If you press a footnote link in a post and the footnote is hidden in the 'View more footnotes' collapsable list the page scrolls to a footnote you can't see. I found it confusing until I realised you have to press 'view more footnotes' to expand them. It would be good if it opened automatically when you follow a footnote link
thankyou!I keeppointing out that EVF doesn't have anything on their website about who their trustees are, and this isn't good for transparency.
As much as I appreciate this post, it seems to have followed the same process I have - asked 'ok who actually are these senior figures?', and realised that for some, there's not much info out there, and then gathered what little there is on google search and linkedin.
It would be great if the lesser-known EVF trustees could describe, in their own words, who they are, what they do, and how someone could contact them.
[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]
I think this hints at a divide between EA and progressive thinking.
EAs: we only have a set amount of money for food causes, we need to use it effectively
Progressives: just allocate more money to good causes (like treating AIDS) and less on bad causes (like defense spending)
I often hear EA/ rationalists saying something like 'it's not worth spending an hour to save £20, if your hourly rate of pay is over £20/ hour. I think this is wrong, but I might not understand the argument.
It could be understood as a hypotherical argument, you COULD earn this much in an hour, as a reference point to help you understand the value of your time. This hypothetical reference point isn't really useful, when I have the very real figure of my total balance, and upcoming outgoings to consider, and the factor of whether I can afford to spend on things I enjoy, if I don't save money now.
So, it could be a suggestion that I actually could work an extra hour for money. But I (and almost everyone I know) don't get paid hourly. I have a fixed amount of hours, she working over that doesn't gain me more money. To gain more, I'd need to set up a freelance/ side business, and there's all sorts of initial costs with getting that setup and advertising my services, and reporting my income for tax, and so on and so on.
Lastly, 'you could work an extra hour' doesn't factor in my enjoyment. Working an extra hour would have a negative effect on my mood. I don't want to work more than i already do. By contrast, walking an hour to save an Uber fee would be good for my mood, and health.
I agree with that rough claim. And I liked the rest of the blog.
I guess I do see people who are struggling behaving badly sometimes. I just don't think it's in any more frequent than the general population. Or I see sometimes see them using the fact they're struggling to justify their bad behaviour, and I don't buy that.
A sample size of six individual shrimp for the stunning study is insane
Freegan
If you press a footnote link in a post and the footnote is hidden in the 'View more footnotes' collapsable list the page scrolls to a footnote you can't see. I found it confusing until I realised you have to press 'view more footnotes' to expand them. It would be good if it opened automatically when you follow a footnote link
Sure. I've written a short summary and my reaction to it, and made it a linkpost
My sincere apologies, I had missed that it had been updated! V. Embarrassing. Thankyou for doing that
thankyou! I keep pointing out that EVF doesn't have anything on their website about who their trustees are, and this isn't good for transparency.
As much as I appreciate this post, it seems to have followed the same process I have - asked 'ok who actually are these senior figures?', and realised that for some, there's not much info out there, and then gathered what little there is on google search and linkedin.
It would be great if the lesser-known EVF trustees could describe, in their own words, who they are, what they do, and how someone could contact them.
I thought the bottom half was an OK response.- 'We have long term plans and value healthy funding' (paraphrasing)
I think this hints at a divide between EA and progressive thinking. EAs: we only have a set amount of money for food causes, we need to use it effectively Progressives: just allocate more money to good causes (like treating AIDS) and less on bad causes (like defense spending)
Objections to 'value of my time arguments'
I often hear EA/ rationalists saying something like 'it's not worth spending an hour to save £20, if your hourly rate of pay is over £20/ hour. I think this is wrong, but I might not understand the argument.
It could be understood as a hypotherical argument, you COULD earn this much in an hour, as a reference point to help you understand the value of your time. This hypothetical reference point isn't really useful, when I have the very real figure of my total balance, and upcoming outgoings to consider, and the factor of whether I can afford to spend on things I enjoy, if I don't save money now.
So, it could be a suggestion that I actually could work an extra hour for money. But I (and almost everyone I know) don't get paid hourly. I have a fixed amount of hours, she working over that doesn't gain me more money. To gain more, I'd need to set up a freelance/ side business, and there's all sorts of initial costs with getting that setup and advertising my services, and reporting my income for tax, and so on and so on.
Lastly, 'you could work an extra hour' doesn't factor in my enjoyment. Working an extra hour would have a negative effect on my mood. I don't want to work more than i already do. By contrast, walking an hour to save an Uber fee would be good for my mood, and health.
I agree with that rough claim. And I liked the rest of the blog.
I guess I do see people who are struggling behaving badly sometimes. I just don't think it's in any more frequent than the general population. Or I see sometimes see them using the fact they're struggling to justify their bad behaviour, and I don't buy that.