Thanks for following up! Those sound like good changes.

Another thing you might do (if it's feasible) is list the studies you're using on something like Replication Markets.

I would go so far as to say your interpretation is correct and the original text is wrong, it should read "hen-years", not "hens a year".

I'm not saying Sam didn't know he was on the record. I'm saying I, personally, don't understand when I should expect to be on or off the record, and you saying it's obvious doesn't make me understand. Saying "newsworthy" doesn't help because I don't always know what's newsworthy, and it's basically tautological anyway.

And Kelsey's tweets show that journalists don't even agree on what the rules are, namely, some believe it's ok to quote something that the interviewee says is off the record, and others (like Kelsey) say it's not. If they disagree about this, they probably also disagree about other things. Even if I know the social rules according to one journalist, that doesn't mean I can safely talk to a different journalist because they might be following different rules.

FWIW some people are acting like the social rules around on vs. off the record are obvious and Sam should have known, but the rules are not obvious to me, and this sort of thing makes me reluctant to talk to any friends who are journalists.

I agree with all three people:

• Holden is right not to rush into funding FTX Foundation grantees
• Jakob is right that there are now more shovel-ready projects for Open Phil to fund
• James is right that Open Phil probably shouldn't fund all those projects, because the reduction in total funding demands a higher funding bar

I'm confused about this. This seems to explain why customers with invested assets can't withdraw immediately. But if a customer has only cash in their account, why can't they withdraw it if it's not being invested? If customer A's cash is being used to secure margin loans for customer B, then how is it true that customer A's cash is "not invested"?

FWIW I would be hesitant to bet on this because I would lose the bet in worlds where the EA community has less money. Not to say it wouldn't be worth it at sufficiently good odds.

Could work. My intuition is that there would be no good way to integrate the list of summaries into the UI, and almost nobody would want to read the list of summaries. The work of writing summaries seems analogous to the work of editing Wikipedia, so perhaps the UI for viewing and writing summaries could be similar to Wikipedia talk pages.

Quoting Kelsey Piper:

If I tell you “I’m torturing an animal in my apartment,” do you go “well, if there are no other animals being tortured anywhere in the world, then that’s really terrible! But there are some, so it’s probably not as terrible. Let me go check how many animals are being tortured.”

(a minute later)

“Oh, like ten billion. In that case you’re not doing anything morally bad, carry on.”

I can’t see why a person’s suffering would be less morally significant depending on how many other people are suffering. And as a general principle, arbitrarily bounding variables because you’re distressed by their behavior at the limits seems risky.

What's the easiest way to do a nutritional test if I want to do one myself?