Had Ukraine tried to retain nuclear weapons, I believe an armed conflict with Russia would have broken out in the 1990’s.
Could you explain your reasoning here? My impression was that nukes generally make war less likely (through deterrence) but more costly if it occurs.
The only other countries that have biological and chemical weapons also have nuclear weapons, so unilateral action would not be considered unless it were part of a larger direct conflict.
This seems like a strong incentive for countries like Syria to try to acquire nuclear weapons.
This is news to me and is a significant positive update, thanks very much for sharing.
I notice that two of the three animal funds listed on the GWWC page (which is also the EA funds page? I'm not quite sure of the distinction) are managed by ACE. Perhaps this is not so common knowledge among the non-EAA people who run that infrastructure?
I think ACE's attempt to get speakers removed from conferences and penalize charities based on their dissent to ACE's BLM views probably counts. (Though this example is not nutrition based).
Do you think there is a symmetrical obligation for people writing positive things about vaccines? If vaccines were in fact not safe or effective then promoting them would also be very harmful.
I think the conclusions of RP's research with respect to cause prioritization still hold up after incorporating the arguments you've enumerated in your post.
This seems maybe truth for animals vs AMF but not for animals vs Xrisk.
It is bizarre to me that people would disagree-vote this as it seems to be a true description of the edit you made. If people think the edit is bad they should downvote, not disagreevote.
Though Kyle is also clear to emphasize the uncertainty and tentativeness of his analysis.
I think if you want to emphasize uncertainty and tentativeness it is a good idea to include something like error bars, and to highlight that one of the key assumptions involves fixing a parameter (the weight on hedonism) at the maximally unfavourable value (100%).
Let's say that each person affected gains 0.1 to 10 QALYs for these high profile case
This seems very generous to me. The example here that effected the largest number was about tax evasion by Pakistani MPs; even if previously they had paid literally zero tax, and as a result of this they ended up paying full income tax, it seems implausible to me that the average Pakistani citizen would be willing to trade a year of life for this research. I would guess you are over-valuing this by several orders of magnitude.
If I understand this correctly, maybe not in the trial itself:
Accordingly, the defendant is precluded from referring to any alleged prior good acts by the defendant, including any charity or philanthropy, as indicative of his character or his guilt or innocence.
I guess technically the prosecution could still bring it up.