I appreciate this follow up as well. Peter and I seem to be of similar thinking here and in his comment on the other post, but just to add:
I don’t think the misunderstanding stems as much from the recent-hire valuations, as from terms like “talent bottleneck” and “talent constrained”. Especially “talent constrained” used alongside “funding constrained”. I could be mistaken, but it would seem odd to say you’re “funding constrained” but can’t use more funding at the moment. Whereas we are saying orgs are “talent constrained” but can’t make use of available talent. They evidently don’t function quite the same, so phrasing them in this matched sort of way invites erroneous comparison.
Similarly, I feel a “talent bottleneck” implies an insufficient supply of talent/applicants, which doesn’t seem to be the case. I guess it’s more that there’s insufficient talent actually working on the problems, but it’s not a matter of supply, so it’s more of a “hiring bottleneck” or an “organizational capacity bottleneck”.
EA orgs aren't so much constrained by a lack of available talent as they are constrained by their capacity to deploy additional talent
It seems like it would be far more informative to ask EAs to place figures on future hires
I had the same thought that it might be more informative to know EA leaders answers to something like, “I’d rather have $X in additional donations than my next ideal hire.” Agree that it’s difficult to know how a future hire will work out, but maybe there’s still something to be learned from the value they’d place on an additional ideal hire, as it wouldn’t necessarily be the same as holding on to a recent successful hire. I’m admittedly out of my depth here.
Haha happy to have contributed to your best moment. I guess you can (re)name your first born after me or something :P
Sadly I don't have a break out of how many of each reaction per post (if that's what you mean). Only the total combined number of "likes", "loves", etc. per post. Although you can see that combined number in the spreadsheet I'll add to this post (once I fix it...see my reply to RandomEA).
EDIT: Added the link to the updated google sheet in the post.
Ah I guess reactions is a bit ambiguous. By “reactions” I meant what Facebook calls “reactions”. This includes likes as well as the other options such as “love”, “haha”, “angry”, etc.
Claire’s previous list was based on “likes” but that was back before the other “reactions” existed so this seemed like the best analogue. I didn’t take into account comments/shares for this list. (Though as stated above, hoping to put together a separate list ranked by comments.) I’ve edited the post for clarity.
Great idea about sharing a larger list of links. Here’s a Google Sheet of all the posts with 50+ “reactions”. The post text/link titles will be a bit messy past the first 50. Enjoy!
EDIT: Ugh. I made a sorting error at some point while making that spreadsheet and some of the links are mismatched. I've unshared it for now and will add to the post once fixed. Stand by :)
EDIT 2: Updated the link above with the corrected sheet and also added to the body of the post. Should be all good now but feel free to leave a comment on it if you come across any link issues.
UPDATE: After scraping the initial post data, there are 200+ posts with 50 or more likes. (Obviously the group has gotten quite a bit more active over the past couple years!)
Not sure if there's a maximum length for a forum post, but regardless, this strikes me as probably too many "top posts" to feature. Would it be better to limit it to the top 50 posts? Top 100? Welcome any input on this.
As a learning exercise, I've been working on a web scraper to compile this info from the FB group.
Doing this in spare time, so it will likely be another week or two before I have a post put together, but posting here in the meantime as an FYI and to potentially gain 5 karma so I can post once it's ready :)
Was also getting a wrong password error. Resetting it worked for me.
Chatting with support now. Sounds like this should be the case for most. Probably just some account-specific weirdness.
Should we be able to log in over there with the same credentials? I'm unable to.
I appreciate this follow up as well. Peter and I seem to be of similar thinking here and in his comment on the other post, but just to add:
I don’t think the misunderstanding stems as much from the recent-hire valuations, as from terms like “talent bottleneck” and “talent constrained”. Especially “talent constrained” used alongside “funding constrained”. I could be mistaken, but it would seem odd to say you’re “funding constrained” but can’t use more funding at the moment. Whereas we are saying orgs are “talent constrained” but can’t make use of available talent. They evidently don’t function quite the same, so phrasing them in this matched sort of way invites erroneous comparison.
Similarly, I feel a “talent bottleneck” implies an insufficient supply of talent/applicants, which doesn’t seem to be the case. I guess it’s more that there’s insufficient talent actually working on the problems, but it’s not a matter of supply, so it’s more of a “hiring bottleneck” or an “organizational capacity bottleneck”.
EA orgs aren't so much constrained by a lack of available talent as they are constrained by their capacity to deploy additional talent
I had the same thought that it might be more informative to know EA leaders answers to something like, “I’d rather have $X in additional donations than my next ideal hire.” Agree that it’s difficult to know how a future hire will work out, but maybe there’s still something to be learned from the value they’d place on an additional ideal hire, as it wouldn’t necessarily be the same as holding on to a recent successful hire. I’m admittedly out of my depth here.
Haha happy to have contributed to your best moment. I guess you can (re)name your first born after me or something :P
Sadly I don't have a break out of how many of each reaction per post (if that's what you mean). Only the total combined number of "likes", "loves", etc. per post. Although you can see that combined number in the spreadsheet I'll add to this post (once I fix it...see my reply to RandomEA).
EDIT: Added the link to the updated google sheet in the post.
Ah I guess reactions is a bit ambiguous. By “reactions” I meant what Facebook calls “reactions”. This includes likes as well as the other options such as “love”, “haha”, “angry”, etc.
Claire’s previous list was based on “likes” but that was back before the other “reactions” existed so this seemed like the best analogue. I didn’t take into account comments/shares for this list. (Though as stated above, hoping to put together a separate list ranked by comments.) I’ve edited the post for clarity.
Great idea about sharing a larger list of links. Here’s a Google Sheet of all the posts with 50+ “reactions”. The post text/link titles will be a bit messy past the first 50. Enjoy!
EDIT: Ugh. I made a sorting error at some point while making that spreadsheet and some of the links are mismatched. I've unshared it for now and will add to the post once fixed. Stand by :)
EDIT 2: Updated the link above with the corrected sheet and also added to the body of the post. Should be all good now but feel free to leave a comment on it if you come across any link issues.
UPDATE: Here's the post.
UPDATE: After scraping the initial post data, there are 200+ posts with 50 or more likes. (Obviously the group has gotten quite a bit more active over the past couple years!)
Not sure if there's a maximum length for a forum post, but regardless, this strikes me as probably too many "top posts" to feature. Would it be better to limit it to the top 50 posts? Top 100? Welcome any input on this.
As a learning exercise, I've been working on a web scraper to compile this info from the FB group.
Doing this in spare time, so it will likely be another week or two before I have a post put together, but posting here in the meantime as an FYI and to potentially gain 5 karma so I can post once it's ready :)