As far as I understand, the paper doesn't disagree with this and an explanation for it is given in the conclusion:

Communication strategies such as the ‘funnel model’ have facilitated the enduring perception amongst the broader public, academics and journalists that ‘EA’ is synonymous with ‘public-facing EA’. As a result, many people are confused by EA’s seemingly sudden shift toward ‘longtermism’, particularly AI/x-risk; however, this ‘shift’ merely represents a shift in EA’s communication strategy to more openly present the movement’s core aims.

The low number of human-shrimp connections may be due to the attendance dip in 2020. Shrimp have understandably a difficult relationship with dips.

There is a comprehensive process in place... it is a cohesive approach to aligning font, but thank you for the drama!

Insiders know that EA NYC has ambitious plans to sprout a whole network of Bodhi restaurants. To those who might criticize this blossoming "bodhi count," let's not indulge in shaming their gastronomic promiscuity. After all, spreading delicious vegan dim sum and altruism is something we can all savour.

I find the second one more readable. 

Might be due to my display: If I zoom into the two versions, the second version separates letters better.

But you're also right, that we'll get used to most changes :)

I find the font to be less readable and somewhat clunky. 
Can't quite express why it feels that way. It reminds me of display scaling issues, where your display resolution doesn't match the native resolution.

I'm not really sure if the data suggests this.

The question is rather vague, making it difficult to determine the direction of the desired change. It seems to suggest that longtermists and more engaged individuals are less likely to support large changes in the community in general. But both groups might, on average, agree that change should go in the 'big tent' direction.

Although there are statistically significant differences in responses to "I want the community to look very different"  between those with mild vs. high engagement, their average responses are still quite similar (around 4.2/7 vs. 3.7/7). Finding statistically significant differences in beliefs between two groups doesn't always imply that there are large or meaningful differences in the content of their actual beliefs. I feel I could also just be overlooking something here.
 

The only source for this claim I've ever found was Emile P. Torres's article What “longtermism” gets wrong about climate change. 

It's not clear where they take the information about an "enormous promotional budget of roughly $10 million" from. Not saying that it is untrue, but also unclear why Torres would have this information.

The implication is also, that the promotional spending came out of EA pockets. But part of it might also be promotional spending by the book publisher.

ETA: I found another article by Torres that discusses the claim in a bit more detail.

MacAskill, meanwhile, has more money at his fingertips than most of us make in a lifetime. Left unmentioned during his “Daily Show” appearance: he hired several PR firms to promote his book, one of which was paid $12,000 per month, according to someone with direct knowledge of the matter. MacAskill’s team, this person tells me, even floated a total promotional budget ceiling of $10 million — a staggering number — thanks partly to financial support from the tech multibillionaire Dustin Moskovitz, cofounder of Facebook and a major funder of EA.

If I remember correctly, Claude had limited public deployment roughly a month before the Google investment, and roughly 2 months after their biggest funder (FTX) went bankrupt.

Thanks for getting back to me and providing more context. 

I do agree that Churchill was probably surprised by Roosevelt's use of the term because it was not in the official communiqué. Trying to figure out how certain historical decisions were influenced is very challenging.

The way you describe the events strikes me as very strong and requires a lot of things to be true other than the term being used accidentally:

Accidentally called for unconditional surrender of the Japanese, leading to the eventual need for the bomb to be dropped. (p.35)

Based on the available information and until we have better evidence for the claim, I would not want to use this as an example of a simple mistake having severe consequences. And because the Anecdote is incredibly catchy, I worry that policy researchers and practitioners will read it and subsequently use it in conversation.