This reddit thread has the claim:

Something related that you CAN do, and that is more likely to make a difference, is not ever to heat up plastic in a microwave, wash it in a dishwasher, or cook with plastic utensils. Basically, the softening agents in a lot of plastics aren't chemically bonded to the rest of the polymers, and heating the plastic makes those chemicals ready to leach into whatever food contacts them. That's a huge class of chemicals, none of which are LD-50-level dangerous, but many of which have been associated with hormonal changes, microbiome issues, and a whole host of other stuff that fits in the general category of "Why do organisms work differently than they did 100 years ago?"

Notably this is about plasticizers, a different thing than microplastics.

One question I have that might be relatively tractable: if I'm using plastic containers for leftovers, how much difference is there between

1. Store in the container, put on plate to microwave and eat.
2. Store and microwave in the container, put on plate to eat.
3. Who needs a plate anyway? Just eat from the container.

The bit about plastic chopping boards kind of hints that (3) might give a lot more microplastics than (2)? But you're probably less violent to the container than the chopping board.

We suggest these low-hanging actions one can take to reduce their quantity exposure:

a. Stop using plastic bottles and plastic food storage containers,

b. Stop using plastic cutting boards,

For people who didn't read the rough notes dumps: it seems like (b) is a way bigger effect size than (a).

There are 3 people. Each person announces an integer. The smallest unique integer wins: e.g. if your opponents both pick 1, you win with any number. If all 3 pick the same number, the winner is picked randomly

Question: what’s the Nash equilibrium?

(I assume this is meant to be natural numbers or positive ints? Otherwise I don't think there is a nash equilibrium.)

So it is. Other than that, the remaining details I needed were:

2740 Telegraph Ave, Berkeley
94705
habryka@lightconeinfrastructure.com
Oliver Habryka

Assuming all went well, I just donated £5,000 through the Anglo-American charity, which should become about (£5000 * 1.25 * 96% = £6000 ≈ $7300) to lightcone.

I had further questions to their how to give page, so:

• You can return the forms by email, no need to post them. (I filled them in with Firefox's native "draw/write on this pdf" feature, handwriting my signature with a mouse.)
• If donating by bank transfer, you send the money to "anglo-american charity limited", not "anglo-american charitable foundation".
• For lightcone's contact details I asked on LW intercom. Feels rude to put someone's phone number here, so if you're doing the same as me, I'm not gonna save you that step.

E: and all does seem to have gone well. I got an email on Jan 25 confirming they'd passed $7260 on to Lightcone.

not sure if that would be legit for gift aid purposes

Based on https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charities-detailed-guidance-notes/chapter-3-gift-aid#chapter-344-digital-giving-and-social-giving-accounts, doing this the naive way (one person collects money and gives it to the charity, everyone shares the tax rebate) is explicitly forbidden. Which makes sense, or everyone with a high income friend would have access to the 40% savings.

Not clear to me whether it would be allowed if the charity is in on it and everyone fills in their own gift aid declaration. But that's extra steps for all parties.

Thanks - I think GWWC would be fewer steps for me, but if that's not looking likely then one of these is plausible.

(I wonder if it would be worth a few of us pooling money to get both "lower fees" and "less need to deal with orgs who don't just let you click some buttons to say where you want the money to go", but not sure if that would be legit for gift aid purposes.)

That's not really "concrete" feedback though, right? In the outcome game/consensus game dynamic Stephen's talking about, it seems hard to play an outcome game with that kind of feedback.

Beyond being an unfair and uninformed dismissal

Why do you think it's uninformed? John specifically says that he's taking "this work is trash" as background and not trying to convince anyone who disagrees. It seems like because he doesn't try, you assume he doesn't have an argument?

it risks unnecessarily antagonizing people

I kinda think it was necessary. (In that, the thing ~needed to be written and "you should have written this with a lot less antagonism" is not a reasonable ask.)