Thanks!

I think that is discussed in https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/dsCTSCbfHWxmAr2ZT/open-ea-global (perhaps more directly in the comments if only indirectly in the main post, I don't quite recall).

I think it's because the conferences are networking-focused and the organizers want the attendees to be likely to have productive meetings (like if you physically bump in to someone, CEA wants high odds that they  can help you or you can help them).

(Please correct me if I am wrong.)

I assume the broad categories for rejection from EAG are that CEA doesn't think an individual will increase their personal impact, from having gone, more than someone else they could admit, and similarly won't have as much value as a mentor/good-person-to-run-in-to than someone else they could admit.

In case anyone else is curious, the podcast is Ben Yeoh Chats

"Agency" needs nuance - an update from the author.

I appreciate the link. I didn't make good use of it, unfortunately - instead of reading it carefully I searched the page for the acronym hoping to find an expansion, and didn't end up reading the list of properties.

I am told that APS, in this context, stands for "advanced, planning, strategically aware" and is from Carlsmith's report https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.13353

NPR ask for personal messages from people involved in their local EA communities to play during a live interview with William MacAskill: https://www.reddit.com/r/EffectiveAltruism/comments/wq1nlm/help_with_upcoming_npr_interview_with_william/ 

To the extent that I'm outside of the general population I think it's because of my giving, but I generally feel squarely inside the box of ordinary people. I can relate to not feeling as smart as many EAs.

I think there are numerous things a typical person could do to take EA ideas and try to concretely make the world a better place:

One action that I think is broadly available is to join some advocacy group for EA-related policies on some local / regional / national level like animal welfare, electoral reform, sane land use policy, or something else. You could try to introduce EA ideas or a focus on effective methods in to the discussion, if they are missing.

I think there's lots of information to be picked up from EA Global talks and some 80,000 Hours podcast episodes (not necessarily every episode!), and other EA podcasts that have been posted previously to the forum.

You could also talk about EA with your friends or your workplace (though I have an ugh-field around talking about EA and an ugh-field around reflecting on this, so I can sympathize if you do too). Maybe you could influence / organize a work fundraiser while spreading the ideas of effective giving.

Similarly, talking about EA related books.

If available, going to your local EA meetup and contributing to a warm & welcoming environment.

You could also keep an eye out for ideas or programs that seem highly cost effective and then try and signal boost them them on that basis.

Also things like answering questions where you can, with whatever time you have for it, to help ramp up others on these concepts you're excited about.

High Impact Athletes might have more potential super donors than the general population:

https://highimpactathletes.org/contact 

I know that professional grant makers think that last-dollar funding is not cost effective because they aren't funding more projects, but aren't out of dollars.

None of our big donors were intending to spend all of their funding before now. It's taken Open Phil years to grow their capacity and increase their giving in line with their standards of diligence. They intend to spend down their funds, I believe, within the lifetime of their funders.