It should be mentioned that Eliezer's last (known) big release Inadequate Equilibria was pretty much a correction of pathological outside-viewing. The thrust can be summed up as "sometimes you can't beat the market, sometimes you can, it's important to know which situation you're in instead of just pathetically assuming the former all of the time."

Are you actually looking for the "watch later" feature..

I noticed the subtle background forces that whisper (at least to blue tribe members in their youth) "phylogenetic classification is the one true way to organize life forms", and rejected its claim.

I still can't guess why that bothers you :/ When I try to imagine the motivations of this shadowy conspiracy of elites who quietly manipulated the anglosphere into always maintaining separate concepts for fish and cetaceans, I just see a desire to teach us about how special and cool cetaceans are.

Another point is that most people strongly value existence/non-existence additionally to the quality and 'probability' of existence

Mm, agreed. We're fans of quantities, rather than qualities, so I may have been underrecognizing this.

Humans clearly have special concerns about not existing at all, that extend beyond the linear concern for merely existing less. A quantum multiverse (or maybe even just a physically large multiverse, with chance recurrences) would soundly and naturally decrease a human's aversion to death, to some extent.

but would then go on to use the phrase to refer to parts of masculinity which are not clearly problematic

I think this is usually is a disagreement about which parts of masculinity are problematic. Their position might be really ignorant and hateful, but I think it's sincere.

Youtube lets you access your viewing history through your "library" (or in the web version, probably it's in the sidebar)

I wish I could figure out what factor divided people into these two language groups. For one there is toxic masculinity and there is non-toxic (or just ordinary) masculinity. For another, uttering "toxic masculinity" directly means "all masculinity is toxic". I do not know how they came apart.

You haven't really stated that she's putting all that much energy into this (implied, I guess), but I'd see nothing wrong with having a moral stance about literally everything but still prioritizing your activity in healthy ways, judging this, maybe even arguing vociferously for it, for about 10 minutes, before getting back to work and never thinking about it again.

I don't like that one either, it usually reflects a lack of imagination. They're talking about the purposes we can think of now, they usually know nothing about the purposes we will find, once we have it, which haven't been invented yet.

Public funding seems especially easy to make truly democratic (proportionate to the needs of the voters, without majoritarian dynamics, additive), so it's weird to me that it took cryptocurrencies for it to start to happen.