I think the heads up was optional; thanks for doing it at all. But it felt weird that you included it in your comment, because a heads up to me doesn't really make a difference on the overall situation.

>FWIW I did send the CEA community health team a draft of this announcement.
Since you mention my team and you emailed me an FYI about 16 hours before this announcement went up, here's my opinion: don't hire someone with a fraud conviction for a finance or philanthropy role.

I thought the quiz was well made!

I came here and had the same thought!

I like how this model captures several different factors! Taste/enjoyment is another factor that I think is key for a lot of people here.

>Palisade, Apollo, METR, MATS, Tarbell 
For other readers who thought, "Wait, are those not getting CG funding?" Almost all of those orgs have been funded by CG, most within the last year. Maybe not at the level Scott's talking about though.

Other comments make me think the language wasn't a big factor, but trying to model what my college-aged self would have asked before hearing about EA: "what career will help other people the most"  / "what career will make the world a better place"

I wonder if some of this is that most people don't ask questions with "morally speaking" in the phrasing.

Thanks for spelling this out! Re the call script: my understanding is that messages like these get recorded by staffers basically as "in favor / opposed" to whatever the legislation is. Is it worth having a shorter script, since the arguments are not making it into the record of who called about what?

Seconding this. I've heard both "you could die from toxic shock syndrome if you don't clean your cup properly" and also there are something like 5 known cases and no deaths of TSS from menstrual cups. Getting the right balance of education would be important: conveying that cleaning the cup is needed, but it's apparently unlikely to cause a serious problem with typical use.