Hi Ben, thanks for retracting the comment.
The broader concern I share is the risk of data moving from experts to semi-experts to non-experts, with a loss of understanding at each stage. This is basically a ubiquitous problem, and EA is no exception. From looking into this back in 2013 I understand well where these numbers come from, the parts of the analysis that make me most nervous, and what they can and can't show. But I think it's fair to say that there has existed a risk of derivative works being produced by people dabbling in the topic on a tough schedule, and i) losing the full citation, or ii) accidentally presenting the numbers in a misleading way.
A classic case of this playing out at the moment is the confusion around GiveWell’s estimated 'cost per life saved' for AMF, vs the new 'cost per life saved equivalent'. GiveWell has tried, but research communication is hard. I feel sorry for people who engage in EA advocacy part time as it's very easy for them to get a detail wrong, or have their facts out of date (snap quiz, how probable is each of these in light of the latest research: deworming impacts i) weight, ii) school attendance, iii) incomes later in life?). This stuff should be corrected, but with love, as folks are usually doing their best, and not everyone can be expected to fully understand or keep up with research in effective altruism.
One valuable thing about this debate has been that it reminds us that people working on communicating ideas need to speak with the experts who are aware of the details and stress about getting things as accurate as they can be in practice. Ideally one individual should become the point-person who truly understands any complex data source (and gets replaced when staff move on).
What are the answers to the snap quiz btw?
Justified text is kind of bad when the line width is narrow (as it is phones), because it leads to awkwardly wide spaces. http://designforhackers.com/blog/never-justify-type-on-the-web/
Dunno if you fixed this already, but changing from portrait to landscape sort of zooms in instead of keeping the text size the same and making the page wider.
GiveWell's classic April Fools joke
This post was controversial, but I laughed long and hard and really enjoyed seeing a more human side from them.
The link "View test writeup" seems broken. It brings me to a login page rather than the actual joke post. Did they take it down?
By the way, I just noticed that I have to be at least 18 to sign the affidavit in this will.
Did you change the wordmark and the color of the logo? I'm curious as to the thought process behind that.
The link to the beta tester form currently leads to docs.google.com/forms/ [...] qilM/prefill (which says you need permission), but it should instead lead to docs.google.com/forms/ [...] qilM.
Nitpick about "gender identity (transgender, cisgender)": As far as I know, gender identity is basically the same thing as gender. I don't think you can use it as the category word for cisgender vs transgender, but I also don't know if there are any appropriate words for that.
© 2017 Effective Altruism Forum |
Powered by reddit