throwaway1326

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by throwaway1326 4y ago

   Yeah I can't really defend that. But this was probably how they convinced themselves it was "effective".
2. 2.▲
   by throwaway1326 4y ago

   I wouldn't argue there's a difference except that "EA" taken as a whole probably has way less overhead than Susan G. Komen (for example). If (if!) a breast cancer charity running ads drastically increases the amount of m
3. 3.▲
   by throwaway1326 4y ago

   Probably the main goal is minting more EAs. If 10% of program participants are convinced to be EAs and 10% of EAs donate 10% of their income[1], every participant is worth 0.1% of the lifetime earnings of the average participant (probably a
4. 4.▲
   by throwaway1326 4y ago

   A perhaps relevant parable: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-prophet-and-caesar...