4 ms·

I didn't and don't have an opinion about it. Like everyone else here, I don't have enough information to reach a conclusion, let alone a high-confidence one. T

I didn't and don't have an opinion about it. Like everyone else here, I don't have enough information to reach a conclusion, let alone a high-confidence one. The comment I linked to was a reminder that none of us have anywhere near enough information to evaluate this decision. We'd need at least some idea how frequently they expect to use it, the alternatives, the predicted benefits of a high-end venue, and so on. A productive comment would ask questions ("I wonder how they estimated…", "I hope they share more information about…"), not try to turn relatively little information into an opinion.

polygamous_bat 4y ago
> I didn't and don't have an opinion about it. Like everyone else here, I don't have enough information to reach a conclusion, let alone a high-confidence one. This seems to be a few (shaky, IMO) premises. 1. EA the organization (not the philosophy) are made of people who are adept at doing risk-reward calculation. This is the premise I find most suspicious given their recent record of blowing wild axioms out of proportion and blowing up their own face by suckering up too much to the FTX money without realizing the risk. 2. The people in the org are in it for actually doing good instead self aggrandization, a sin they blame most charities for. I find it more suspicious that somehow the world gathered a few angels in human form in one place, and more plausible that it's the classic "oh that guy is shady, listen to me" variant of the scam. Am I cynical? Maybe. But the evidence here supports me. Which leads me to the final point, circumstantial evidence. In a third world country where I grew up, if my region had a large flood that brought in a lot of charitable donations, and the next week the local politician showed up in a new SUV, we didn't debate all that you're arguing. If it quacks like corruption and walks like corruption, it's probably corruption and not some 357-dimensional chess by the most brilliant minds of our generation.

polygamous_bat 4y ago

> I didn't and don't have an opinion about it. Like everyone else here, I don't have enough information to reach a conclusion, let alone a high-confidence one. This seems to be a few (shaky, IMO) premises. 1. EA the organization (not the philosophy) are made of people who are adept at doing risk-reward calculation. This is the premise I find most suspicious given their recent record of blowing wild axioms out of proportion and blowing up their own face by suckering up too much to the FTX money without realizing the risk. 2. The people in the org are in it for actually doing good instead self aggrandization, a sin they blame most charities for. I find it more suspicious that somehow the world gathered a few angels in human form in one place, and more plausible that it's the classic "oh that guy is shady, listen to me" variant of the scam. Am I cynical? Maybe. But the evidence here supports me. Which leads me to the final point, circumstantial evidence. In a third world country where I grew up, if my region had a large flood that brought in a lot of charitable donations, and the next week the local politician showed up in a new SUV, we didn't debate all that you're arguing. If it quacks like corruption and walks like corruption, it's probably corruption and not some 357-dimensional chess by the most brilliant minds of our generation.