I mean that the organisers made a hard-to-implement demand that every seventh inhabitant of Washington took part in the march. If they could achieve a similar political effect by convinsing every 70th inhabitant of NYC to protest in the NYC, then why did they make the harder demand?
If it wasn’t only Washingtonians who are to participate, then the number of recruits being two OOMs less than the 100K which the MIRI team demanded is less an evidence of the team’s incompetence (edit: or of political considerations that require the protest to be arranged in Washigton) and more of the position’s weakness. While the density of those who signed the pledge wasn’t disclosed, I suspect that the protesters would have to live close to the protest’s place. For example, I find it highly unlikely that, say, an army of people from states less eastern than Texas comes into Washington to protest and goes away after the protest is over.
Setting up the commitment device today doesn’t necessarily mean the organizers expect it to happen soon.
I mean that the organisers made a hard-to-implement demand that every seventh inhabitant of Washington took part in the march. If they could achieve a similar political effect by convinsing every 70th inhabitant of NYC to protest in the NYC, then why did they make the harder demand?
Why do you think the idea is for only Washingtonians to participate?
If it wasn’t only Washingtonians who are to participate, then the number of recruits being two OOMs less than the 100K which the MIRI team demanded is less an evidence of the team’s incompetence (edit: or of political considerations that require the protest to be arranged in Washigton) and more of the position’s weakness. While the density of those who signed the pledge wasn’t disclosed, I suspect that the protesters would have to live close to the protest’s place. For example, I find it highly unlikely that, say, an army of people from states less eastern than Texas comes into Washington to protest and goes away after the protest is over.