I think it would be useful to know the percentage of women with depression who we would expect to be depression-free after a six month period without any intervention.
Thanks for giving the details, I couldn't quite remember the full story and should've looked it up and quoted directly. I don't quite know what to make of him doing this - on the one hand, a small lie about being vegetarian doesn't seem particularly pernicious or noteworthy, especially given he went vegetarian after lying about it. On the other hand, it does at least strike me as somewhat odd to do this if he had just eaten a cheeseburger a few hours earlier. It does update me ever-so-slightly towards thinking that he's liable to lie if it makes him look good - it might not just be a 'lie without intending to' situation.
It’s possibly worth noting that in his conversation with Tyler Cowen he did mention that he had previously lied (briefly) about being vegetarian.
You might be interested in some pieces I wrote on this recently, which don't explicitly show factual errors but do offer a criticism of the book. See here and here.
This feels like a weird interpretation of Will's comment, which doesn't (in my view) imply that for-profit companies can't do a lot of harm, but rather that if you start a company with the sole goal of making a profit, usually the worst outcome (with regards to your goal of making a profit) is that you go bankrupt.
Presumably he means because x-risk is short for 'existential risk' and can refer to things other than extinction.
Strangely it was Superforecasting by Phil Tetlock, which made me start forecasting on Good Judgment Open. I started interacting with forecasters there, and a load of those guys were into EA, and that's how I got into it. I think a decent number of people have gone from EA (or rationalism) into forecasting but for me it was the other way around.
This isn't exactly a comprehensive answer to your question about what's morally permissible and what isn't, but my view is that if it's going to be a huge hassle and expense for you to avoid flying, you shouldn't make yourself feel awful about the fact that you've done something you regard as less than ideal. I would just donate to Clean Air Task Force (probably an amount that will more than cover the impact of the flights in expectation) and continue trying to avoid flights in future when feasible if you think that's something you want to do.
Thanks, good point! I agree that it's possible that a backlash could occur a while after the disruptive protests actually took place. That being said, it seems likely (at least to me) that if it were the case that these protests were going to lead to people becoming less supportive of climate policies, there would have been at least some evidence of the backlash in the survey data at the height of, or in the immediate aftermath of, the disruption.
Initially, we had planned only to do two surveys, but decided on commissioning a third when it became clear that JSO were receiving additional media coverage and we wanted to make sure that we captured any impact of the continued media coverage. The protests began on the 1st of April, and our third survey took place on the 19th of April, at which point most survey respondents had heard about the protests (or at least claimed that they had), so our hope is that if there had been a backlash we would've picked up on it. That being said, you're right that if there was a backlash or a change in peoples' views on climate policies that took place a few weeks after the protests (or at an even later point), our surveys wouldn't have picked up on it.
Thanks, yeah I think this was an error on my part rather than anything to do with you. I should have looked more carefully, thought I skipped past the recommendations but the default option of subscribing caught me off guard. This is a shame because I'm now more hesitant about recommending other substacks on my own site.