Sounds great, and like the right call.
I'd be interested in the total number of pageviews and unique pageviews per year for the whole forum, plus yearly growth (unless there already is a post with that info).
Thanks for this interesting piece.> To illustrate, consider that the 10 million Ashkenazi Jews living today descended from a population of just 350 individuals who lived between 600 and 800 million years ago (Commun, 2014).
Should this be "600 to 800 years ago"?
It seems that there haven't been that many major insights in macrostrategy/global priorities research recently.One potential negative conclusion from that, that might seem natural, is that recent macrostrategy/global priorities research has been lacking in quality. But a more positive conclusion is that early macrostrategy/global priorities research had high quality, and that most of the major insights were therefore quickly identified.
On this view, the recent lack of insights isn't a sign of recent lack of research quality, but rather a sign of early high research quality.
In my view, the positive conclusion is more warranted than the negative conclusion.
Thanks, David, for that data.
There was some discussion about the issue of EA intellectual stagnation in this thread (like I say in my comment, I don't agree that EA is stagnating).
I guess it depends on what topics you're referring to, but regarding many topics, the bar for being seen as an expert within EA seems substantially higher than 100 hours.
It says that:
Richard is also applying for funding from other sources, and will return some of this grant if his other applications are successful.
Similarly in the UK, the relatively authoritarian May was replaced with the much more libertarian Johnson.
I'm not sure everyone would agree that that leadership was a change in a less authoritarian direction. At any rate, I think the default view would be that it says little about global trends in levels of authoritarianism. Also May seems quite different from the leaders and parties that Haydn discusses in that section.
I think it would have been better if you had given an argument for this view, instead of just stating it (since it's likely far from obviously true to most readers).
The Long-termist's Field Guide, newsletter from BBC journalist Richard Fisher.
Some argue, however, that partisan TV and radio was helped by the abolition of the FCC fairness doctrine in 1987. That amounts to saying that polarisation was driven at least partly by legal changes rather than by technological innovations.
Obviously media influences public opinion. But the question is whether specific media technologies (e.g. social media vs TV vs radio vs newspapers) cause more or less polarisation, fake news, partisanship, filter bubbles, and so on. That's a difficult empirical question, since all those things can no doubt be mediated to some degree through each of these media technologies.