research [...] which they generally find easier to fill

I'm surprised to read that lots of EA orgs find it easier to hire research roles than ops roles, and it doesn't match what I heard, or the state of 80k's job board at the moment, with ~1.8x more research roles than ops roles

Edit to clarify: my sense is that many orgs struggle to hire both for ops and for research

Random datapoint from Italy, when I started googling things on animal welfare/veganism years ago, this website was often one of the top Google results, and it seems it's still going strong

Here are some recent articles:

• Meat may protect against cancer: a new study strengthens the evidence.
• Broiler chickens and transport: more space does not improve animal welfare.
• Beyond the "Carbon Tunnel Vision": The meat and sustainability debate deserves more. (some quotes: "Cutting down on meat doesn't lower your personal carbon footprint." , "“Alternative” proteins are not better")

And here is an article from last year specifically against the European Chicken Commitment, which is a major focus of a lot of EA-funded campaigns, and has been a massive win in France and other countries.

That project seems to be supported by the "National Association of Meat and Livestock Industry and Trade", "Association of Meat and Cured Meat Industry", and a "National Union of Meat and Egg Agri-Food Supply Chains."

I would be surprised if there wouldn't be similar initiatives in other countries with a stronger animal rights movement, and if there weren't social media influencers running similar campaigns at much greater scale.

In general I think it's fairly easy make campaigns supporting all sorts of things, from factory farms, to tobacco, to datacenters^[1]

1. ^{^}

   e.g. I found this recent Asterisk article against a datacenter moratorium similar to the meat-industry articles above. Here's a section on environmental concerns: "Data centers aren’t the only new loads coming onto the grid – electric vehicles and electrified manufacturing are also driving demand that requires more generation, more transmission, and long-overdue grid modernization. Many data centers are leaning on gas for near-term power, but data centers could serve as anchor tenants for new clean generation, fiber, battery storage, and transmission. Many companies are moving in that direction.

   Industrial projects like these are also prompting pragmatic shifts on decarbonization from environmental groups. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), for instance, just supported its first nuclear project ever, to power a data center.

   A moratorium forecloses exactly the kind of creative thinking these projects are beginning to generate."

Thank you for sharing this, and for the amazing job board!

Do you happen to also have an API or raw CSV/JSON export somewhere? (e.g. similar to https://backend.eawork.org/api/jobs for 80k)

[LLM written below, as I'm in a rush, but I confirm it's accurate]
A few weeks ago I clauded a quick job-search script for my sister. It pulls roles from several sources, deduplicates them, applies some basic filters, then uses an LLM to score likely fit and sends her the best on Telegram. Since May 8 it has sent ~130 roles from LinkedIn/Indeed via JobSpy, Probably Good, 80,000 Hours, jobs.ch, Exa, Greenhouse, and Arbeitnow.

For Probably Good, it’s currently using the public Algolia index, but I suspect that may be suboptimal compared to fetching all jobs and brittle. The new Airtable seems great for humans and no-code workflows, but for scripts and AI agents a simple raw CSV/JSON endpoint could be much easier to fetch autonomously. Airtable sync/API access seems to require a PAT or some scraping to get the current csv url, while a stable export of all published roles would make this kind of personal automation easier.
[/LLM]

This might be an uncommon usecase for now, but I recommend other people who know someone looking for a job to build similar automations based on their location/CV/interests/preferred messaging system

Does this apply to things like job listings (e.g. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/tS23nkt27cDRFDrMf/hiring-head-of-community-engagement-us-giving-what-we-can ) ?

You can use https://web.archive.org/ for deleted web pages, e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20250426145325/https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Pc3CFbYxPXgyjoDpB/seven-ways-to-become-unstoppably-agentic 

The author also deleted their EA Forum and LessWrong accounts, so you'd need to reach out to them directly to ask why

I don't think "EA Funding" is that useful of a term here. My sense is that forecasting is not funded by a large number of small retail donors thinking about forecasting as a category, but by few large institutions funding specific projects for specific reasons (which are sometimes not just effectiveness-related, and usually not public so hard to evaluate)

[The internet] was then not very useful until the 1990's.

I don't think this is true. Emails and FTP were established in 1971 and used a lot by academics, scientists, and the military^[1]

1. ^{^}

   From Gemini:
   
   The utility of email, FTP, and remote login (Telnet) during the 1970s and 1980s repaid the original government grants in three primary ways:

   1. Elimination of Duplicate Hardware Costs
   In the 1960s and 1970s, computers were multi-million-dollar mainframes. Prior to ARPANET, ARPA frequently had to purchase separate, identical computers for different research institutions. The network allowed a researcher at UCLA to log into and utilize a specialized mainframe at MIT. The cost of developing and laying the network infrastructure was significantly lower than the cost of buying duplicate hardware for every university the Department of Defense funded.

   2. Accelerated Scientific and Defense R&D
   Email and FTP collapsed the time required for complex collaboration. Instead of mailing magnetic tapes or waiting months for academic papers to be published and circulated, researchers shared datasets, software code, and peer reviews instantly. This rapid iteration sped up advancements in computer science, aerospace engineering, and defense logistics, delivering immense strategic value to the military and government.

And to add some obligatory nitpicking, "Individual starfish typically consume around 0.5 mussel per day although maximum feeding rates of 0.8 mussels per hour have been recorded for larger individuals"

I agree that the value of many interventions is sensitive to specific moral weights, but I disagree with "therefore the increase in subjective wellbeing from life-saving work is nowhere near as high as it could be for e.g. mental health types of work".

The increase in subjective wellbeing from GiveWell-funded work seems really high, and it could be competitive with mental health types of work. (or not, as different kinds of wellbeing can be reasonably valued in very different ways)

E.g. HLI "higher risk, higher reward" "Promising Charities" at https://www.happierlivesinstitute.org/charities/ are both also funded/recommended by GiveWell.

Worth noting that besides HLI focusing on happiness, AIM/Charity Entrepreneurship just incubated https://www.betterfuturesguide.org/ which seems to focus entirely on poverty reduction, and GiveWell is expanding their work on "Livelihoods Programs", which weigh income gains 2x higher than they normally would.

(I'm sure you know all the above, just writing it out for people with less context)

That's not clear to me: all GiveWell interventions have lots of life-improving benefits besides life-saving.

E.g. for the AMF, 33% of the estimated value comes from long-term income increases, and for each life saved there's ~200 malaria cases averted, which likely significantly increases subjective wellbeing