This is a good explanation of why employer donation matching makes sense, but that’s pretty different from the case we’re discussing here?
jefftk
Karma: 9,050
GiveWell Donation Matching
Auto-Downloder Chrome Extension
Kids Moving Pictures
History of counting to three?
I measured 50g of raspberries smushing to 42ml. Jam should be denser than this, though I’m not sure how much?
I don’t think this is the right way to think about it, though, because a serving isn’t primarily about volume? I think the main question is flavor. Since what I want is the flavor of the raspberries, I think looking at the percentage of fruit is the right way to do it?
Thanks!
Sorry, yes, I wasn’t trying to say that splitting things 50⁄50 is the only acceptable way to do things. I meant more like, there are a lot of people who, intellectually, want to be splitting things 50⁄50, but don’t end up doing anything close to that.
EDIT: rephrased the introduction to remove “on board”
Equal Parenting Advice for Dads
Childcare III
Handling Identical USB Sound Cards
Thinking About College Funding
Selecting the Default Browser in Facebook on Android
They are adhesive, right? Which means they are only as strong as the paint? I’m amazed that you can hang a stepladder on wall paint!
These are just the common area hooks! There are many more just inside the doors to both the upstairs and downstairs units.
I don’t know; my experience was that they took the paint off when they came off
Each of these needs just two holes, one at each end of the row of hooks, though I did two at each end to make it a bit more study. Both as a tenant and the landlord I would think that would be fine? You just take it down and spackle when you leave.
The easiest case for a charity offering donation matching, if you don’t think too hard:
Funders take money they were already going to donate to this charity, and call it matching funds. No utility loss for the funders.
Regular donors who don’t have strong charity preferences see advertising saying that this charity is offering a matching drive, view that as an opportunity for their money to go farther, and donate.
This works out well for the charity, who gets more money, and the funder, who maybe sees their money go farther. It’s not good for the regular donor, who was convinced to donate based on a false understanding of the impact.
The approach GiveWell is using tries to fix this, by making sure that the money the funders provide would not otherwise be going to anything nearly as valuable. If they are correct in that assessment, and if funders don’t change their approach in response to expecting GiveWell to want matching funds, then this seems like it can work out well for everyone. Unfortunately, I don’t think they are doing sufficient vetting to claim that the match is fully counterfactual, and I do expect funders to take into account opportunities like this in deciding how they would donate their funds “normally”.