Other comments make me think the language wasn't a big factor, but trying to model what my college-aged self would have asked before hearing about EA: "what career will help other people the most"  / "what career will make the world a better place"

I wonder if some of this is that most people don't ask questions with "morally speaking" in the phrasing.

Thanks for spelling this out! Re the call script: my understanding is that messages like these get recorded by staffers basically as "in favor / opposed" to whatever the legislation is. Is it worth having a shorter script, since the arguments are not making it into the record of who called about what?

Seconding this. I've heard both "you could die from toxic shock syndrome if you don't clean your cup properly" and also there are something like 5 known cases and no deaths of TSS from menstrual cups. Getting the right balance of education would be important: conveying that cleaning the cup is needed, but it's apparently unlikely to cause a serious problem with typical use.

Seems like a great reason for donors to give during their own lifetimes instead of setting up a long-term foundation.

Students for High Impact Charity was a project to support groups at high schools, but it had difficulty getting traction. It's hard to start a group from afar if you're not a student or faculty there.

Vox piece about Foege's work.

In the US, Instacart has a "dietary preferences" setting where you can opt to have more shown to you from categories like vegan, vegetarian, organic, etc. But when I tried it, it seemed to show me basically the same as usual.

I think there are real downsides of mixing unrelated goals (in this case: improving livelihoods/skills for educated people in LMICs, and getting work done). 

• remote work requires people who already have computer access, reliable internet, professional skills, and proficient English (or whatever language you need). So these are people who are already relatively well-off in their setting.

• management capacity is often a bottleneck, so rather than onboarding people to things like deadlines and quality standards, for the sake of getting the work done efficiently you might rather pay a higher rate to get someone who doesn't need as much hand-holding. (Maybe this isn't relevant if the work you want done isn't itself aiming at a positive impact, and you're ok with your widget business running less efficiently in order to offer a jobs program.)

  If you have needs that can be met just as well by remote workers in LMICs, seems great! But I wouldn't start with the premise that this is your best option for improving the world.

Mostly to various projects on AI risk policy and communications, and a smaller portion to GiveWell's recommended charities