Thanks for reading Ross and for your comment! The understanding that constant calibration is needed took me a while to accept, but it definitely makes life more interesting and easier to navigate. 

Hey Drew, thanks a lot for writing this post. I found it quite inspiring for a few reasons:

1. You reached out to a few people, including some influential (and busy) people like Lewis, and some of them actually responded! I think this is a great reminder for all of us to reach out with a thoughtful request or question, even if it feels intimidating.
2. How important it is to treat networking as a long-term investment. I find it fascinating that it took years for that connection to lead to a concrete opportunity for you, but when it did, you managed to get a role from a competitive hiring round. Just shows you that being patient pays off, that it's ok to take a break if your job search isn't paying off: you can always try again later!
3. I am amazed at the power of personal prompts. We are trying to figure out how to do them at scale at Hive, which obviously because of their personalised nature, is hard. Sometimes it takes someone to remember you and encourage you to throw your hat in the ring. 

As a hiring manager myself, I can tell you that we want to hire the best person for the job (someone who can solve our problem most effectively), and their current situation, as well as their work history, may not play as big a role. I focus a lot on current skills and abilities, and my experience with this person during volunteering/interactions/work trials.
I don't think that someone looking for an impactful job for a long time would make a difference to me, as I see how competitive things can get. I guess it may be interesting to me to see what the person has done in the meantime (e.g. learning/volunteering/other jobs) and what they've learned. But I still don't think I'd focus on this over role fit. 
You can read more about that job hunt in this post :) https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/rvCwxS6m8KeGiLte9/how-to-get-an-ea-aligned-job-my-experience

Thanks for reading, Siobhan! Appreciate your kind words. 

RE Haha, I think many people may feel the same as you. I remember when I started job hunting after 3 years at Veganuary and felt that with my experience and qualification any org will want to hire me (I was very unaware of how competitive the job market was, even though ironically I got that Veganuary job out of over 300 people!), and found it shocking to keep getting rejected after going through to the last stage in a few roles, and to only get one offer after 6 months of hard core job hunting. I think had my timeline been a bit more realistic, I would have been a lot more patient, and it would have been a more pleasant experience. I also think that the longer your timeline is, the more choosey you can be, and you can afford to wait for an opportunity that really aligns with your values and personal fit. 

RE 100M: How about 100M worth of impact for farmed animals? :) 

Hi Brad, thanks a lot for reading and your comment. This is such a thoughtful reflection, and I’m really glad you brought it up.

I love the idea of making constraints more permeable within the community. Your examples—like micro-grants (@Cameron King  had this idea!), shared ops talent, and treating introductions as infrastructure—really sharpen it. This is exactly why I appreciate meta-orgs like CEA and Magnify Mentoring: they don’t just help with skill-building, they help you see which obstacles can be solved with community support. Humbly bringing up Hive, as this is exactly what we are trying to do: to democratise access to the same ways of creating impactful connections and outcomes.

I remember a pivotal moment with my Magnify mentor who asked, “Sofia, why won’t you start a charity? Our community can help you.” Before that, I hadn’t even considered myself a strong candidate to do so, partly because I didn't feel like I had the skills to make it happen, and never thought that our community can provide at least some of the help I'd need.

That said, I also think some constraints—especially structural or geopolitical ones—are harder to overcome. For example, I wanted to attend AVA Summit in the US in 2023 (where I knew it could really boost my chances of funding and connection-building). I had nearly 7 months’ notice, but I still couldn’t get a visa with my Belarusian passport.

That’s one reason I’m especially excited about more online opportunities and community-building. They’re not only more affordable—they’re also much more accessible for people in LMICs and others facing visa or financial barriers. We often have calls with new founders or impactful folks from LMICs and try to give advice on resources based on their challenges.

I love the idea of adding a prompt like: “What constraint are you treating as fixed—but might actually be movable with the right support?” That ties the calibration mindset with collective action. I might add this to the post—thank you again for this insight!

Thanks for reading Vasco and sharing the unpacking the job post, seems interesting! I think it's important to show/know what the job is really like, not what it looks like or seems like. 

Thanks for writing this! I agree to a large extent. I also find panels hard to follow and prefer focused talks from experts (and prefer 1:1s to all of them). Brainstorming sessions-wise, I agree with you that they work only if the group participants are selected for a particular purpose. Most brainstorming sessions with "random" participants (even though they were interested in the same topic as me) I attended never went anywhere. However, there is some value in attending these sessions to feel engaged in the community. For example, I try to make it to Revolutionist nights which are essentially discussion/brainstorming sessions about a certain topic and what we can do to end factory farming. Because of the variety of people's involvement in the movement and how busy we are, there are rarely any concrete outcomes. However, I think there is value in gathering and discussing, developing your confidence and strategic thinking, and feeling like you're a part of the community. So going into these meetings with these goals are ok, but agree that they are usually not great for "let's come up with good ideas and implement them" goals. There is, of course, the question of how much it's worth your time and how important these goals are to you, which is up to the conference organisers and the attendees to decide.

Rika, I loved this post! Thanks so much for writing this, I think you articulated AQ very well. You and I talked a lot about this, and I feel like we share common AQ factors, so I can relate to your story. Your point about focusing on what's possible, not what should be possible, is very valid and helpful.
I wrote this post a few years ago, which touches on similar points. I'm a big believer that, in general, we need to do more to support advocates in neglected regions and from unprivileged backgrounds. That's why I am focusing on building an online global community which people can access for free, and we try to reach people in neglected regions. I also think EA and animal advocacy in general is doing more to support this, such as scholarships etc., which is a positive direction.

The percentage of EAs earning to give is too low

I chose this because I believe that at this point in EA, especially in animal welfare, a relatively small amount of money (e.g. 30k) can go pretty far in terms of opportunity cost and impact per dollar. E.g. this could be a solid seed fund for a new charity, or cost for a full-time employee for an effective charity in the global south. 
My uncertainty is about how many people need to earn to give and how much they'd need to donate, and if they should test their fit in effective non-profits first. 
I also think that sometimes there is a case for people to earn to give to volunteer, e.g. they take a well-paid job 3 days a week and volunteer for two days for a high-impact non-profit because this adds more value without giving money. It lowers the need to fundraise for that labor and decreases admin time. 

Good question! It's important to avoid putting yourself in a place where you are desperate for funding, because then you can search for the right funder slowly and focus on impact instead. For example, I advised in this talk to avoid quitting your job or main source of income until you have more certainty about funding. This allows you time to get to know the funders informally without having to make asks immediately. Many people are surprised to learn that funding for such projects can take a year or longer to secure. I think it's quite a normal timeline, as trust and reputation take a long time to build. 

Another part is making sure that your side project is sustainable. If you already work a 40h/week full-time job, then it's wise to keep the side project contained to a relatively small number of hours to make sure you can continue long-term and not burn out. Getting other people on board as volunteers can help manage the workload.

It may be a given for some people, but it's a good idea to do a project you enjoy and find rewarding in itself. Even if you don't get the funding, you will still be ok to do it. This can really help with patience. Back in 2023 when we applied for some funding and got rejected, I was prepared to do Hive part-time for a long time, because I liked it so much. 

Hope this is helpful!