AnnaSalamon28 February 2010 01:29:13PM6 points [-]

Checks are counted from the date they are written and mailed, not the date they are received. So your check will bring matching Challenge funds with it. Thank you.

On a related note, if anyone works at a company that offers matching donations, such as Google or Boeing or Microsoft, your company's matching donation counts with the date your donation was made (regardless of the lag in when your company makes it; donations made previous to the challenge have their company matches not count, and donations made during the challenge do have their company matches count). So it isn't too late to mail checks or do company matches.

AnnaSalamon27 February 2010 08:58:38AM8 points [-]

The Future of Humanity Institute.

AnnaSalamon10 February 2010 07:09:27PM10 points [-]

Wait. Steven0461 points out that which firm answer we get, if we do manage to get one, might depend on framing. It may be better to think through the email first.

AnnaSalamon02 February 2010 06:49:17AM4 points [-]

Rolf, even if you don't care about karma, it might be good practice to keep LW visibly about rationality, and so to briefly recap the relevance of this post to LW and rationality (via its history with komposito's post), rather than have it appear that Amanda Knox or other current events are interesting here in their own right.

Though I understand if you don't have time.

AnnaSalamon02 February 2010 06:01:57AM7 points [-]

It seems on topic to me; Rolf is responding to a previous post that claimed that rationality shows us something about world events. Rolf is disputing the claim.

I haven't followed the Amanda Knox case at all, or even its discussion on LW, but I'm interested now in the outcome because it bears on how much we can trust priors over court rooms, and on how good the LW community's previous judgment was.

(Rolf, though, maybe you could spell out something of its rationality relevance in your opening few lines? I know this from private discussion with you, only.)

AnnaSalamon15 December 2009 04:13:48AM5 points [-]

Anna Salamon posted a great report - as a comment in a discussion thread most potential SIAI donors will never read. My request to have it reposted on the SIAI blog was ignored. This is not the way to attract more donors, people. Not necessarily even the way to keep old ones.

Sorry, Kaj. We have been working on a more fleshed out "what we've done, what we're doing, and what more money would let us do" webpage, which should be up within the next week. We have had a large a backlog of worthwhile activities and a comparative shortage of already trained person-hours, lately. Part of the idea in the visiting fellows program.

AnnaSalamon07 December 2009 06:16:08AM0 points [-]

I'm sorry; I still haven't responded to many of them. Somewhere in the 1-3 days range for an initial response, probably.

AnnaSalamon04 December 2009 03:48:03AM* 1 point [-]

In practice, enough of us retain online library access through our former universities that we can reach the articles we need reasonably easily. Almost everything is online.

If this ceases to be the case, we'll probably buy library privileges through Stanford, San Jose State, or another nearby university.

AnnaSalamon03 December 2009 11:53:28PM0 points [-]

Yes

AnnaSalamon02 December 2009 09:44:09PM* 1 point [-]

Yes, those seem worth doing.

Re: the national olympiad training camps, my guess is that it is easier to talk if an alumnus of the program recommends us. We know alumni of the US math olympiad camp, and the US computing olympiad camp, but to my knowledge we don't know alumni from any of the other countries or from other subjects. Do you have connections there, Alex? Anyone else?

View more: Next