I'm disappointed that this article excluded big groups making measurable improvements to "other people"'s lives, like The Gates Foundation and charities recomme

I'm disappointed that this article excluded big groups making measurable improvements to "other people"'s lives, like The Gates Foundation and charities recommended by GiveWell (which include GiveDirectly, Against Malaria Foundation, and more). In fact, the author went one step further and calls out the harm caused by specific charitable missteps. This is unfair since missteps in charity can occur all the same at home: you need to follow economic and social research to avoid them, but once you do you'll be well set to be at worst neutral. I get where the article is coming from--there are plenty of complex issues at home that we're far more in-tune to understand and solve--but the content is biased against supporting groups that we know how to help in huge ways, and that Americans actually neglect in favor of close-to-home charities anyway (donations don't tend to leave US borders).