= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TimFreeman comments on Mini-camp on Rationality, Awesomeness, and Existential Risk (May 28 through June 4, 2011) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (84)
If they canceled the program and kept the money, they would not be honoring the targeted donation, and it would give a different outcome from buying and donating plane tickets. I can imagine lots of things that could conceivably happen that would force them to cancel the program. None of them seem especially likely.
I will donate the amount without earmarking it. It will fill the gap taken by the cost to send someone to the event.
I don't see a lot of value in earmarking funds for the SIAI. I'm working on a document about SIAI finances and from reading the Form 990s I believe they use their funds efficiently. Given my low knowledge of their internal workings and low knowledge of their immediate and medium term goals I would bet that they would be better at figuring out the best use of the money than I would be. Earmarking would increase the chance the money is used inefficiently, not decrease it.
Yes. In general, earmarking is a hideous pain in the backside for charities and leads to great inefficiency thinking about how to deal with this radioactive donation. If the donation is sufficiently large it may be worth it, but it's still a nuisance.
Simple heuristic: if you trust a charity enough to donate to them, just donate and leave them to figure out what to do with it. Don't try to micromanage.