Re. cost reductions: That's a bit tricky. With the current lamp tech (KrCl excimer lamps), 20x is not on the table. Their cost floor is closer to 1/3 of the current cost. Next-gen (read: solid-state) emitters can achieve 20x in principle but are often still bottlenecked by fundamental academic research; we're eventually talking about ~5–10 years and 10s to 100s of M of $ to get to fab scale. There are two startups around a different promising approach that might be a bit faster but will require the same money. 

For any technologies that have a market, $100M of investment are doable, but far-UV faces a bit of a circular problem: Missing data (safety/effectiveness) → No official recommendations → No market → No emitter R&D and high product prices → Insufficient deployment that limits real-world data. There are now some market-shaping initiatives that will hopefully ameliorate this dynamic so that R&D money flows naturally. But as Max wrote, OP will hopefully also address some of those points after their RFI. 

Re. IAQ: The ozone/VOC data are still somewhat contested and in flux, so it remains to be seen what the far-UV impact on real-world IAQ will actually be. But you're generally right; it's best to view the IAQ interventions holistically. Ventilation/filtration can complement far-UV, and the best deployment scheme will depend on the environment. But I still don't worry too much about cost/flexibility limitations, as most environments in which far-UV would be first installed already have decent air handling systems (hospitals, airports, etc.)  

Thanks, that would be great!

Oh, I love this. Are there more examples of beautiful poems with some sort of EA-connection?

Howl is often mentioned, of course, but I'd really love some moving lines on the far future or animals or whatnot.

I'd really like to see a detailed write-up or resource collection on market-shaping. Approaches, best practices, etc. At least in biosecurity, more and more interventions are at a stage where the technical feasibility is more or less known (e.g., PPE, far-UVC), and the major bottlenecks can only really be solved by shaping the underlying market. 

Great guide; thanks for the write-up! My only gripe is that you posted it a month too late, and I had to plan my visit without it. Still loved it and will come back next year :) 

Generally, more groups should do such guides. Visiting big cities with a bunch of EAs is, imho, just great fun!

I'm not sure whether, for example, Arcadia fits that bill of no-strings-attached funding given their research agenda on non-model organisms. But it's definitely a new science org. Something like Hypothesis Fund (https://www.hypothesisfund.org/) maybe. 
I'd recommend having a look at the Overedge Catalogue (https://arbesman.net/overedge/)

I think you meant 12pm to 4:30pm. The calendar event currently starts at midnight.

I'm not sure if I expected more positive comments. Some of the comments certainly disagree heavily ("ivory tower BS", "future people don't matter"), but most of the skeptical clusters don't seem to fundamentally disagree with longtermism. Maybe learned helplessness (or Cheems mindset, sure), or something akin to a filter bubble where you learn about global problems but are not exposed to the (admittedly) fringe approaches to solving them. The climate movement is, for example, very good at spreading doom despite a non-catastrophic outlook. I wonder how much future optimism/progress propaganda à la OWID would help to move the opinion of young, liberal, academic people

Hey Trev, certainly an important topic! However, I downvoted because the post doesn't meet the standards I'd like to see from a post.

• Your core argument and claims are packed into fluff which distracted me and made it harder for me to follow.
• You make a lot of (imho) insubstantial claims without backing them up or citing and engaging with any previously published research on that (not very small) field: "wars are sparked when people follow egoistic/convenient motives", the whole EvoPsych claims, etc.
• The conclusions seem vague/not actionable/wrong: "Promote atheism", "realise that status exists", "shame soldiers".

I'd recommend reading more EA forum posts and familiarising yourself with the style of posts that people would like to read before (re)posting tangentially related essays.