In abstract algebra, group theory studies the algebraic structures known as groups. The concept of a group is central to abstract algebra: other well-known algebraic structures, such as rings, fields, and vector spaces, can all be seen as groups endowed with additional operations and axioms.
I got a degree in it, so I know a few things.
this doesn’t mean math is wrong
The application of a model to a set of data which fails to predict outcomes reliably is “Wrong Math”.
The big problem with EAs is empirical. They don’t deliver on their promises.
The misuse of mosquito nets for fishing is bad, yes – and depressingly ironic – but you should check out the Against Malaria Foundation’s response
The distribution of nets had failed to yield the promised benefits. I site the misuse as a very prominent example of how EAs misjudge externalities, but its one data point in a much broader picture.
If you really want to drop the hammer on EAs - particularly chronic fraudsters like SBF and the Zuckerberg CZI - it is that they’re fair more interested in self-enrichment than altruism in the basic sense.
I cite the mosquito netting distribution effects as a very straightforward calculation error, because it is at least superficially a sincere effort with lackluster results. But once you get under the tip of the iceberg, EAs are as riddled with con-artists and bullshitters as any Clinton Foundation or UN Food for Oil initiative.
Please explain. I took a few courses in group theory, ring theory, etc., though I was never particularly good at it. How does it relate to probability?
Zuckerberg/CZI are not EA, and SBF was disowned by EA. It’s not obvious to me that SBF was not interested in altruism, I think he was just catastrophically bad at it.
Sure, let me just dust off my notes from a decade ago.
How does it relate to probability?
It has to do with the available range of outputs given all available inputs. And the degree to which iterative actions can have a feedback effect.
But the math on this kind of thing gets hairy fast.
Zuckerberg/CZI are not EA, and SBF was disowned by EA.
Zuckerberg hires from the community and its affiliates. Sarah Wynn-Williams being an excellent example.
SBF being disowned after he went broke is hardly a point in the movement’s favor.
AMF stopped 20 million cases of malaria in 2023.
The impact of these nets is expected to be
FFS, they printed this in November of 2023. Really getting out ahead of your skis, when you’re a data driven organization that’s making claims on total reduction in cases before the period is even closed.
To date, I can find no evidence of a 10% drop in malaria cases in any of the targeted countries between '22 and '23.
On the contrary, the WHO reports an 11M case rise from the prior year. Neither have we seen a plunge in cases in '24 or the Q1 & Q2 of '25.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_theory
I got a degree in it, so I know a few things.
The application of a model to a set of data which fails to predict outcomes reliably is “Wrong Math”.
The big problem with EAs is empirical. They don’t deliver on their promises.
The distribution of nets had failed to yield the promised benefits. I site the misuse as a very prominent example of how EAs misjudge externalities, but its one data point in a much broader picture.
If you really want to drop the hammer on EAs - particularly chronic fraudsters like SBF and the Zuckerberg CZI - it is that they’re fair more interested in self-enrichment than altruism in the basic sense.
I cite the mosquito netting distribution effects as a very straightforward calculation error, because it is at least superficially a sincere effort with lackluster results. But once you get under the tip of the iceberg, EAs are as riddled with con-artists and bullshitters as any Clinton Foundation or UN Food for Oil initiative.
That’s the wages of unilateralism in a nutshell.
Please explain. I took a few courses in group theory, ring theory, etc., though I was never particularly good at it. How does it relate to probability?
Zuckerberg/CZI are not EA, and SBF was disowned by EA. It’s not obvious to me that SBF was not interested in altruism, I think he was just catastrophically bad at it.
AMF stopped 20 million cases of malaria in 2023.
Sure, let me just dust off my notes from a decade ago.
It has to do with the available range of outputs given all available inputs. And the degree to which iterative actions can have a feedback effect.
But the math on this kind of thing gets hairy fast.
Zuckerberg hires from the community and its affiliates. Sarah Wynn-Williams being an excellent example.
SBF being disowned after he went broke is hardly a point in the movement’s favor.
FFS, they printed this in November of 2023. Really getting out ahead of your skis, when you’re a data driven organization that’s making claims on total reduction in cases before the period is even closed.
To date, I can find no evidence of a 10% drop in malaria cases in any of the targeted countries between '22 and '23.
On the contrary, the WHO reports an 11M case rise from the prior year. Neither have we seen a plunge in cases in '24 or the Q1 & Q2 of '25.