Perhaps the reference is to "nutritional yeast", which are all dead, and won't impact your gut bacteria aside from being provided with more nutrients.

If you refer to "fish" rather than a particular species (or at least to "red fish" vs "white fish"?) then I have to wonder which varieties you've tried. There are significant enough differences between tuna, cod, salmon, and tilapia, for instance, that I would not be surprised to find a person whose liked/disliked any combination of the four.

Do all kinds of fish have the same health effects, BTW? What about molluscs and crustaceans?

On eating more fish: How worried should I be about mercury poisoning? Is it worthwhile to carefully select fish for low mercury content?

For instance, one guy on /r/fitness reports that 2 cans of chunk light tuna a day gave him mercury poisoning; while you're not recommending that much fish, I'd expect that health detriments appear long before full-blown mercury poisoning.

(I'm not expecting you in particular to tell me this, I just want to know if someone on LW has already done this research.)

I have a general heuristic in my diet of "if you need to process ten thousand of something to get the amount you want to eat, don't do that."

So a McDonalds hamburger is "unprocessed" meat, then?

As far as I can tell, I don't subvocalize while reading English.

All of these "what you should do if you are a utilitarian" articles should start with "Assuming you are a being for whom utility matters roughly equally regardless of who experiences it..."

Yes! Thank you for articulating in one sentence what I haven't been able to in a dozen posts.

For in-person meetups, it's helpful to list the location in the title of the post.

I think adoption needs to be delved into into a lot more detail. Rachels Paper only briefly mentions adoption:

First, it will say nothing about adoption. Adoptive parents do not conceive their children and thus do not "have children” in the sense relevant to my argument. (In another, perfectly normal sense, adoptive parents do of course have children.)

My wife and I are fairly well off, so over the course of our life, I would not be surprised if we could potentially give hundreds of thousands of dollars to charities. We are also going to be having our first in person, pre-adoption meeting with a adoption social worker this weekend. If we do adopt a child, we will likely spend that hundreds of thousands of dollars on the child and not on the charities.

So in terms of impact, now would be a VERY impactful time for me to hear any and all arguments for and against this being moral, immoral, or morally neutral, and I feel a bit let down the paper just sort of glosses over this.

Please don't worry about personally offending me! I'll even call Crocker's rules.

What kind of gaming the system were you thinking of?

Yeah, bidding = deception. But in addition to someonewrong's answer, I was thinking you could just end up doing a shitty job at things (e.g. cleaning the bathroom). Which is to say, if this were an actual labor market, and not a method of communicating between people who like each other and have outside-the-market reasons to cooperate, the market doesn't have much competition.