I agree with some points of the post but don't like at all how it defines the things that cost you the less as "True values" and are recommending people to follow them. 

As an agnostic on what is the best way of defining values and how good is for people to do the things they are the most motivated to do, I want to remind people that you could define what your "True values" are as the things you do even tho they cost you more energy; and that doing them could be better.

So I think we agree that it seems good to find the right balance between following costly and not costly values, but calling some of them the True ones seems to imply that you should focus on or do only them.

easily best intro to agi safety

Meat with that label comes from farms that have stricter regulations for mutilation (dehorning, castration, debeaking, tail docking) and better air quality. The animals on those farms have more space and barn enrichments (e.g. toys, animal brushes, hay) and fewer diseases. Suppose meat with this animal welfare label costs 50% more than meat without an animal welfare label, and animal suffering for meat with the animal welfare label is half the amount of animal suffering for meat without a label.

Only half the suffering? With that description I was thinking on lives with a lot less suffering. And even worth living. I don't know much about animal welfare so where that suffering is coming from?

I just listen to these type of videos as podcasts and don't read transcripts.

Thanks! I think I understood everything now and in a really quick read.

Thank you a lot! I wasn't expecting a summary, I wrote it so maybe you could have it as a consideration for future posts, so I guess I should have written less simple.

Can you give me an example of EA using bad epistemic standards and an example of EA using good epistemic standards?

Personally I have trouble understanding this post. Could you write simpler?

I agree that maybe people don't get it (like kinda me) but I think both things, posts and comments, should have it or neither.

When people want an apology, they expect you to say that you're sorry and you were wrong. But I have also read in response of every apology ever written or said in the history of the internet that the wrong doers in question don't actually take responsibility for their actions and I never understood what they meant for that. Do they expect the person to punish themselves? To say "I take responsibility for my actions"? To not express their reasoning behind their actions? I honestly don't know.