If Wisconsin is trading cheese with Ohio, and then Michigan becomes much better at producing cheese, this can harm the economy of Wisconsin. It should not be possible for Wisconsin to be harmed by trading with Michigan unless something weird is going on.
Was "Wisconsin" supposed to be "Ohio" in the second sentence? Or are you contrasting between Wisconsin trading with Ohio and Wisconsin trading with Michigan?
This is silly
Perhaps
then you ought to focus predominantly on something else
This does not seem inconsistent with the post. (Contributing $1 per day towards something hardly seems to preclude focusing predominantly on other things.) Do you disagree with that?
It seems that classifiers trained on adversarial examples may be finding (more) conservative concept boundaries:
We also found that the weights of the learned model changed significantly, with the weights of the adversarially trained model being significantly more localized and interpretable
Benquo Given your analysis, I'm surprised by your vote of 50%. You took what was given as a conservative estimate, added in additional moderating factors, and still got a 10x margin of safety. Is this just because of a strong prior towards discounting cost effectiveness estimates?
How much would one have to donate for you to be 90% sure that it would offset the cost of eating meat?
1For counterpoint, see: http://effective-altruism.com/ea/ry/ethical_offsetting_is_antithetical_to_ea/.
For reference, Lewis Bollard estimates that recent corporate cage-free campaigns "will spare about 250 hens a year of cage confinement per dollar spent."
So I suppose I should attempt a real reply.
I think:
- information hazards should be avoided
- people should be allowed to develop opinions in private so that they can think freely
- there's tremendous value in public discussions (where ideas can be evaluated by and/or spread to many people)
1But I do think it is a good question.
Nm, the longer explanation later in the page answered my question.