The problem is that organizations generally do not include the article used to refer to them in their names. For example, the name of the Council on Foreign Relations is not ‘The Council on Foreign Relations’, but ‘Council on Foreign Relations’. For this reason, one should always use the definite article ‘the’ to refer to CFAR, because one’s intention is to refer to the entity so named. Saying “a Center for Applied Rationality” would invite questions like, “Wait! Are there other orgs also called ‘Center for Applied Rationality’?”

Alternatively, you could change ‘Center for Applied Rationality’ to ‘A Center for Applied Rationality’, but this would also be very strange. As mentioned, entities do not generally include the article as part of their names, but when they do, it is, to my knowledge, always the definite article (e.g., The New York Times).

My humble advice is to drop this idea. You can communicate that you are not trying to be the one canonical org on this topic in other ways.

Meta: gjm’s comment appears at the same level as comments that directly reply to Kaj’s original shortform. So until I read your own comment, I assumed they, too, were replying to Kaj. I think deleting a comment shouldn't alter the hierarchy of other comments in that thread.

I think there is a vast difference between Gerard and Kruel, not just in the damage each has caused but also in their intellectual honesty and responsiveness to argument (null in the case of Gerard, decent in the case of Kruel, at least from my recollection).

One of the biggest online threats to rational discourse, “RationalWiki”, just reached a settlement with all but one of the eight plaintiffs suing them, and deleted the corresponding biographical entries. They are also considering pre-emptively removing all their other hit pieces—countless articles that have ruined careers, stifled research, and brought entire fields of inquiry into undeserved disrepute.

I agree this looks promising and is the reason I bought long-dated SPY calls a few weeks ago (already up by 30%). But I would feel more reassured if I felt I could understand why such an opportunity persists. What is the mental state of the person on the other end of this trade?

Can you share the spreadsheet/code on which the calculations are based?

Yeah, that makes sense, especially if combined with the feature that allows users to disagree with specific parts of the post, as Michael notes. (Though note that the disagree vote is anonymous, whereas disagreeing with a selection is public, so the two aren’t fully comparable.)

This is currently at –1 despite being a carefully reasoned post on an important topic. I wonder if the downvoter(s) would have used the disagree vote instead had it been available. (More generally, it is unclear why that button is available in comments but not in posts.)

I'm still thinking about how to hedge incase the upcoming chaos turns the market sour

Have you thought more about this? How about VIX call options?

Thanks—I understand now. I thought $855 was the price SPY would reach if the current price increased by 50%.