I would also expect extraneous details like, "got sick and fell of the wagon" or similar to add significant noise. And with only one data point each, it'd be hard to know the variance to use. I'm guess I'd trust this study more?

To be clear I don't know what I'm doing really. I do think that it failed to get the precise thing I was looking for though.

🙇‍♂️

"Cruxy" is a useful term to have in my vocabulary. I use it relatively loosely to refer to the type of thing I look for in a double crux. A consideration is more "cruxy" if it's closer to a but-for support for a proposition. Interestingly (mildly) this is very similar to the definition of "crucial," and in fact the etymologies are the same.

The California vibes in that video are immaculate. Even mentioning Windham Hill Records!

I'm a big fan of land reclamation, but hadn't heard of most of these barriers, thanks!

You might be interested in this "Best of LessWrong" post, Make more land.

This post is very cute. I also reference it all the time to explain the 'inverse cat tax.' you You can ask my colleagues, I definitely talk about that model a bunch. So, perhaps strangely, this is my most-referenced post of 2022. 🙃

My explanation of a model tax: this forum (and the EA Forum) really like models, so to get a post to be popular, you gotta put in a model.

I've referenced this post several times. I think the post has to balance being a straw vulcan with being unwilling to forcefully say its thesis, and I find Raemon to be surprisingly good at saying true things within that balance. It's also well-written, and a great length. Candidate for my favorite post of the year.

You might be interested in the debate here.

You get paid if Wave does well whether they like you or not.

Private companies can and do prevent people they don't like from selling stock to private buyers. So as an addition to this comment, I'd note that "the ability to cash out before an IPO 5+ years in the future" is a strong reason not to make an enemy of your former startup.