I'd be interested in something like "Here is where I donated" but for epistemics: "Here is where I have changed my mind". This could be a post under which anyone can comment or a series of guest posts from thought leaders from different cause areas giving their recent (or older) updates. 

Why? 

• I think this could be a good incentive for people to ask themselves that question and simultaneously a good way to celebrate and positively reinforce the virtue of changing one's mind in the face of new evidence.
• Personally, I have often found discussions are much less likely to become hostile or otherwise unproductive if they begin with this as the starting point, as people are given the chance to show vulnerability, explain their opinion as the result of an unfinished trajectory, etc.
• In some cases, this could even be a good preventive measure to something that definitely happened to me when I first got involved: you read some old post from someone senior or respected and - because you haven't been around for long and so you (rightly) defer a lot - you take this as gospel, only to later find out that that person doesn't endorse that particular viewpoint anymore. 

"Also, why don’t you put out more open calls to have applicant’s come start any kind of animal welfare org they want, not just your four pre-imagined ones?"

This may have changed, but AIM did at least previously let candidates pitch their own ideas - I know of at least one person in my cohort that came in with their own project. Admittedly, this is rare, but that is probably what we should expect if as an applicant with an idea, you are up against a team of researchers with a cumulated expertise and experience of decades who have done several of these investigations, can compare ideas, have privileged access to data about how likely it is to find the right founders, obtain funding etc. 

"The ones who aren’t founders might be operations champions or tech leads."

Ambitious Impacts graduates (including me) have in fact gone on to do a variety of things from operations to research and grantmaking. 

But maybe I'm missing your point? I've generally found it a bit hard to understand that paragraph and other sections. 

@Yelnats T.J. 

Ah yes, this is sort of what I expected. Thanks for sharing!

Very interesting! 

Have you also analysed what countries have the highest percentage of EAs relative to their population?

You seem to focus mostly on total numbers - I'd be curious to see if the UK/US dominance is less pronounced when taking this into consideration. I'd be especially interested in which countries "punch above their weight^[1]" (Switzerland?) and which do not (China? India?). This would also be interesting for smaller (cities) or bigger units of analysis (geographic regions).

1. ^{^}

   There might be a few outliers that are caused by extremely low population sizes but I still expect this to be useful data.

I am quite confident you would get more and better (i.e. more well-calibrated) recommendations and referrals if you shared more about your background (or CV/LinkedIn) and what roles you'd be interested in. 

Feel free to DM me with the above if you don't want to share it publicly, but how will I be able to put you on other people's map if I do not even know your name? 

EA-aligned organisations active in EU policy

Very surprised not to see the usual suspects (TFS, Pour Demain, Center for Future Generations...)

Papers can seem more prestigious and don't get annoying negative comments.

Reviewer #2 would like a word 

Is it? Wouldn't you expect the auto industry to have incentives to exaggerate their possible future accomplishments in developing faster cars because it has a direct influence on how much governments will prioritise it as a means of transport, subsidise R&D, etc.?