MA Price Accuracy Law 2019-10-13T12:00:01.815Z · score: 14 (4 votes)
Planned Power Outages 2019-10-12T14:10:01.395Z · score: 24 (8 votes)
Rent Needs to Decrease 2019-10-11T12:40:01.798Z · score: 14 (5 votes)
What is the real "danger zone" for food? 2019-10-10T11:00:01.792Z · score: 8 (2 votes)
Regularly Scheduled: Day-of Reminders 2019-10-09T11:00:01.830Z · score: 10 (3 votes)
Realigning Housing Coalitions 2019-10-08T11:10:01.584Z · score: 9 (3 votes)
Hybrid Lottery Admission 2019-10-07T13:20:01.496Z · score: 10 (2 votes)
Advanced Dances 2019-10-06T11:10:01.810Z · score: 10 (3 votes)
Eight O'Clock is Relative 2019-10-05T16:20:01.445Z · score: 13 (6 votes)
Ideal Number of Parents 2019-10-04T20:00:01.371Z · score: 22 (11 votes)
Comments are back! 2019-10-03T10:50:01.913Z · score: 7 (1 votes)
Double Tongue Whistling 2019-10-02T11:10:01.689Z · score: 8 (2 votes)
Communication and Waking Hours 2019-10-01T11:00:01.416Z · score: 9 (8 votes)
Thermal Mass Thermos 2019-09-30T13:10:01.637Z · score: 15 (6 votes)
Candy for Nets 2019-09-29T11:10:01.736Z · score: 48 (22 votes)
Axis-49 to Jammer MIDI Mapper 2019-09-28T11:20:02.044Z · score: 8 (2 votes)
Long-term Donation Bunching? 2019-09-27T12:40:01.661Z · score: 25 (5 votes)
Resetting Somebody Will v2 2019-09-26T16:00:01.795Z · score: 12 (3 votes)
Resetting Somebody Will 2019-09-25T12:50:01.692Z · score: 13 (4 votes)
The MA Estate Tax is Broken 2019-09-24T10:40:01.796Z · score: 11 (4 votes)
Don't clean your glasses 2019-09-23T15:20:01.943Z · score: -3 (8 votes)
Five Minute Beans 2019-09-22T13:10:01.611Z · score: 7 (1 votes)
Effective Altruism and Everyday Decisions 2019-09-16T19:00:01.780Z · score: 22 (10 votes)
Focus 2019-09-15T15:10:01.475Z · score: 32 (13 votes)
Answering some questions about EA 2019-09-12T17:50:01.408Z · score: 17 (6 votes)
Somerville Housing Units 2019-09-06T14:00:02.003Z · score: 7 (1 votes)
Somerville Housing Over Time 2019-09-05T14:40:01.380Z · score: 7 (1 votes)
Negative "eeny meeny miny moe" 2019-08-20T02:48:41.509Z · score: 22 (8 votes)
Automated Nomic Game 2 2019-02-05T22:11:13.914Z · score: 20 (9 votes)
Boston Solstice 2018 Retrospective 2018-12-23T20:04:40.244Z · score: 46 (10 votes)
Interpreting genetic testing 2018-12-15T15:56:57.339Z · score: 25 (8 votes)
Boston Secular Solstice 2018-12-10T01:59:24.756Z · score: 11 (3 votes)
Boston Solstice 2018 2018-10-28T20:37:47.679Z · score: 28 (8 votes)
How to parent more predictably 2018-07-10T15:18:33.660Z · score: 69 (33 votes)
Futarchy and Unfriendly AI 2015-04-03T21:45:41.157Z · score: 13 (12 votes)
We Haven't Uploaded Worms 2014-12-27T11:44:45.411Z · score: 92 (94 votes)
Happiness Logging: One Year In 2014-10-09T19:24:15.861Z · score: 15 (15 votes)
Persistent Idealism 2014-08-26T01:38:20.167Z · score: 11 (12 votes)
Conservation of Expected Jury Probability 2014-08-22T15:25:34.102Z · score: 10 (13 votes)
Relative and Absolute Benefit 2014-06-18T13:56:19.437Z · score: 12 (15 votes)
Questioning and Respect 2014-06-10T10:52:32.660Z · score: 20 (23 votes)
Cryonics As Untested Medical Procedure 2014-01-17T16:36:20.461Z · score: 18 (24 votes)
Be Skeptical of Correlational Studies 2013-11-20T22:19:28.281Z · score: 8 (11 votes)
Supplementing memory with experience sampling 2013-10-28T11:52:13.319Z · score: 13 (16 votes)
Is it immoral to have children? 2013-10-22T12:13:26.610Z · score: 17 (29 votes)
Does Checkers have simpler rules than Go? 2013-08-13T02:09:41.984Z · score: 14 (17 votes)
Valuing Sentience: Can They Suffer? 2013-07-29T12:39:04.481Z · score: 6 (11 votes)
The Argument From Marginal Cases 2013-07-26T13:30:17.215Z · score: 15 (21 votes)
Consumption Smoothing and Hedonic Adaptation 2013-07-19T14:41:47.699Z · score: 5 (6 votes)
Prioritizing Happiness 2013-07-06T16:01:20.723Z · score: 1 (10 votes)


Comment by jkaufman on Planned Power Outages · 2019-10-13T11:59:39.779Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

You inform the power co of the situation and they instantly have a legal liability if your power goes out.

Do you know more about how this works, or know where I could read about it? Searching online I wasn't able to find anyone talking about the system or consumer-facing docs on how to notify the power company and what to expect if you do.

Does it cover damage from natural disasters? Flooding, wind, earthquakes?

Comment by jkaufman on Rent Needs to Decrease · 2019-10-13T00:30:11.987Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Right, but it doesn't matter whether I'm closer than others (positional good) but whether I'm close enough that I can easily get between them (absolute good). If the world were a chessboard and only one person could live on each square then these would be the same, and it would turn into a positional good because of competition for desirable locations. But it isn't, and we can build up enormously, which means lots of people can have a short commute and be near their friends.

Comment by jkaufman on Planned Power Outages · 2019-10-12T17:32:46.867Z · score: 8 (5 votes) · LW · GW

I haven't looked into it fully, but it sounds to me like after PG&E was found liable for the Camp Fire they're responding by trying to pressure the government into not having them be liable ("if we're liable then we just can't take the risk of operating on dry days with high-wind") instead of doing things to reduce the risk of fires (clearing brush).

Comment by jkaufman on Rent Needs to Decrease · 2019-10-12T17:28:57.424Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Why are you modeling land as a pure positional good, or even mostly positional? My goal isn't to be closer to the middle of things than other people, I want to be near my friends and near my work. What's positional about that, given that we can build up?

Comment by jkaufman on Rent Needs to Decrease · 2019-10-12T14:52:50.022Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I would expect that getting rents down would generally let people to move from rural areas into cities, and within cities into denser downtown areas, because high rents currently keep people out. But:

  • Some people don't want to live in cities. Proximity to nature, not wanting to have to worry about neighbors, liking having lots of open space, working in farming or another fundamentally rural occupation, etc.

  • Different industries are big in different cities. Software in SF, TV in LA, finance in NYC, commodities in Chicago, biotech in Boston, insurance in Hartford, etc. Depending on what sort of work you want to do different cities make sense. Similar patterns apply for subcultures.

  • Some people have strong roots and wouldn't move just for better economic opportunity. A big reason I'm in Boston!

  • Cities compete, and the fastest growing cities are ones that are trying to make themselves more desirable.

So "the movement will only stop when the balance is achieved, that is, each place is equally good" doesn't mean "everywhere is terrible" but instead "everywhere keeps getting better, for the people who decide to live there".

Overall, though, since the Bay Area already has 2.4% of the US population, getting to 5% with lower rents sounds pretty reasonable. They would need to build better transit in the areas that became dense, but they would have the tax revenues to support it.

Comment by jkaufman on Rent Needs to Decrease · 2019-10-12T14:28:51.274Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Urban land doesn't need to decrease in price, just urban housing. If you allow building up then it's profitable to keep building units even as their rent falls.

Recent historical cases of urban land decreasing in price aren't ones to emulate; they're cases like Detroit where a city has become dramatically less desirable over time due to an industry dying. But Seattle has recently built enough new housing that they've seen a small decrease in rents:

Comment by jkaufman on Rent Needs to Decrease · 2019-10-11T18:35:31.738Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

CA did just pass AB 68 + SB 13 + AB 881, which requires municipalities to allow people with single family homes to build up to two accessory dwelling units:

Comment by jkaufman on Rent Needs to Decrease · 2019-10-11T17:19:50.328Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

What do you mean by "on aggregate paying through the nose"? That rents will always be high?

Comment by jkaufman on Rent Needs to Decrease · 2019-10-11T16:59:37.464Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Something got garbled with "The bay area has a population density of while Manila has one of 20,785/km2 while the Bay area has one of 335/km2."

Comment by jkaufman on Regularly Scheduled: Day-of Reminders · 2019-10-10T10:53:39.994Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

If everyone is using Google Calendar it doesn't add much, but if some of your guests aren't then it gives you a way to send reminders and collect RSVPs.

Comment by jkaufman on Ideal Number of Parents · 2019-10-06T10:56:28.844Z · score: 18 (4 votes) · LW · GW

So far the lunchbox has always come back. While normally I treat individual foods failing to come back as a good thing, if I packed something that resulted in the whole lunchbox failing to come back it would be important not to count that as a massive success.

Comment by jkaufman on LW2.0 Mailing List for Breaking API Changes · 2019-10-03T02:54:02.341Z · score: 6 (3 votes) · LW · GW

applied to join!

Comment by jkaufman on LW2.0 Mailing List for Breaking API Changes · 2019-10-03T00:52:13.388Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

When I click through I get the error "You do not have permission to access this content."

Comment by jkaufman on Long-term Donation Bunching? · 2019-09-29T01:27:31.738Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I'm pretty pessimistic about GivingTuesday persisting as a way for EAs to have a large counterfactually valid impact. "Free money for sufficiently quick and organized folks" won't last.

Comment by jkaufman on Long-term Donation Bunching? · 2019-09-28T11:01:12.122Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

I don't know much about this, but one thing that comes to mind is that if it's optional (which I think it has to be to postpone the effective date of the donation?) then what happens if the 'donor' doesn't choose to convert it to a donation?

Comment by jkaufman on Long-term Donation Bunching? · 2019-09-28T10:59:00.606Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

On the other hand, the social expectation of "I gave to you in your year, you can't back out now!" is a strong commitment device.

Comment by jkaufman on Long-term Donation Bunching? · 2019-09-28T10:57:45.664Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

It was a general nitpick regarding process

In this case I'd done the rough math before posting to make sure it was in the right range, but as someone reading the post there wasn't a way for you to know that ;)

Donate the 60k in year one, then 0 the following 5 years?

Sure, except extremely few people on a $100k salary who start wanting to donate 10% will have $60k in savings-they-can-do-without sitting around.

Is there a particular fund you had in mind?

Have a look at For comparing DAFs the main thing is to look at the fees and pick a cheap one, since it's the same product everywhere. I know people who've used Vanguard and Fidelity.

Comment by jkaufman on Long-term Donation Bunching? · 2019-09-27T21:53:47.597Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Are you saying you want an explicit calculation comparing the tax gains from bunching to the risk of never donating? The exact calculation will depend on people's individual financial circumstances, but for the cases I've looked at, it comes out strongly against long-term bunching.

For example, consider someone earning $100k in MA and donating 10%. They have ~$5k in MA tax which they could potentially deduct if itemizing, but let's say no other deductions. Six year bunching would be five years of donating $0 and taking the $12k standard deduction, and then one year of donating $60k and deducting $65k. This moves your year six federal income tax from $15k to $3k, saving you $12k in taxes on $60k in donations or 20%. That is clearly not worth a 50% chance of donating $0.

While people should consider their own tax circumstances and propensity to stop being altruistic, I think we should have a community default of "donate as you go, to a donor-advised fund if need be".

Comment by jkaufman on Honoring Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2019 · 2019-09-27T00:15:43.234Z · score: 11 (2 votes) · LW · GW

If you're considering it as spending on lifesaving then it doesn't sound counterfactual?

Comment by jkaufman on Honoring Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2019 · 2019-09-26T22:20:56.086Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

I'm not doing anything unilaterally. If I do anything at this point it will be after some sort of fair polling.

Comment by jkaufman on Honoring Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2019 · 2019-09-26T22:02:06.178Z · score: 7 (2 votes) · LW · GW

If we could figure out some reasonable way to poll people I agree, but I don't see a good way to do that, especially not on this timescale?

Comment by jkaufman on Honoring Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2019 · 2019-09-26T21:28:30.284Z · score: 5 (5 votes) · LW · GW

Is the objection over the amount (there's a higher number where it would be a good trade), being skeptical of the counterfactuality of the donation (would the money really be spent fully selfishly?), or something else?

Comment by jkaufman on Honoring Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2019 · 2019-09-26T21:25:58.912Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Are you telling me you don't think this is a good trade?

Comment by jkaufman on Honoring Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2019 · 2019-09-26T20:34:47.978Z · score: 8 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Oh: and to give those potential other people time to object, I won't accept an offer before 2hr from when I posted the parent comment (4:30 Boston time)

Comment by jkaufman on Honoring Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2019 · 2019-09-26T20:29:41.774Z · score: 4 (8 votes) · LW · GW

Maybe a fair value would be GiveWell's best guess cost per life saved equivalent? [1] There's some harm in releasing the codes entrusted to me, but not so much that it's better for someone to die.

I would want your assurance that it really was a counterfactually valid donation, though: money you would otherwise spend selfishly, and that you would not consider part of your altruistic impact on the world.

If two other people with launch codes tell me they don't think this is a good trade then I'll retract the offer.

[1] gives $1,672.

Comment by jkaufman on Honoring Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2019 · 2019-09-26T18:22:32.661Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW · GW


Comment by jkaufman on Honoring Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2019 · 2019-09-26T18:21:14.162Z · score: 7 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I would give someone my launch codes in exchange for a sufficiently large counterfactual donation.

I haven't thought seriously about how large it would need to be, because I don't expect someone to take me up on this, but if you're interested we can talk.

Comment by jkaufman on Honoring Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2019 · 2019-09-26T16:43:35.978Z · score: 17 (22 votes) · LW · GW

[EDIT: two people with codes below have objected, so I'm not up for this trade anymore, unless we figure out a way to make a broader poll]

I have launch codes. Would anyone be interested in offering counterfactual donations to I could also be interested in counterfactual donations to nuclear war-prevention organizations.

Comment by jkaufman on Resetting Somebody Will · 2019-09-26T16:03:09.081Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Here's another go, maintaining more of the original melody:

Comment by jkaufman on Resetting Somebody Will · 2019-09-26T10:28:56.302Z · score: 5 (2 votes) · LW · GW

This post was imported into LessWrong from RSS, which stripped out the youtube embed. It was supposed to link to I'm working on a new version, though, which is

Comment by jkaufman on The MA Estate Tax is Broken · 2019-09-24T16:35:42.055Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Sure! My objection is maybe more aesthetic? This tax design violates one of the core rules of taxation, which is that starting with more money should not put you in a worse position. So, no, it's not a high priority, but it's also worth drawing attention to as an example of how not to do things.

Comment by jkaufman on Five Minute Beans · 2019-09-23T15:13:22.124Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Fixed, thanks! I'm using the LessWrong RSS importer and it doesn't handle relative urls yet:

Comment by jkaufman on Modes of Petrov Day · 2019-09-22T18:47:31.225Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Sorry, I think I sounded negative, and wasn't trying to. Edited to include a ";)".

Comment by jkaufman on Five Minute Beans · 2019-09-22T17:58:19.567Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW · GW

I'm not normally so pressed for time, so I'd usually let everything cook down a lot longer. And add onions (cooked first separately, then together)

Comment by jkaufman on Five Minute Beans · 2019-09-22T17:57:29.323Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

The combination of microwaving and skillet gives you a better taste, but still with the same low overall time.

Comment by jkaufman on Modes of Petrov Day · 2019-09-22T13:45:44.416Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

anyone who can guess the name of your house could potentially target it with nuclear missiles

this seems like a major downside ;)

Comment by jkaufman on Focus · 2019-09-16T19:02:46.767Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW · GW

It looks ok to me now? (I didn't fix it, but an admin may have, since the RSS import doesn't handle relative links yet)

Comment by jkaufman on How to Make Billions of Dollars Reducing Loneliness · 2019-08-31T01:56:32.099Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Just wash and scrub your dish when you're done using it and put it on the drying rack. Does there need to be an extra machine that cleans it further?

Why do you say "further"? Do you wash things before putting them in the dishwasher? We generally scrape off things that won't dissolve, and then put the dishes in as-is.

(In a house where we regularly have seven people at dinner being able to just put everything right into the dishwasher saves us loads of time over hand washing)

Comment by jkaufman on Dialogue on Appeals to Consequences · 2019-07-19T20:37:25.267Z · score: 10 (2 votes) · LW · GW

It sounds to me like Jessica is using "appeal to consequences" expansively to include not just "X has bad consequences so you should not believe X" to "saying X has bad consequences so you should not say X"?

Comment by jkaufman on Dialogue on Appeals to Consequences · 2019-07-19T16:55:50.955Z · score: 22 (7 votes) · LW · GW

My main objection is that the post is built around a case where Quinn is very wrong in their initial "bad consequences" claim, and that this leads people to have misleading intuitions. I was trying to propose an alternative situation where the "bad consequences" claim was true or closer to true, but where Quinn would still be wrong to suggest Carter shouldn't describe what they'd found.

(Also, for what it's worth, I find the Quinn character's argumentative approach very frustrating to read. This makes it hard to take anything that character describes seriously.)

Comment by jkaufman on Dialogue on Appeals to Consequences · 2019-07-19T11:18:36.964Z · score: 40 (11 votes) · LW · GW

The motivating example for this post is whether you should say "So, I actually checked with some of their former employees, and if what they say and my corresponding calculations are right, they actually only saved 138 puppies", with Quinn arguing that you shouldn't say it because saying it has bad consequences. The problem is, saying this has very clearly good consequences, which means trying to use it as a tool for figuring out what you think of appeals to consequences sets up your intuitions to confuse you.

(It has clearly good consequences because "how much money goes to PADP right now" is far less import than "building a culture of caring about the actual effectiveness of organizations and truly trying to find/make the best ones". Plus if, say, Animal Charity Evaluators trusted this higher number of puppies saved and it had lead them to recommend PADP as I've if their top charities, that that would mean displacing funds that could have gone to more effective animal charities. The whole Effective Altruism project is about trying to figure out how to get the biggest positive impact, and you can't do this if you declare discussing negative information about organizations off limits.)

The post would be a lot clearer if it had a motivating example that really did have bad consequences, all things considered. As a person who's strongly pro transparency is hard for me to come up with cases, but there are still contexts where I think it's probably the case. What if Carter were a researcher who had run a small study on a new infant vaccine and seen elevated autism rates on the experimental group. There's an existing "vaccines cause autism" meme that is both very probably wrong and very probably harmful, which means Carter should be careful about messaging for their results. Good potential outcomes include:

  • Carter's experiment is replicated, confirmed, and the vaccine is not rolled out.

  • Carter's experiment fails to replicate, researchers look into it more, and discover that there was a problem in the initial experiment / in the replication / they need more data / etc

Bad potential outcomes include:

  • Headlines that say "scientists finally admit vaccines do cause autism"

Because of the potential harmful consequences of handling this poorly, Carter should be careful about how they talk about their results and to who. Trying to get funding to scale up the experiment, making sure the FDA is aware, letting other researchers know, etc, all are beneficial and have good consequences. Going to the mainstream media with a controversial sell-lots-of-papers story, by contrast, would have predictably bad consequences.

When talking with friends or within your field it's hard to think of cases where you shouldn't just say the interesting thing you've found, while with larger audiences and in less truth-oriented cultures you need to start being more careful.

EDIT: expanded this into

Comment by jkaufman on We Haven't Uploaded Worms · 2019-07-15T17:50:26.959Z · score: 8 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I just tried and don't see anything relevant. I did find Why is There No Successful Whole Brain Simulation (Yet)? from 2019. While I've only skimmed it and its reference list, if there had been something new here I think they would have cited it.

I think we're still stuck on both (a) we can't read weights from real worms (and so can only model a generic worm) and (b) we don't understand how weights are changed in real worms (and so can't model learning).

Comment by jkaufman on Ask and Guess · 2019-06-22T18:08:34.139Z · score: 6 (3 votes) · LW · GW

On one occasion I had to explicitly explain to a friend that, for her purposes, it was best to assume that the last piece of chicken was simply unavailable to be eaten, ever, by anyone

Thinking about how this works in my household, I realized why this doesn't come up: if there is a last piece of chicken then the host has made a mistake. In my culture there should always be enough food that everyone feels comfortable to eat as much as they would enjoy without worrying that this will limit other's consumption. The host cooks sufficient food to ensure this, with the expectation that there will be leftovers. And then leftovers provide lunches, and occasionally dinners if they accumulate sufficiently. Of course this requires being rich enough to have enough food for everyone to have what they want, but (a) food is much cheaper relative to the rest of life than it used to be and (b) if the cost would be an issue you deal with this by having larger quantities of cheaper food.

In the rare occasions when the host miscalculates, because extra people showed up, people ate more than expected, or something else, my culture's general askiness means we talk about it pretty explicitly ("who else would like more chicken?") and generally divide what's left equally among everyone who wants it.

Comment by jkaufman on Drowning children are rare · 2019-05-29T20:17:51.557Z · score: 34 (10 votes) · LW · GW

I wrote a response to this here:

Comment by jkaufman on Drowning children are rare · 2019-05-29T17:00:04.933Z · score: 7 (4 votes) · LW · GW

I no longer believe such arbitrage is reliably available

Do you not believe GiveDirectly represents this kind of arbitrage?

Comment by jkaufman on Automated Nomic Game 2 · 2019-02-06T00:36:21.888Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · LW · GW

People who would like to join are welcome to send a PR

Comment by jkaufman on Act of Charity · 2019-01-28T03:59:33.614Z · score: 21 (5 votes) · LW · GW
This belief is partially due to private info I have (will PM some details)

The first part of this private info turned out to be a rumor about the way an ex-employee was treated. I checked with the person in question, and they disconfirmed the rumor.

The remainder was recommendations to speak with specific people, which I may manage to do at some point, and links to public blog posts.

Comment by jkaufman on Act of Charity · 2019-01-24T18:59:21.613Z · score: 6 (3 votes) · LW · GW
they would work themselves out of a job and actually have data that their nets break down after four or five years

This is minor, but GiveWell already says "Our best guess is that [nets] last, on average, between 2 and 2.5 years." (

Comment by jkaufman on Why Don't Creators Switch to their Own Platforms? · 2018-12-23T12:52:18.762Z · score: 6 (4 votes) · LW · GW

Yes, there are costs to building your own platform, especially for video, but my guess is traffic is the main limitation. YouTube, Facebook, etc are trying to find things to put in front of people to entertain them, and if you can do well at this you can have an enormous audience. Streaming video from your own website to fans who care enough to seek it out gives you freedom but adds too much friction to seeing your stuff.

Comment by jkaufman on Act of Charity · 2018-12-19T21:50:46.374Z · score: 14 (5 votes) · LW · GW
Carl: "Why don't you just run a more effective charity, and advertise on that? Then you can outcompete the other charities."
Worker: "That's not fashionable anymore. The 'effectiveness' branding has been tried before; donors are tired of it by now. Perhaps this is partially because there aren't functional systems that actually check which organizations are effective and which aren't, so scam charities branding themselves as effective end up outcompeting the actually effective ones. And there are organizations claiming to evaluate charities' effectiveness, but they've largely also become scams by now, for exactly the same reasons. The fashionable branding now is environmentalism."

I'm confused about this part. Are you saying GiveWell is a scam?