it means to "return the stake" nor how to determine if that is happening.

Certain sites give you bonus funds in free bets that don't return the stake (like MaximBet and PlayMaverick). Like with site credit earned through risk-free first bet promotions, that credit should be used on events with long odds. Other sites give you credit that does return the stake (like BetRivers, and TVG). Credits of this type should be used on events with shorter odds to reduce variance and lower tax liability.

One difficulty I've had that's not covered here is on some sites, they greatly restrict the amount you can bet on most, if not all available bets. On one site I wasn't able to bet near the promo max, and on another something like 4/300 available bets allowed me to bet the promo max.

Thanks!

In instances where you have a free first bet, why is the second bet best to be on long rather than short odds?

It looks like Superbook and PlayMaverick should be short odds?

Superbook:

The following terms apply:

• 100% Deposit Bonus Match
• Up to $1,000 of initial deposit
• Bonus Voucher will be credited into account within 24 hours
• Bonus Vouchers are applied to 50% of your cash wager
• Bonus voucher will be applied to subsequent qualifying wagers at 50% of the wager amount, up to the value remaining on the Bonus Voucher. (e.g. a $100 wager will be $50 cash and $50 of Bonus Voucher funds, if available).

PlayMaverick:

The Maverick Sports Welcome Deposit Bonus Match offe

If you'd like to continue advantage sports betting after grabbing the lowest hanging fruit of signup bonuses, you can continue to place +EV and arbitrage bets through OddsJam. The amount you can make depends on the size of your bankroll (i.e a $2,000 bet generates twice as much EV as a $1,000 bet.) You'll likely be limited by sports books within a couple of months (they'll restrict you to $5 per bet once they know you're a winning bettor,) but making smart bets is perfectly legal and you will always be able to withdraw your money, limited or otherwise.

Is this why these opportunities exist? Because I would have thought they'd be closed / taken advantage of quickly.

Strong disagree (I’d probably go so far to say that my prior on someone who plans to work 60 hours per week on this is lower that my prior on someone intending to work 40 hours), but doesn’t seem worth debating.

Tipico looks like it should be long odds, right?

Bet 100% Risk-Free, up to $750. Losing bet refunded as site credit. Deposit any amount you'd like.

Thanks!

This is cool, insightful, and creative. Thanks for making this post.

I do take issue with a prerequisite being 60+ hour weeks… there are many highly successful executives who work much less than that. Hours don’t necessarily correlate to production, and I expect unnecessarily including that in this post could filter out people who are very worth hearing from.

Would love your list for Colorado, taking the standard deduction.

Thanks for sharing. I'm adding this to my potential research agenda, kept here: https://airtable.com/shrGF5lAwSZpQ7uhP/tblJR9TaKLT41AoSL and https://airtable.com/shrQdonZuU20cpGR4

I found this compelling, but I feel confused about what I'd be signing up for from a time-investment perspective (hours, days, weeks?).

First, I want to support this suggestion:

If you do give it a try, consider leaving comments here on how much time you invested, how far you got, and how the whole thing was for you.

Responses of this kind will be quite helpful from my perspective, especially if the commentors share a bit about their background as well.

Given that comments of that type do not currently exist, I'd be excited for Holden and/or others in the ... (read more)

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 lov... (read more)

Thanks, that’s helpful info.