talking about something "at scale" has weird effects to it. if i say something "at scale", you might think i mean largest % of population, but in doing so i sort of gloss over the fact that <10th percentile is the most expensive to address.

eg, "if i can serve 8 out of 10 requests, who cares about the other 2", but i ignore the content of those requests.

idk, my innate capacity to apply stupid linear interpolation and false equivalence to these things seem dangerous. all populations deviate.

danger here is seeing "at scale" applied to thoughts about philanthropy. computers still a good model tho, if only because signals originate from humans.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Personal instance of netshade.