Thanks sorry,  should be fixed now.

Thanks for writing this up Bob! And congratulations again to everyone who worked on this.

 I would be interested to understand logistically how this happened. Who worked on it? What roles did they play? Were there political champions or was this mostly driven by grassroots support?  How much lobbying was done of the different parties and what form did that lobbying take?

Wow, that's amazing. Congratulations everyone who worked on this!

Congratulations everyone who worked on this! This kind of behind-the-scenes operational work is extremely thankless, and one small silver lining to this investigation is some public recognition of the work that's been done.

I personally was expecting the charity commission to just give a bland statement like "we didn't find anything actionable, closing the investigation." Them actively complimenting EV reads (to my amateur eyes) like EV staff went above and beyond.

Thanks for doing this! This is one of those ideas that I've heard discussed for a while but nobody was willing to go through the pain of actually making the site; kudos for doing so.

I don't think they say, unfortunately.

First in-ovo sexing in the US

Egg Innovations announced that they are "on track to adopt the technology in early 2025." Approximately 300 million male chicks are ground up alive in the US each year (since only female chicks are valuable) and in-ovo sexing would prevent this. 

UEP originally promised to eliminate male chick culling by 2020; needless to say, they didn't keep that commitment. But better late than never! 

Congrats to everyone working on this, including @Robert - Innovate Animal Ag, who founded an organization devoted to pushing this technology.^[1]

1. ^{^}

   Egg Innovations says they can't disclose details about who they are working with for NDA reasons; if anyone has more information about who deserves credit for this, please comment!

Thanks, that makes sense. I didn't remember Going Infinite as having made such a strong claim, but maybe I was projecting my own knowledge into the book.

I looked back at the agenda for our resignation/buyout meeting and I don't see anything like "didn't disclose misplaced transfer money to investors". Which doesn't mean that no one had this concern, only that they didn't add it to the agenda, but I do think it would be misleading to describe this as the central concern of the management team, given that we listed other things in the agenda instead of that.^[1]

1. ^{^}

   To preempt a question about what concerns I did have, if not the transfer thing: see my post from last year: 

   I thought Sam was a bad CEO. I think he literally never prepared for a single one-on-one we had, his habit of playing video games instead of talking to you was “quirky” when he was a billionaire but aggravating when he was my manager, and my recollection is that Alameda made less money in the time I was there than if it had just simply bought and held bitcoin.

   I'm not sure if I would describe the above as a "benign management dispute" (it certainly didn't feel benign to me at the time), but I think it's even less accurate to describe it as being about the misplaced transfers

I would be excited about a common application. My sense is that the only reason it doesn't exist is that no one has put the time in to create it;  when I've talked to hiring managers, most were in favor of the project (though there are some concerns, e.g. the fact that applications are currently a costly signal is helpful for identifying the applicants who actually really want to apply).

Thanks for organizing the conference, the statement, and the resulting media coverage! Cool to see big names like Chalmers on the list.