Your own screenshot shows that  pescatarians do better than vegans (not statistically significant, but neither is the difference between vegans and omnivores). And if you break it down by sex (and continue to ignore statistical significance), veganism is the worst choice for women after unconstrained omnivorism

More of my opinion of this study here.

"Rocks for jocks" isn't a stereotype because geology is easy. It's a stereotype because rocks are heavy and field sites are far away. 

My sense is that for almost all funders, money is viewed as an input with which to save souls, rather than a terminal goal like it is for VCs. Which isn't to say there aren't financial abuses, but they genuinely feel like a departure from form, rather than especially obvious cases of something everyone is doing. 

With non-denominational churches, funders can't sack the planter, they can just decline future funding. It's not impossible they could fund a hostile takeover, but early church plants are such cults of personality with so little in assets that it wouldn't really make sense to do so- you'd rather just found another planter who can start his own cult of personality (who might buy the sound system off a failed plant). As churches get bigger there will generally be a board who might have the power to fire the pastor, and denominational churches are either subject to control by the denomination or have a board with firing power from the beginning. 

what are you noticing that smells like LLM? I only skimmed, but I didn't see anything that tripped my radar, and lawyer talk can sound a lot like LLM talk.

sure, but the fact that that's a really reasonable algorithm would not have saved the co-workers from the consequences of merging with the probably-predatory company, in the world where the company didn't happen to have an employee with the perfect anecdote. 

Listening to people demand more specifics from If Anyone Builds it, Everyone Dies gives me a similar feeling to when a friend’s start-up was considering a merger.

Friend got a bad feeling about this because the other company clearly had different goals, was more sophisticated than them, and had an opportunistic vibe. Friend didn't know how specifically other company would screw them, but that was part of the point- their company wasn't sophisticated enough to defend themselves from the other one.

Friend fought a miserable battle with their coworkers over this. They were called chicken little because they couldn’t explain their threat model, until another employee stepped in with a story of how they'd been outmaneuvered at a previous company in exactly the way friend feared but couldn't describe. Suddenly, co-workers came around on the issue. They ultimately decided against the merger.

“They’ll be so much smarter I can’t describe how they’ll beat us” can feel like a shitty argument because it’s hard to disprove, but sometimes it’s true. The debate has to be about whether a specific They will actually be that smart.

if the problem is with the receptor, taking more won't make a difference

In this video essay, Patrick Willems talks about George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola. Both of them took a huge risk in the early 80s to self-finance their own films (Empire Strikes Back and One From The Heart). Their goal was to make enough money to gain independence from the studio system and make the movies they wanted to make. 

In the short term, George Lucas was the obvious winner here, in that Empire Strikes back is one of the most popular movies of all time and it indeed granted him complete independence from the studio system. He used that freedom to make three movies nobody over the age of 8 liked, and otherwise spent his career managing a toy line. When you see him in interviews, he seems sad.

In contrast, Coppola's movie was an utter failure. But he's at 86 is still making successful, artistically meaningful, and varied movies that he's proud of. Since that essay was posted he self-funded another movie (Megalopolis), which also bombed. 

For extra poignancy, this essay is made by an aspiring film-maker who fell into criticism by accident and seems to be in a bit of a financial trap. Criticism pays well enough he can't quit, but keeping it viable requires basically all of his time.^[1]. Worse, I heartily recommend his work up to 2022 or so, but it's been downhill since then. 

1. ^{^}

   He has eked out time for two movies, and I have to imagine being a popular youtuber was better than starting from zero.

The default is that people overencourage, so here's a comment to upvote if you're not that interested in this post (including, like, a little bit interested). I'm doing this rather than agree/disgree voting because it retains more information about how many people are interested.