Interesting, I had not thought about things this way before.

It seems uncontroversial that we should value assets which can be used over the long term more highly then those which can't, all else being equal, but I mostly see people modeling this by amortizing them with some constant discount rate. I am vaguely aware of that accountants instead classify expenses as opex vs. capex but honestly couldn't explain to you why that's better.

I guess you are saying that it is useful to do so because, heuristically, you should prefer to cut investment in opex before cutting investment in capex?

Thanks for doing this investigation, and also thanks to CAIS for making a website which lets people easily do this kind of investigation/replication!

Thanks! That context is helpful.

Thanks! For what it's worth, the thing you are describing seems consistent with describing EAs as "teammates" (I also think that sports teams are successful ~entirely because of the work of their constituent team members) but I concede that the term is vague.

Thanks! See my response to Michael for some thoughts on diminishing returns.

10x increase in labor leading to 3x increase in impact feels surprising to me. At least in the regime of ~2xing supply I doubt returns diminish that quickly. But I haven't thought about this deeply and I agree that there is some rate of diminishing marginal returns which would make marginal growth net negative.

Note: I'm no longer at CEA, thoughts my own.

But if CEA cannot or will not do this, I think it should change its name.

I feel kind of confused about the point you are making here. CEA is the Centre for Effective Altruism, not the Center for Effective Altruists. This is fairly different from many community building organizations; e.g. Berkeley Seniors' mission is to help senior citizens in Berkeley per se (rather than advance some abstract idea which seniors residing in Berkeley happen to support).

I can't tell if you 

1. Disagree that CEA differs from many community building organizations in this way
2. Agree that it differs but disagree that it should
3. Agree that it differs but feel like this difference is small/pedantic and not worth highlighting
4. Agree that it differs but disagree that "customer vs. team" is a useful way to describe this difference
5. Something else?

 Are OP staff planning to make any comments about grants they would counterfactually have recommended to GV, without this policy change?

 My guess is that myself and other donors would potentially be interested in funding these.

Thanks for doing this research!

Provide feedback whenever possible, particularly if a candidate has gone through multiple interviews and/or work tests.

I expect that a major reason employers don't like doing this is because hiring is a very imperfect science. Even the best hiring processes regularly result in rejecting qualified applicants for pretty stupid reasons.

I'm curious if you had any interviewees who received feedback that they thought was dumb and how it influenced their perception of the employer? I have a vague sense that people do actually feel better after having been informed that they were rejected for an arbitrary/ stupid reason, but I'm not sure if this is actually true.

I'm very excited about this work, congratulations on the launch!

Thanks sorry,  should be fixed now.