I find this post emotionally moving, and at the same time it offers an important insight into an overlooked part of reality.

On occasion of the 2024 review, I reread my post and I still endorse it. 

The post is conceptual. Its aim is to explain that the theory of comparative advantage only predicts mutual benefits of trade if certain conditions are fulfilled. They are likely not fulfilled in the case of interacting with an ASI. In particular, you do not have to trade with people (i.e., compensate them) if you can just force them to produce what you want, or if you can just take away their resources. Therefore, it is not justified to believe that the existence of an ASI is fine because people could trade with it. 

A year later, I still find the idea of humans trading with an ASI rather strange.

The only protagonist who spontaneously comes to mind is Sarah Connor, but maybe that is not the kind of story you meant?

but different from what you normally do

The previous exercise already contains the words "radically different". Would you elaborate on what you mean by the question 3?

Very interesting and actionable guide.

I have two questions (maybe I'll have more later):

• Is it possible that the government shuts down bitwarden, or the country where someone who uses bitwarden blocks it, and then the user loses accessto all passwords?
• Why proton authenticator and not bitwarden authenticator?

I really welcome the announcement that CFAR is restarting. When I attended a workshop, I liked the participants, the lecturers, the atmosphere, and the impact of committing time to work on problems that participants had previously procrastinated. That said, a bunch of thoughts and questions:

• I am not sure whether there is really some specific "rationality magic" about these workshops. The CFAR technique collection contains cool techniques, but it does not really feel that different from what you might do in time-management/micro-habits/GTD/whatever workshop combined with some things that seem like group coaching, psychological process consulting or things that at least feel a little woo.
• There might be a specific group dynamic going on in these workshops that has to do with the commitment atmosphere, self-expectations, selection effects, the payment of $ 5000. This may get some people to become productive or whatever, but I assume it can also be unhealthy to others (note that not all unhealthy developments are on the level of psychosis or mania or whatever).
• I attended a free workshop in Prague in 2022. So maybe some of the effects were different there. Nonetheless, I would like to know what insights you generated with those workshops (assuming that that was evaluated systematically). I think they were held for generating data.
• It seems positive that "circling" is not mentioned as a “CFAR classic”.

I think even that signature tagline version does not work so well, as people who do not know it would possibly not understand that you are referring to a specific organization. It would at least need to be 

"Anna from 

CFAR - a center for ..."

Sorry if I was not clear enough but what you write is what I meant as well.

I agree that our metabolism is adapted to eating a mixed diet, but that mostly means that you should not blindly delete animal products from your diet. It is theoretically possible that you can replace animal products with other things, given that we live in a technologically different society. Of course you can say "we do not know what to replace on the micro level", or make Chesterton's Fence arguments, but then it is a bit unclear to what kind of diet we should "return". You can make the adapted-metabolism argument about any selective diet. Maybe we have to eat Offal because our ancestors did, or eat chicken soup because my aunt did that, because these things contain very important things we do not fully understand. Or maybe our ancestors had to eat these things because they were efficient ways to get protein and fat into their bodies, and we consume enough of that already and too much of the bad things we do not fully understand that they also contain. So the adaptation argument alone is not enough.

Not to mention that of all of the hunter gatherer tribes ever studied, there has never been a single vegetarian group discovered. Not. A. Single. One. 

I think this does not prove as much as the "Not. A. Single. One." part seems to try to hammer home to the reader. It merely shows that people that evolve under conditions of scarcity and extremely low technology do not get a strong evolutionary benefit from excluding animals from their diet. But do vegans in general assume the opposite? Additionally, India might be a relevant case study here, because vegetarianism seems to have been common there for a long time.