This comment and its OP strike me as a good explanation why.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Zzar6BWML555xSt6Z/the-dial-of-progress?commentId=dg5iBNKRAJTjjSrP3

I think trying to figure out the common thread "explaining datapoints like FTX, Leverage Research, [and] the LaSota crew" won't yield much of worth because those three things aren't especially similar to each other, either in their internal workings or in their external effects.

There are many disparate factors between different cases. The particulars of each incident really matter lest people draw the wrong conclusions. However I think figuring out the common threads insofar as there are any is what we need, as otherwise we will overindex on particular cases and learn things that don't generalize. I have meditated on what the commonalities could be and think they at least share what one may call "Perverse Maximization", which I intend to apply to deontology (i.e. the sword stabbing) as well as utilitarianism. Maybe there's a better word than "maximize". 

I think I discovered a shared commonality between the sort of overconfidence these extremist positions hold and the underconfidence that EAs who are overwhelmed by analysis paralysis hold: a sort of 'inability to terminate closure-seeking process'. In the case of overconfidents, it's "I have found the right thing and I just need to zealously keep applying it over and over". In the case of underconfidents, it's "this choice isn't right or perfect, I need to find something better, no I need something better, I must find the right thing". Both share an intolerance of ambiguity, uncertainty, and shades of gray. The latter is just more people suffering quiet misery of their perfectionism or being the ones manipulated than it ending up in any kind of outward explosion.

Yeah a significant consideration for me in whether to be less professionally involved in EA is exhaustion from centralized funding and the weird power dynamics that ensue. I would rather build products that lots of people can use and lots of investors or donors would find attractive to give money to than be beHolden to a small coterie of grantmakers no matter how well-intentioned.

I don't bet because it's not a way to actually make money given the frictional costs to set it up, including my own ignorance about the proper procedure and having to remember it and keep enough capital for it. Ironically, people who are betting in this subculture are usually cargo culting the idea of wealth-maximization with the aesthetics of betting with the implicit assumption that the stakes of actual money are enough to lead to more correct beliefs when following the incentives really means not betting at all. If convenient, universal prediction markets weren't regulated into nonexistence then I would sing a different tune.

I read a few of your points, skimmed the rest. It sounds like you're talking about a healthy omnivorous diet, which I agree is maybe as hard as a vegan diet. However, I eat a convenient diet, not a healthy one, filled with microwave and fast food, and it's much more likely to eat a convenient omnivorous diet.

I would be happy to celebrate an Arkhipov Day. Is there anything that could distinguish the rituals and themes of the day? Arkhipov was in a submarine and had to disagree with two other officers IIRC? (Also when is it?)

How do they find posts? Is it literally randomized from the entire set of posts or is there some kind of selection bias?

(Edit: I read a few posts and it seems like a lot of it is the author inserting their own commentary, with a general focus on hot-button issues, so I'm hesitant to subscribe, though I like the concept)

Sheet could use LibGen links (to warn people where not to find the books, of course).

"Thank you, thank you for the drama."

August/September-ish 2022 (but written about in January 2023): The Future of Life Institute, an organization dedicated to lowering extinction risk, allegedly gave $100,000 to an extreme right-wing online publication connected to FLI President Max Tegmark's brother. Tegmark denied this.

They didn't give the money.