Basically, you can treat fraction of worlds as equivalent to probability, so there is little apparent need to change anything if MWI turns out to be true.
This is not about us. A bunch of retail investors just completely lost their shirts due to, I don't know what exactly, but let's say "apparent bad behavior". If possible, we should try to provide some kind of support to them.
What happens if the money was donated to a charity that is subject to clawbacks, but the charity then spent the money? Do they try to claw it back from the suppliers or employees or whoever? Can it trigger a cascade of bankruptcies?
A question about this--do you work at the University of Canterbury now, or will you be supervising these students remotely?
See here: https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/david-wallace-many-worlds-theory-of-quantum-mechanics/
Basically, you can treat fraction of worlds as equivalent to probability, so there is little apparent need to change anything if MWI turns out to be true.
This is not about us. A bunch of retail investors just completely lost their shirts due to, I don't know what exactly, but let's say "apparent bad behavior". If possible, we should try to provide some kind of support to them.
Is there any way that could possibly be true, given the events of the last few days?
Jesus. I hope it doesn't come to that in this case.
Or we should try to quickly move any money made in crypto into the S&P. I don't think this is about patient vs. urgent philanthropy per se.
What happens if the money was donated to a charity that is subject to clawbacks, but the charity then spent the money? Do they try to claw it back from the suppliers or employees or whoever? Can it trigger a cascade of bankruptcies?
Got any better ideas?
My understanding is Dustin has already diversified out of Meta to some large degree (though I have no insider information).
Stipulate, for the sake of the argument, that Lukas et al. actually disagree with the doomers about various points. What would follow from that?