Personally I have found that getting too attached the supposed goodness of my intentions as a guide to my moral character has been a distraction, in times when my behavior has not actually been that good.

I've not looked into it in great detail, but I think of it as a classically Christian idea to try to evaluate if someone is a good or a bad person internally, and give reward/punishment based on that. In contrast, I believe it's mostly better to punish people based on their behavior, often regardless of whether you judge them to internally be 'selfish' or 'altruistic'. If MacAskill has repeatedly executed a lot of damaging prestige-seeking strategies and behaved in selfish ways, I think it's worthwhile to punish the behavior. And in that case I think it's worthwhile to punish the behavior regardless of whether he is open to change, regardless of whether the behavior is due to fundamental personality traits, and regardless of whether he reflectively endorses the decisions.

Ubuntu writes that they read Habryka as saying "Will is so selfish" rather than "Will and I have major disagreements on the strategies he should pursue but I believe he's well-intentioned". But I don't Habryka's comment to be saying either of these. I read the comment to simply be saying "Will has repeatedly behaved in ways that trade off integrity for popularity and prestige". This is also my read of multiple behaviors of Will, and cost him a great deal of respect from me for his personal integrity and as a leader, and this is true regardless of the intentions.

The Rose Garden Inn was also purchased on a loan from Jaan Tallinn (I'm not quite sure how the finances worked but we weren't given the funds directly), and so we owe him ~$16MM-or-a-hotel at some point in the future.

I did also not account for all the furniture costs in that section (however, I suspect ~50% of the furniture will get used in the future either by projects by our team or other projects we like, so it's not all sunk cost).

A quick fermi for how much furniture we bought is something like 40 standing desks (~$600) + 40 office chairs (~$600) + 20 couches (~$1000) is more than half of it, then give a factor of 2x for everything else (rugs, end-tables, lights, etc), which comes out to $136,000.

As I say, ~50% will get kept and used for other stuff, so it's only about $80k of further sunk cost.

The charity section famously has lower salaries because the work is more intrinsically rewarding than regular corporate fare.

I thought it was because there's no profit to be made doing the work.

Nah, I am regularly wildly un-careful in my speech, so moving to Signal is a major benefit precisely for me.

Agree on UI though, the first time ppl text me I don't know who they are, and no photos for most of my contacts.

Happy to get behind this, I am always down to move to Signal. You can reach me there at five one oh, nine nine eight, four seven seven one (also a +1 at the front for US country code). (Please identify yourself when you text me.)

Pretty sure non-zero people have tried, my guess is the question is "how competent of an attacker and how much effort do they put into it".

Sure, done.

Heeheehee. Sounds like Anders poking fun at his friend live.

It's nice to see this again <3 

I asked Parfit to give this talk at that EAGxOxford, a conference Jacob Lagerros and I were the lead organizers of [edit: I see James Aung posted this, who was on the team too!]. It was one of the last talks of his life. I remember writing him an email about what talk to give, and he wrote a very long word document back as an attachment. He was a very careful thinker.

Also I remember a pretty endearing interaction between him and Anders Sandberg, where Anders pretended to be a fan and got Parfit to sign a copy of his book. (It was a joke because Anders and Parfit were former roommates and good friends.)