Which ones?

It's still very unclear that the decrease in pain in cage-free system would not be significant enough to make the intervention not worth funding. What has convinced you specifically?
 

I absolutely love the bit when he is doing calculations, and talking about how mind-blowing it is he can save 47 lives only this year! :) I think GWWC you should use pieces of the video as clips on stories, etc. encouraging people to pledge. Make a paid campaign out of it and maybe try to pitch it as a story to different outlets. Especially this part is really cool, as he not only shows how much he will earn but also how much he is willing to give away and what it will do in practice :) I don't know, but would love to see a community of High Impact Influencers starting out of that :)

Hi Grace, as you know, I think this is really great video, and I think you lead it super well, and I would gladly watch more content with you like this. I was wondering if you are at liberty to share the cost of making this video - it looks very good, professional, great image, and audio quality. And if not too much trouble, I am assuming this is part of the bigger campaign - including ads etc. I would be curious after you run it, if you will be able to share learnings. I think at EA, we shy away a bit from creating public-engaging content and big social media campaigns, I will be very curious to have a good case for this working, as I can imagine, e.g., other giving multipliers could follow the route. Overall a big fan of the approach you have been taking with your communications lately. I am hoping it really will hype effective giving and get more pledgers to emerge in the long run.

Sorry, I don't have time to read the article, is Anima International not building something like this already?

Thank you Joy, this means a lot to the whole CE Team <3 

Thank you for posting this, Joey. I think people too often talk about things like this in the abstract, not knowing the realities of the market. Two considerations I have when considering salary:

1. Counterfactuals: Money, at the end of the day, is a limited resource. When considering the counterfactuals, I personally would feel unethical accepting a super high salary from CE, as I think the counterfactual of this money would be, e.g., one less high-impact organization being founded. In the early days, some of our charities started with just $25K-$50K grants; I can't imagine myself using this money for my salary. Some people say, "Give founders more money for their salaries," but what if this money means one less highly-impactful organization (like LEEP, FEM, FWI) not being started? As the donor would choose to make sure a person has an EA-standard salary and not put the money into starting another organization? There is significant flexibility in terms of what the salary will be in different countries and circumstances (e.g., one of the co-founders having dependents), but if this is secured (the needs of the founder are secured), then every additional dollar needs to be thought of in counterfactuals. And this is how most of the CE community thinks.
2. What It Takes to Live a Good Life Money-wise: People think CE staff are paid small salaries, while I, as CE Staff, am paid a London market-rate salary + I receive benefits like a small donation bonus, equipment allowance, and training allowance. I feel overall very happy. I mean, with an average market salary, you can live a super good life in London: rent a room, save for retirement, help your mom in Poland, and go to theatres and Billie Eilish concerts :). So this is a very lavish lifestyle compared to the people and animals we're helping.

This is super exciting and very much needed. Farmed animal welfare is still super neglected, funding is far too small, and there are not enough EAs working on this cause area. Hopefully, we all can help in getting this book a lot of hype, so maybe it will even inspire new people to join the movement. 
 

I asked ChatGPT about this: 
"In general, a country within the European Union (EU) cannot unilaterally ban a specific type of food that has been approved for sale and consumption in the EU. EU food regulations are set at the EU level and are designed to create a single market for food products, with a high level of protection for human health and consumer interests.

However, there are some limited circumstances in which a country may be able to restrict or ban certain types of food within its borders. For example, if a specific food product poses a significant risk to human health, a member state may be able to take emergency measures to restrict or ban its sale. In such cases, the country must provide scientific evidence to demonstrate that the measure is necessary and proportionate to address the identified risk.

Furthermore, countries may impose additional labeling requirements or other restrictions on food products for reasons such as cultural or ethical considerations. For example, some EU countries have banned or restricted the sale of certain types of meat that are produced using particular methods, such as foie gras or halal or kosher meat, for animal welfare or religious reasons.

In any case, any measures taken by a member state must comply with EU law, and if they are found to be in breach of EU law, the European Commission may take action against the country in question."

I wonder if they can use "cultural/ethical" for this. But probably that would be a big stretch?