@Benthamsbulldog I took a quick look at the underlying paper behind the "Nestle killed 10m babies" claim. It's not a good paper, I'd be very surprised if the true number of deaths is anything close to 10m. Quick write up: https://t.co/EpfdwAUupB
@notanastronomer Reminded of a terrible joke: why are quantum physicists so bad at s*x? Once they get the right position, they just can't find the momentum...
@notanastronomer Always kill electrodynamics, agreed. Quantum feels too unpredictable to marry, not sure I could be with someone who collapsed every time I looked at them. But for a fun time... I bet there are some terrible s*x jokes about "superpositions" that I'm too innocent to fully create
@elonmusk@Liv_Boeree Americans overwhelmingly favor improving conditions for farm animals, and technology holds the key to doing this while keeping food affordable and abundant. E.g. in-ovo sexing can eliminate the need to kill 6b chicks/ yr in the egg industry!
I've written a bit about how egg price jumps probably are indeed due to bird flu and not a corporate conspiracy. One thing that's sometimes hard to get is an egg shortage means that *some people have to eat fewer eggs* and prices will just keep going up until they do
People tell me health clinics are already out of antiretrovirals as those with money panic buy medicines. There are *loads* of ways that USAID could be more efficient but suddenly stopping life-saving medicines is deeply reckless and endangers lives.
I've been in rural Tanzania for the week and the USAID cuts are on everyone's lips in an area with 20%+ HIV prevalence. I spoke to one seamstress who repairs clothes for $0.40/item, worried how she would pay for anti retrovirals (~$1/day) once her current month's supply runs out.
Singer actually has a new Substack where he *does* post about exciting, large-scale, cost-effective wins for animals, just a pity the book covers so little of those big wins: https://t.co/9Fzf2PoWuL
Peter Singer's work on maximizing "good" for humans changed my life plans 10 years ago. But his updated Animal Liberation Now fails to truly bite the bullet on saving as many animals as possible, a missed opportunity. I've written a short review:
https://t.co/kMsaBqH4xc
@ryancbriggs@NathanpmYoung No knocking done! I found this exchange helpful and you made me realise that the context of the study and org incentives matter, which is really important nuance-- I'll link to our thread on a Forum comment. Nice to chat!
@ryancbriggs@NathanpmYoung Ok that definitely makes sense, I very much had in mind "Org wants to try out a new intervention that wouldn't happen outside of the RCT, and gets to keep any savings", I see that will often not be the case (but hey, when it is, fire up sqrt(c/t)!)
@ryancbriggs@NathanpmYoung Anyway, I don't mean to bang this drum too much, I get most interventions are e.g. cheap SMS interventions or textbooks, etc, and then data collection costs really do dominate
@ryancbriggs@NathanpmYoung That does still surprise me: some of those cash RCTs were $1k transfers. The one large RCT I've worked on cost $20/person for data collection. Even if the marginal data collection costs were $1k/person, the marginal treatment costs would still be 2x control, right?
@ryancbriggs@NathanpmYoung Is there something I'm missing or does this suggest the adjustment for expensive treatments might not be so commonly applied? (This both increases my sense that the idea is worth sharing work and my paranoia that there's a good reason not to do it!)