China has a no nuclear first use policy. Even the U.S. doesn't have that.

I'm not sure how much moral credit you get for this. China's nuclear arsenal is much smaller than America's - they are much closer to parity on conventional weapons. Escalation to nuclear weapons is not advantageous for them.

However, it is not the highest in the rich world. Canada, Australia and Germany had higher migration per capita in 2022; both Canada and Australia also did in 2023. Indeed, Canada has expanded immigration much more dramatically than the UK. In 2023, Canada’s population grew by 3.2%, 98% of which was from immigration; this is >2x the UK rate.

Thus: yes, the UK has had high immigration in recent years. It is, however, not accurate to say that the UK has had open borders during this period.

Whether or not a country has open borders is determined by how controlled immigration is, not by whether or not any other country had more immigration. When people say the UK has open borders, they are typically meaning something like:

• It is easy to enter the UK, for example on a tourist visa, by sailing across the channel, or by lying and claiming to be a refugee.
• The UK has little ability to prevent undesirable immigrants from entering the country.
• Once you get into the UK, even illegitimately, you are extremely unlikely to be deported.

The fact that some other country also had a lot of immigration does nothing to refute this.

Are you aware of any major conferences that do not use name badges? 

If anything I think names are more important at EAG than other conferences, because you have to locate your 1-1 partners manually each time.

I think it makes a big difference whether this is private information you came across in the course of your employment, or public information that you learned of through the news, trade press etc. If the former you should consider informing your manager, HR or compliance department, or regulator, depending on the nature of the problem (you should have received training explaining who the appropriate people to bring different types of issues to are). If it is public events you can discuss them here, and my strong intuition is they do not provide strong reasons for you to resign if you otherwise wouldn't.

There are a lot of possible causes in the world. It's generally more productive to present a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation to suggest why you think a cause might plausibly be one of the most cost-effective ways of improving the world, rather than jumping straight to casting aspersions on others.

Always happy to see someone change their mind on the forum!

I agree it would be great for there to be a competitor. My only doubt would be whether the market is large enough to support a second group. My guess is they would probably have to be significantly better than ACE along multiple axis.

Seems plausible to me that people who are interested in the topic of mental health have worse mental health than the average person.

Thanks for sharing. I think I actually disagree - if a donor finds this off-putting, this is a good thing, because it is the result of them getting more accurate information about ACE. It is hard for non-experts to evaluate experts on the subject of expertise because of the information asymmetry. It is often easier to evaluate them on other topics that you know more about, and then make inferences based on their revealed epistemics. 

This seems especially appropriate here because we know that their woke views do affect their charity reviews.