Looking at your profile (i.e., "I currently lead EA funds"), it is unsurprising to me that a funder in the EA space seems recluctant to having significant grants being questioned publicly.
In a similar vein to my previous comment, I'd be curious where you're getting your data from, and would love if you could publicise the survey you must undoubtedly have done to come to these conclusions, since you are not yourself at Atlas fellow!
The sarcastic tone is very patronising here. I suggest rewording this.
The data also supports this: I am an Atlas Fellow and Jonas polled us on who would benefit from a full-ride scholarship. Out of 50-60 respondents, 7 answered that their parents are already paying for everything. 9 answered that they already have a full-ride scholarship, and 36 answered that getting a full-ride scholarship would "help with career" or allow them to "take out fewer loans."
This seems like a poorly worded question. Many people would be incentivised to say yes if there is even a 1% probability that answering this question may lead to existing fellows getting full-ride scholarships
I meant that there is no database of what items have been ordered (and with quantities) meaning that, if someone wanted to, they could steal something (eg, a laptop) and it would likely go unnoticed.
What is the 'truth-seeking' criteria for you?
I find this to be a term that seems thrown so much that it begins to lose all meaning.
Seems like a good policy to me. I'll consider following this in the future.
There is a difference between failing to engage and choosing not to engage.
Looking at your profile (i.e., "I currently lead EA funds"), it is unsurprising to me that a funder in the EA space seems recluctant to having significant grants being questioned publicly.
I think the question of whether the relationship was ongoing during the time of the grant evaluation is important.
The sarcastic tone is very patronising here. I suggest rewording this.
My priors come from,
This seems like a poorly worded question. Many people would be incentivised to say yes if there is even a 1% probability that answering this question may lead to existing fellows getting full-ride scholarships
I meant that there is no database of what items have been ordered (and with quantities) meaning that, if someone wanted to, they could steal something (eg, a laptop) and it would likely go unnoticed.
Thank you, this response makes the most sense to me.
Edit: To clarify, this doesn't mean I agree. I still believe the amount is too much. (See Edit 3 on the post for more details).
Unfortunately, in my experience, most organisations don't respond (or will takes months to) unless you hold them accountable publicly.
It's similar to how many stores don't care about your Customer Support ticket until you leave them a negative review or @ them on Twitter.