Scott creates a philosophical fiction where multiple characters named John Rawls explore the veil of ignorance through a drug that simulates living other people's lives, spiraling through nested realities until ending with a disturbing twist about karma and moral desert.

Scott analyzes why people support government-funded foreign aid instead of donating voluntarily, examining and critiquing several theories including virtue signaling, coordination problems, and time-inconsistent preferences.

Scott Alexander criticizes Tyler Cowen and others for misrepresenting USAID's funding model, explaining how regranting through other charities is both necessary and effective despite seeming inefficient to outsiders.

Scott reflects on how COVID-19's massive death toll of 1.2 million Americans has been overshadowed in public discourse by more controversial but less significant aspects of the pandemic.

Scott Alexander critiques Lyman Stone's arguments against Effective Altruism, defending the movement's impact, methodology, and philosophical foundations.

Scott Alexander introduces an impact market for unfunded ACX Grants proposals, allowing investors to crowdfund projects with potential returns in Manifund dollars.

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his capitalism vs charity post, clarifying his argument and addressing various counterpoints and suggested capitalist charities.

Scott Alexander compares the marginal impact of capitalism vs. charity, finding that traditional charity often seems more effective despite capitalism's historical success.

Scott Alexander announces the 2024 ACX Grants program, detailing its structure, funding, and new optional 'impact market' component for charitable and scientific projects.

Scott Alexander defends effective altruism against Freddie deBoer's criticism, arguing for its distinctiveness, practical value, and positive marginal effects.

Scott Alexander defends effective altruism by highlighting its major accomplishments and arguing that its occasional missteps are outweighed by its positive impact on the world.

A diverse collection of links and brief comments on recent developments in science, technology, politics, and society, ranging from climate change to AI developments to social experiments.

Scott Alexander defends Effective Altruism by presenting it as a 'tower of assumptions,' arguing that critics often miss its core principles of systematic giving and maximizing impact.

Scott Alexander discusses the technical implementation details of impact markets for charity funding, exploring various options and challenges.

Scott Alexander shares his experiences and challenges in running a microgrants program, offering insights and advice for others considering similar initiatives.

The review analyzes Orwell's 'Down and Out in Paris and London', praising its vivid depictions of poverty while noting some limitations in perspective.

Scott Alexander provides updates on coronavirus trends, discusses various pandemic-related topics, and analyzes different countries' responses and policy proposals.

Scott Alexander responds to comments on billionaire philanthropy, addressing criticisms while ultimately defending its net positive impact and arguing to protect the most effective charitable efforts.

Scott Alexander argues against criticism of billionaire philanthropy, citing its efficiency, positive impact, and ability to support important causes that governments often neglect.

Scott Alexander reviews the EA Hotel, a project offering free accommodation to effective altruists in Blackpool, England, discussing its potential benefits and challenges.

A fictional G.K. Chesterton essay defends AI risk concerns against criticisms, arguing that seemingly fantastical ideas often become reality and that contemplating the infinite leads to practical progress.

Scott Alexander argues that effective altruism should be wary of pursuing systemic change, as it risks wasting resources and alienating supporters.

Scott discusses the challenge of incorporating animal welfare into effective altruism, proposing a balanced approach to expand moral circles while preserving sanity.

Scott Alexander argues that donating 10% of income to effective charities is a more impactful way to do good than political activism, and recommends joining Giving What We Can.

Ozy argues for diversifying charitable donations, while Scott counters that focusing on the single most efficient charity at any given time is more effective.