We don't need most donors to make decisions based on the considerations in this post, we need a single high-profile media outlet to notice that the interesting fact that the same few hundred names keep showing up on the lists of donors to candidates with particular positions on AI.  The coalition doesn't need to be large in an absolute sense; it just needs to be recognizably something you can point to when talking to a "DC person" and they'll go, "oh, yeah, those people".  (This is already the case!  Just, uh, arguably in a bad way, instead of a good way.)

People don't explore enough.

I think this is true for almost everyone, on the current margin.  Different frames and techniques help different people.  And so, curated!  Let us have our ~annual reminder to actually try to solve our problems, instead of simply suffering with them.

1 minute and 10 turns of an allen key later, it was fixed. 

Also important to remember that some problems can literally be solved in one minute.  (You, the person reading this - is there something you keep forgetting to buy on Amazon to solve a problem you're dealing with?)

Nit: if it was common enough for people within a specific coalition to donate to candidates of both parties due to their single-issue concern, one might imagine that it would lose a lot of its strength as a negative signal (except maybe with the current admin, which as you note is very loyalty-focused).

I agree; many of those concerns seem fairly dominated by the question of how to get a well-aligned ASI, either in the sense that they'd be quite difficult to solve in reasonable timeframes, or in the sense that they'd be rendered moot.  (Perhaps not all of them, though even in those cases I think the correct approach(es) to tackling them start out looking remarkably similar to the sorts of work you might do about AI risk if you had a lot more time than we seem to have right now.)

Oh, unfortunate.  Will think about how to reconcile those, then.

Yeah, you click the "paragraph" dropdown and change it to one of the heading options while having your cursor on the relevant line of text.

@Raemon and I have shipped some improvements to the editor experience.

The two major changes displayed above are:

1. @Raemon cleaned up the options at the bottom of the editor.  They used to look like this:
    

   

2. I implemented a basic command palette, available both in the post and comment editor.  To open it, press ctrl/cmd + shift + p (same as the VSCode keybinding), or ctrl/cmd + /, because the first keybinding is "open an incognito window" on Firefox.  The goal is to improve the discoverability and accessibility of various editor features, some of which previously required you to open the toolbar to use.
   
   It behaves the same way as most other command palettes - esc to exit, up/down arrow to cycle, enter to execute the selected command, and also shows you the native keybindings for executing any given command.

Another minor QoL improvement is the right-click behavior in the editor.  Previously, the only reliable way to open the inline toolbar was to manually highlight some text.  If you tried to right-click to open the toolbar, this would happen to you:

Now it's this:

(Note that most of the functionality inside of the toolbar is either trivial or available more easily via the command palette - I guess it's now easier to convert something to a heading, block quote, or list?)

As always, let us know if you run into problems, or have other thoughts on the changes.

Thanks for the report, this should be fixed now.

(Also, to clarify, we were already on React - it's mostly other bits of framework glue that got tossed out/replaced/etc.)