TL;DR;BNOB 

("but not obviously bad")

Hmm, have there been applications that are like "what's your 50th percentile expected outcome?" and "what's your 95th percentile outcome?"

Note: the automatic audio for this starts with what sounds like some weird artifacts around the image title.

I think there's a reasonable case that, from a health perspective, many people should eat less meat. But "less meat" !== "no meat". 

Elizabeth was pretty clear on her take being:

Most people’s optimal diet includes small amounts of animal products, but people eat sub-optimally for lots of reasons and that’s their right.

i.e. yes, the optimal diet is small amounts of meat (which is less than most people eat, but more than vegans eat).

The article notes:

It’s true that I am paying more attention to veganism than I am to, say, the trad carnivore idiots, even though I think that diet is worse. But veganism is where the people are, both near me and in the US as a whole. Dietary change is so synonymous with animal protection within Effective Altruism that the EAForum tag is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the animal suffering tag. At a young-EA-organizer conference I mentored at last year, something like half of attendees were vegan, and only a handful had no animal-protecting diet considerations. If keto gets anywhere near this kind of numbers I assure you I will say something.

The argument isn’t about that at all, and I think most people would agree that nutrition is important.

It sounds like you're misreading the point of the article.

The entire point of this article is that there are vegan EA leaders who downplay or dismiss the idea that veganism requires extra attention and effort. It doesn't at all say "there are some tradeoffs, therefore don't be vegan."  (it goes out of the way to say almost the opposite)

Whether costs are worth discussing doesn't depend on how large one cost is vs the other – it depends on whether the health costs are large enough to hurt people, destroy trust, and (from an animal welfare perspective), whether the human health costs directly cause more animal suffering via causing ~30% of vegans to relapse.

Is there a word in the rest-of-the-world that means "everything that supports the core work and allows other people to focus on the core work?"

I hadn't looked into the details of Windfall Clause proposed execution and assumed it was prescribing something closer to GiveDirectly than "CEO gets to direct it personally." CEO gets to direct it personally does seem obviously bad.

<3

The "disadvantaged background" thing does turn out to show up in the top several google results, so, does seem like a real thing, although I also had no idea until this moment and would have naively used the term "talent search" in the way you describe.

Another angle on this (I think this is implied by the OP but didn't quite state outright?)

All the community-norm posts are an input into effective altruism. The gritty technical posts are an output. If you sit around having really good community norms, but you never push forward the frontier of human knowledge relevant to optimizing the world, I think you're not really succeeding at effective altruism. 

It is possible that frontier-of-human-knowledge posts should be paid for with money rather than karma, since karma just isn't well suited for rewarding it. But, yeah it seems like it distorts the onboarding experience of what people learn to do on the forum.