Powder🔸
Posts 1
Comments13
Supplements with a U-shaped benefit/harm curve like that and different effects in different subgroups aren't appropriate for universal supplementation.
Is this a like a medical rule of thumb?
I'd just imagine that all the other commonly fortified minerals and vitamins are u-shaped in outcomes. Calcium, iodine causing hyperthyroidism. It'd just depend on the risks.
I did already glance at how likely potassium would harm others and you might find the current information interesting:
https://examine.com/supplements/potassium/#what-are-potassiums-main-drawbacks
The studies suggest that so far it seems quite safe. However there could be a mild (1-2) point increase in blood pressure at the low doses for people who aren't hypertensive, which shouldn't impose much risk.
I misread:
It'd depend on the food in question. The analysis however was under the assumption of it being additive, i.e. typical fortification.
I'm not a baker or a cow farmer so I don't know in what situations salt can be replaced with potassium chloride. I think in a lot of cases potassium chloride should be able to be added with limited issues as saltier things tend to taste better.
If you really felt bad, you would also have to be diligently doing research on suffering rates per calorie of each plant food.
It's not immediately obvious whether the crop deaths of a slice of bread which is more easily understood as vegan, causes less suffering than eating a farmed oyster and the killing of its resulting by-catch (barnacles perhaps?).
If anyone can point me towards any research of different foods -> suffering (maybe neurons as a proxy?) I would love it.
An excerpt from your website. (which I love)
we aim to teach an entire generation to care a little bit more than the generations before them and to truly have an impact on the world, through the actions that we inspire. We are making kindness viral!
What are your insights on your main target audience generation alpha/zoomer? What are your quantitative goals and/or how do you measure your success?
with GWWC at least officially they don't consider company match as part of the pledge:
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/faq/do-i-count-employer-donation-matching-towards-my-giving-pledge
What I personally think is that those who are pledgees should consider donation matching as part of a prospective job's compensation as it is a permanent cost. (also would incentivise negotiation in that direction)
Reputation Hardening
Prompted largely by the fall in EA credibility in recent years. And also being unsatisfied with GiveWell's lack of independent verification of the charities they recommend.
Here is a lightly edited AI generated slop version:
Reputation Hardening: Should GiveWell Verify Charity Data Independently?
"Reputation hardening" involves creating more resilient reputations.
Recent events have shown how reputation damage to one EA entity can affect the entire movement's credibility and therefore funding and influence. While GiveWell's evaluation process is thorough, it largely relies on charity-provided data. I propose they consider implementing independent verification methods.
Applying to GiveWell/GHD
These measures could help detect potential issues early and strengthen confidence in effectiveness estimates.
This is a preliminary idea to start discussion. What other verification methods or implementation challenges should we consider?