Having regime and not breaking it. (Now after a year, I can break it by one or two hours, if I can sleep the next morning longer)
Always sleeping enough hours (luckily, I don't have to be at work on time)
Meditating (learning to step out of the anxious thoughts and rumminating)
Having blue light off on the phone and notebook. And ideally not using it.
Not looking at social media, emails and other stuff which can bring me anxious thoughts.
Trying to read in the evening
Use podcast / audiobook when I really feel weird about sleeping.
I would say, in many cases, we could consider veganism to be a major inconvenience.
But when you change the context to Hotel for effective altruists where one can just eat what is given, is supported to eat what's given by everyone around we could call it only a "minor inconvenience". And in a case, the food will be really good it could be called "great opportunity" for non-vegan EA to experience vegan living without even trying.
Do you know, there are many people who have the skills to be great hotel managers and are making $15-$25k a year? In cheaper countries, such as Slovakia, Czech, Poland ... I really do not think people who are able to make 75 - 150 k a year will be interested in this job.
I do not understand. For practical purposes it makes sense to me, we should not take more than 100% credit for anything we do.
If multiple organizations cooperate, they create a bigger impact, that is understandable. The impact is always 100% no matter how big it is. We can say organizations A, B and C and multiple other factors D created together impact 100%, saying each organization has 100% impact is misleading and can lead us to the wrong conclusion about how effective we are compared to others who are not using this math magic.
Maybe it would make sense for me if counterfactual was always strict zero and every action was completely irreplaceable and it was all or nothing forever.
In the real world and what I think this article is referring to is that organizations are evaluating their impact using surveys and when they find out person is giving 10 000$ a year and they were strongly influenced by their activities they add the money to their impact ... and 10 other organizations also do it.
But a lot of those organization activities would be very replaceable and even if not, it is rarely all or nothing.
Then someone adds the impact of all those organizations together and says EA created impact 100x bigger than it actually has
When life is saved it doesn't matter whether by one person or by 100 people. When 1 impact = 1 life saved, 10 people cooperating on saving one life cannot have 10 impacts together. And if they want to get some representative numbers, they should divide the impact between themselves.
I agree with this article and I do not see the conflict between more direct activities/projects and theoretical activities/projects. If people leave EA, just because others are trying to do something more tangible even though it might not have the biggest potential by current ea theory, they might not be so dedicated to the cause after all.
I understand, "more abstract" activities are prefered, but trashing all direct possibilities doesn't seem right. Especially if some of those direct activities would not happen otherwise and it keeps people closer to those "abstract ideas" which are very important.
In the end, everything is direct action. Changing a career is a direct action, but not everyone is able to do it all the time. It is important for groups to have the ability to engage people in tangible or more abstract way.
I think this could diversify ea ideas, members, and avoid it to be a group of mathematicians and philosophers talking together, about their favourite subjects.
If we have: impact = one life saved = 100%
and several organizations assign this impact to themselves
There is still just one life saved
but several organizations are taking together more than 100% credit for it
100% != 200%