Podcasts about Grilo

Pasaremos un buen rato charrando con Ofensivos de su tercer disco, y la folixona de presentación junto a Involucion en la Factoria cultural de Avilés este próximo Viernes. Y además, todo este percal: Electric Callboy, Tribute Against The Machine, Maizu Rock, Grilo, Pubic Enemy, Strawberry Hardcore, Zevo, Ruina, WildHärd, Itinerum_official, Burning Witches, Saxon, Ferdich Ab, SOZIEDAD ALKOHOLIKA, Zona Oscura y Brian Wilson.

Agradece a este podcast tantas horas de entretenimiento y disfruta de episodios exclusivos como éste. ¡Apóyale en iVoox! VIII Esta es la segunda parte, completa, del programa anterior, con sucesos más aterradores, increíbles y violentos. Una calle, muchos nombres. Una historia que no olvida. Madrid. Apenas 90 metros de asfalto. Una vía como tantas. Pero su nombre resuena como un eco de tragedia. Calle Antonio Grilo. Antes fue la calle de las Beatas… pero cambiarle el nombre no borró su maldición. Al contrario, pareció invocar algo más profundo. Algo que se resiste a desaparecer. 1776. En la entonces calle de las Beatas, un sacerdote llamado Pedro de Hortigosa, celoso guardián del decoro religioso, cruza su destino con el de Manuela, una joven viuda que cose sotanas. Lo que empieza con aguja e hilo, termina con un cuchillo... y una confesión que arrastra al altar al mismo infierno. 1861. Aún sin luz eléctrica, Carlota Pereira, separada, madre de dos niñas, camina al anochecer junto a Francisca “Benito” Burdeos, una veterana de la Guerra de África. Lo que Carlota no sabe es que la sombra que la acecha ha sido pagada… y la muerte viene con nombre y apellidos. El crimen sacude la ciudad. El sicario habla. Pero hay un hombre poderoso detrás, Luis, que jamás responderá ante la justicia. ¿Corrupción? ¿Encubrimiento? La calle no olvida. 1901. El número 12 guarda en su buhardilla un infierno sin ventanas. Allí vive encadenado Agustín, reducido a 18 kilos, golpeado y olvidado. Su única luz: una costurera viuda, Manuela Fernández, que decide no mirar hacia otro lado. Lo que descubre la policía supera toda crueldad imaginable. 1915. El panadero Ángel Gómez Castillo vuelve a casa por una calle envuelta en niebla. A unos metros, Daniel Yagües, lo espera. Un rumor, una sospecha de infidelidad… y un rastro de sangre que ni la guerra pudo borrar. El honor, dicen, pesa más que la vida. ¿Pero de quién era el pecado? 1926. El caso más monstruoso hasta entonces. Un niño descuartizado, sus restos esparcidos por la ciudad. La policía lo intenta todo. ¿Crimen ritual? ¿Tráfico infantil? La respuesta sigue enterrada bajo los adoquines de la Calle Antonio Grilo. 1933. El número 14 se desploma de madrugada. Un edificio ruinoso ignorado durante décadas. La tragedia deja siete familias sin nada. Un derrumbe físico… y simbólico. La calle vuelve a mostrar que quien habita en ella, lo hace bajo amenaza. 1945. El número 3 será llamado "La Casa del Horror". Allí vivía Felipe de la Braña, sastre meticuloso, hombre solitario. Aparece muerto, golpeado, estrangulado. La única pista: un mechón de pelo rubio entre sus dedos. No hay testigos. No hay móvil. No hay culpables. Pero sí un cadáver que pronto no será el único en ese piso. 1958. José María Jarabo, vividor y seductor, busca recuperar una joya empeñada… y lo hace a sangre y fuego. Tiene un punto de partida: La Barra Americana, un prostíbulo justo frente al número 3 de Antonio Grilo. Coincidencia o destino, Jarabo caminó esas baldosas antes de volverse verdugo. 1962. El día del trabajo. Pero en el número 3, puerta D, la jornada comienza con un desayuno… y termina con lo impensable. José María Ruiz Martínez, sastre de oficio, esposo y padre de cinco hijos, deja una frase en la pared: “3 de mayo cae en el día”. Ese día no llegó. O tal vez sí. Aún no sabemos qué lo llevó a hacer lo que hizo. 1963. Pilar Agustín Jimeno, joven costurera y soltera, esconde un secreto bajo su ropa. La vergüenza la consume. El miedo la paraliza. Cuando llega el momento, pare sola en el baño de su casa. Y entre estos relatos... más aún: un sótano convertido en clínica clandestina, suicidios sin explicación, incendios, psicofonías, y un edificio donde el tiempo parece haberse detenido. Calle Antonio Grilo. No es solo una calle. Es una herida abierta. ¿Es posible que haya lugares marcados por la tragedia? ¿Sitios donde lo inexplicable ocurre con una frecuencia que desafía toda lógica? Esta noche, en LLDLL, te contaremos lo que no sale en los libros de historia. Lo que solo la piedra y la sangre recuerdan. HAZTE MECENAS, no dejes que La Biblioteca, cierre Nunca sus Puertas… Sigamos sumando en LLDLL, SUSCRIBETE en IVOOX y comparte. GRATITUD ESPECIAL: Sara Saez, por dejarme su Voz. Siempre a los MECENAS. Sin ustedes… esto no sería posible. SUSCRIBETE AL CANAL DE TELEGRAM: https://t.me/LaLamadaDeLaLuna PUEDES VER ALGUNOS VIDEOS DE LLDLL: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEOtdbbriLqUfBtjs_wtEHw Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

O antigo ministro da Educação diz que o PSD tem pela frente o desafio de "governar bem" sem maioria absoluta, mas deve baixar as armas e entender-se com o PS, para resolver problemas sérios do país. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

VIII Calle Antonio Grilo. Madrid. Antiguamente, calle de las Beatas. Un rincón que parece atraer la oscuridad. Lo que comenzó como un convento y unas viviendas humildes, se transformó con los años en un escenario recurrente de crímenes, secretos, muertes trágicas y sucesos que parecen seguir un patrón. Hoy te contaré solo algunos de ellos. El primer caso documentado en esta calle se remonta al año 1776, cuando aún se llamaba calle de las Beatas. Un sacerdote, Pedro de Hortigosa, de la parroquia de San Martín, cruzó un día la puerta de una humilde sastrería y conoció a Manuela, una joven viuda. El deseo lo consumió en silencio, hasta que Diego, un hortelano del barrio, lo enfrentó verbalmente por lo que ya todos murmuraban: la obsesión del cura. 1861. Carlota Pereira, de 32 años, había escapado de un matrimonio roto. Aquella noche, caminaba con sus dos hijas cuando fue atacada cerca del número 12. José María "El Cano", fue capturado tras una persecución en la que participó Francisca Burdeos, alias Benito, una mujer que vestía ropa de hombre con autorización real. José María fue ejecutado públicamente con garrote vil en la Plaza de la Cebada. Las hijas de Carlota fueron enviadas a un convento y obligadas a tomar los votos. 1901. Agustín, de 16 años, vivía en el número 12 de la calle Antonio Grilo, encerrado en una buhardilla sin ventanas, atado a una viga con cadenas oxidadas. Su padre viudo y su madrastra lo mantenían allí oculto, alimentándolo solo con pan y agua turbia. Fue gracias a Manuela Fernández Montero, una vecina que los gritos del muchacho llegaron a oídos de las autoridades. La policía entró por la fuerza. Encontraron al niño esquelético (18 kg de peso), lleno de llagas y con la mirada perdida por la falta de luz. En el suelo había marcas: rayas talladas que el chico usaba para contar los días. Hasta aquí, hemos llegado hoy. Un sacerdote que mató por deseo. Un marido que mandó asesinar a su esposa. Y un niño que fue encadenado en la oscuridad. Y esto… es solo el principio. El próximo programa, será si cabe, mucho más brutal y terrorífico. No te lo pierdas. HAZTE MECENAS, no dejes que La Biblioteca, cierre Nunca sus Puertas… Sigamos sumando en LLDLL, SUSCRIBETE en IVOOX y comparte. GRATITUD ESPECIAL: Sara Saez, por dejarme su Voz. Siempre a los MECENAS. Sin ustedes… esto no sería posible. SUSCRIBETE AL CANAL DE TELEGRAM: https://t.me/LaLamadaDeLaLuna PUEDES VER ALGUNOS VIDEOS DE LLDLL: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEOtdbbriLqUfBtjs_wtEHw Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Recibiremos a Pablo y Cueli del Festival Vidiago Rock para que nos cuenten lo que traman para la XXI edición que se celebra este próximo fin de semana 2 y 3 de Mayo, además de soltar alguna exclusivona y hacer debutar a Joel al micro, así que tendréis que tar pendientes. Aprovecharemos para escuchar a muchas de las bandas del festival WEAK, The Lizards, Totengott, The Movement - band page, The Wizards, Aneuma, Grippers y Niña Coyote eta Chico Tornado. Pero es que además han pasado muchas cosas en la tierrina, y tenemos todo este percal: Black Pyramid, Sartenazo Cerebral, Expropiazion, Ofensivos, Amarradizo, CRUDO, Tygers of Wrath, Stonefest, Mars Red Sky, Maizu Rock, Grilo, Catalina Grande Piñón Pequeño, MortSubite, Skama La Rede y Ace Frehley

(Com Eduardo Marçal Grilo)

Dans cet épisode: Retour de World of Women à Lisbonne pour un événement exceptionnel : le WoW Gala, qui aura lieu le 5 juin, en marge de la NFC. Adelina nous partage aussi les dernières news du projet et notamment son intégration récent à l'écosystème Tezos.

Com Eduardo Marçal Grilo e Carlos Coelho.

Juan Ignacio Gómez Gorjón, conocido artísticamente como Chicuelo, (La Albuera , Badajoz; 1968) es un guitarrista español de flamenco, compositor e intérprete.En 2025 actúa con Marco Mezquida en el Menorca Jazz Festival.Trayectoria artísticaChicuelo vive desde niño en Cornellá de Llobregat (Barcelona), donde inicia su afición por la guitarra flamenca a la edad de 12 años con el maestro Casimiro González. Trabaja como guitarrista en el tablao de Carmen con Mario Escudero, Angelita Vargas, La Tolea, Eva Yerbabuena, Sara Baras, Adrián Galia, Belén Maya, Antonio ‘El Pipa' o Joaquín Grilo. Posteriormente acompaña a cantaores como Enrique Morente, Rancapino, Chano Lobato, José Mercé, Duquende, Mayte Martín, Diego "El Cigala", Carmen Linares, Potito. Ha trabajado con músicos de jazz como Chano Domínguez, Carles Benavent, Jorge Pardo, Jordi Bonell, Raynald Colom, Marco Mezquida, entre otros; y ha colaborado con la pianista Maria João Pires.En 1996 crea y lidera Cambalache, con la cual tiene un gran reconocimiento. También es componente de Guitarras mestizas con el que graba dos trabajos discográficos. Ha compuesto parte de la música de la última película de Orson Welles, El Quijote.Ha dirigido y producido los trabajos Siento y Oscuriá de Ginesa Ortega, en Suena flamenco, Zaguán o Desglaç de Miguel Poveda y en Mi forma de vivir de Duquende y ha participado en grabaciones junto a Tomatito, Mayte Martín, Joan Manuel Serrat, La Vargas Blues Band, Antonio Carmona, Jordi Tonel, entre otros.Ha compuesto música para las compañías de danza flamenca de los artistas más reconocidos: Antonio Canales, Joaquín Cortés, Israel Galván, para quien compone la música original de sus obras La Metamorfosis (2000), Torero alucinógeno (2004) y Lo Real/Le Réel/The Real, estrenado en 2012 en el Teatro Real de Madrid. Desde 1992 es director musical de la compañía de danza japonesa de Shoji Kojima, destacando las obras presentadas en el Festival de Jerez y la Bienal de Flamenco de Sevilla, La Celestina (2012) y Fatum (La fuerza del destino), en las cuales compuso la música original.Desde 2003 también dirige la música de la compañía de baile Somorrostro Dansa Flamenca producida por el Taller de Músics.,y donde compone las obras Andanzas e Inconnexus XXI, esta última junto a Enric Palomar y con coreografías de Javier Latorre.Chicuelo ha sido el guitarrista habitual de Miguel Poveda y de Duquende, con los que ha realizado numerosas giras por Europa, Japón y Estados Unidos. Ha sido director musical de Tarantos, musical dirigido por Emilio Hernández con coreografías de Javier Latorre. En el 2000 presenta su primer CD como solista y con repertorio propio: Cómplices (Harmonia Mundi) con el que realiza directos por todo el país. Este trabajo fue premiado como mejor disco de guitarra solista por la revista Flamenco Hoy. En el 2001 recibe, de la misma revista, el premio como mejor guitarra de acompañamiento en el trabajo discográfico Zaguán de Miguel Poveda.Ha participado, entre otras, en la producción Un momento y la Eternidad del bailaor Israel Galván, además de su relevante participación junto a Miguel Poveda como intérprete y compositor en los discos Desglaç en 2005 (música, arreglos y guitarra en los temas: No et veuré més, Jo, l´invertit de cos i d´ànima y Posseït) y en la gira posterior entre 2005 y 2007.

Hoy tenemos la vuelta de Expropiazion a la actividad, con nueva formación, nuevo disco, y como siempre, hecho a mano en casa... Y además , tenemos todo este percal: Lendakaris Muertos, Expropiazion, Maizu Rock, La Mørgue, Pubic Enemy, Grilo, Asociación Unirock, Rage, Europe, Festival Internacional de Cerveza Artesano D'Asturies, RAT-ZINGER, Misiva Punk Rock, Loncha Velasco, Ciudad Olvido, Kruela, Strangers, Candlemass, W.A.S.P., H.E.A.T, Marilyn Manson, Last Days of Eden, Led Zeppelin y The Rolling Stones

Tinha 32 anos em 74. Viu Soares Carneiro ser preso à sua frente no PREC. Antigo Ministro da Educação de António Guterres, jamais teria sido governante antes do 25 de Abril.

In this episode of Icons of Real Estate, host Tomás Grilo interviews Mitch Ribak, a visionary in real estate and digital marketing. Mitch shares his journey from launching businesses—including one of the first online dating services and internet lead conversion strategies—to becoming a top-performing real estate professional. He discusses how he built a successful brokerage, transitioned to eXp Realty, and now leads an organization of over 2,250 agents across 49 states and seven countries.Mitch emphasizes the importance of mindset, business-building strategies, lead generation, and work-life balance. He explains how real estate agents should treat their careers like a serious business, leverage their personal network for leads, and focus on relationship-building rather than cold calling. Additionally, he highlights why many agents fail and how to create long-term success by working smarter, not harder.Finally, Mitch teases his upcoming book The Big Lie, which challenges the traditional real estate model and provides a roadmap for agents to achieve financial freedom while working fewer hours.

805 Beer Authentico and powerhouse surfer Lakey Peterson joins us on the pod from Brazil. We catch up with Lakey and discuss her working with Leandro Dora, who has given her fresh eyes on her surfing. Lakey also opens up about Making Waves, her new film with 805 Beer and fellow Santa Barbaran Morgan Maassen, reflecting on the thrill of competitive surfing, the heartbreaks, and the motivation she is still feeling today. Being awarded the 2025 Season wildcard, Lakey is back on tour after just barely missing the cut in 2024 and shares her mindset shift. She discusses working with her long-time shaper Britt Merrick, the evolution of her equipment with Channel Islands, and what it really takes to win in today's ultra-competitive field. She answers your Instagram questions, reveals her go-to pre-heat songs, and tackles the Lightning Round. Learn more about Lakey here and follow here here Watch her latest film Making Waves with 805 Beer here. Play WSL CT Fantasy contest and join The Lineup Podcast Mega League for a chance to win! Terms and Conditions apply. Stay tuned for the MEO Rip Curl Pro Portugal Presented By Corona Cero, Mar 15 - 25. Join the conversation by following The Lineup podcast with Dave Prodan on Instagram and subscribing to our YouTube channel. Get the latest WSL rankings, news, and event info. **Visit this page if you've been affected by the Los Angeles wildfires, and would like to volunteer or donate. Our hearts are with  you.** Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Depois de ver o preferido, Mário Centeno, fora da corrida, Marçal Grilo aposta mais em Vitorino: "pode vencer" Gouveia e Melo numa 2ª volta, Seguro não. E Gouveia e Melo? Para já, só "frases feitas".See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Depois de ter comandado o Ribeira de Pena e uma passagem como adjunto em Vidago, Grilo Alves chega ao Atei em novembro de 2024 para assumir o comando técnico da equipa sediada no município de Mondim de Basto.Esta rubrica foi uma ideia de: Sérgio MartinsCuidado Técnico: Sérgio MartinsSigam o nosso Canal no WhatsApp em https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaDuMORKLaHv7eddVT3OAPOIE O NOSSO CANAL NO PATREON E VEJA TUDO MAIS CEDO, SEM INTERRUPÇÕES NEM CORTES!▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬FACEBOOK - http://www.facebook.com/canalbalnearioPATREON - https://www.patreon.com/balneario▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬REDES SOCIAISFB - www.facebook.com/canalbalnearioTW - www.twitter.com/canalbalnearioIG - www.instagram.com/canalbalneario

Dr. Andrea King (University of Chicago Medicine) joins AJP Audio to discuss a novel, real time assessment of the reward, stimulation, and negative affect of alcohol use in people with alcohol use disorder with and without depressive disorders.  Afterwards, AJP Editor-in-Chief Dr. Ned Kalin discusses the rest of the February issue, which focuses closely on issues surrounding addiction. 00:35     King interview 00:45     Allostatic model of addiction 02:12     Gathering data and the groups studied 07:37     The ethics of studying alcohol use in patients with AUD 10:38     Findings 13:29     The impacts of alcohol's pleasurable effects on people with AUD and those without 14:32     Limitations of natural environment research versus laboratory research 18:18     Clinical implications 20:09     Further research 22:56     Kalin interview 23:03     King et al. 26:21     Brand et al. 28:12     Conway et al. 32:17     Kypriotakis et al. 35:42     Kuhn et al. 39:37     Grilo et al. Transcript Be sure to let your colleagues know about the podcast, and please rate and review it on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to it. Subscribe to the podcast here. Listen to other podcasts produced by the American Psychiatric Association. Browse articles online. How authors may submit their work. Follow the journals of APA Publishing on Twitter. E-mail us at ajp@psych.org

A pancadaria no Técnico. Os professores amedrontados. As estranhas reuniões com os comunistas. E a detenção de Soares Carneiro. Marçal Grilo descreve os momentos mais tensos que viveu em 1974 e 1975.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A pancadaria no Técnico. Os professores amedrontados. As estranhas reuniões com os comunistas. E a detenção de Soares Carneiro. Marçal Grilo descreve os momentos mais tensos que viveu em 1974 e 1975.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A pancadaria no Técnico. Os professores amedrontados. As estranhas reuniões com os comunistas. E a detenção de Soares Carneiro. Marçal Grilo descreve os momentos mais tensos que viveu em 1974 e 1975.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A pancadaria no Técnico. Os professores amedrontados. As estranhas reuniões com os comunistas. E a detenção de Soares Carneiro. Marçal Grilo descreve os momentos mais tensos que viveu em 1974 e 1975.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Está em cartaz nas salas de todo o país o filme O Auto da Compadecida 2, continuidade de um grande clássico do cinema nacional. A dupla João Grilo e Chicó se reencontra 25 anos depois do lançamento do primeiro filme, O Auto da Compadecida, lançado nos anos 2000. Os protagonistas seguem sendo interpretados por Matheus […] O post Virgínia Cavendish: O Auto da Compadecida 2 ‘é um presente para o público brasileiro' apareceu primeiro em Rádio Brasil de Fato.

Veja este episódio também no Youtube. Diana Grilo Silva é “Head of Interactions” na Critical Techworks (CTW), uma empresa software que resulta de uma ‘joint-venture' entre a portuguesa Critical Software e a BMW, e que se distingue por várias práticas de gestão radical, que dão forma a uma nova forma de trabalhar, disruptiva, horizontal e autónoma. A Diana é formada em Engenharia Informática pela Universidade de Évora, e antes da CTW passou pela Nokia e pela Talkdesk, entre outras empresas.    -> Apoie este podcast e faça parte da comunidade de mecenas do 45 Graus em: 45grauspodcast.com -> Registe-se para ser avisado(a) de futuras edições dos workshops de Pensamento Crítico: https://forms.sendpulse.com/7e62c1e4f5 _______________ Índice: (0:00) Introdução (5:44) Como pode uma empresa crescer sem ficar mais vertical, com mais níveis hierárquicos? | Seguir o exemplo das células e da mitose (14:58) Equipas em autogestão e separar responsabilidade de gestão entre delivery e gestão de pessoas | O que faz um(a) SCRUM master? (34:16) Gestão e a armadilha do Princípio de Peter (40:59) Um método radical para a avaliação de desempenho e feedback. | Avaliação na CT, baseada em 4 atributos principais. | É a própria pessoa que decide! (49:18) Aprender a dar feedback | No inicio é sempre estranho. Começar com perguntas. (1:08:33) Metodologia Scrum. Usar Scrum para fazer obras em casa? |  (1:12:02) Importância de incentivar a experimentação. “Falhar depressa” | Sandboxing | Post-mortem (1:17:40) O que nos motiva no trabalho? TED Talk Dan Pink | Lei de Goodhart (1:35:05) Desafios de ser mulher na área tecnológica (artigo da convidada) Livros recomendados: Reinventing Organizations, Frederic Laloux | The Connected Company, Dave Gray | Holacracy: The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World, Brian J. Robertson ______________ Esta conversa foi editada por: DBF Estúdio  

Agradece a este podcast tantas horas de entretenimiento y disfruta de episodios exclusivos como éste. ¡Apóyale en iVoox! Sumario Mundo Insólito Radio Dirige y presenta Juan Carlos Baruque Hernández Todos los jueves 22:00h. España en directo por: http://radiomundoinsolito.es FERMÍN MAYORGA La muerte de Herodes CONCHA VARA Misas negras MICHAEL MARTÍNEZ La mala casa JUAN MIGUEL MARSELLA La maldición de la calle Antonio Grillo ANTONIO FERNÁNDEZ MARTÍNEZ Satanistas y satánicos NOEMÍ RODRÍGUEZ Pirámide del Grial EL CONJURO DE LA SEMANA AARÓN DAVID CUEVAS El horóscopo Descarga nuestra App en: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=misterio.unidos Escucha la emisora Unidos Por El Misterio: http://radiomundoinsolito.es. 24 horas emitiendo Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Boa terça, angulers! Nosso Angu de Grilo ao vivo, especial de CINCO anos está no ar! Foi no domingo, 25 de agosto, no Museu do Amanhã, que recebemos Conceição Evaristo para uma conversa amorosa e calorosa. Conceição falou sobre sua vida, sua rotina, a ABL, sobre Carolina Maria de Jesus, sobre sua escrita. Foi um prazer e uma honra comemorar meia década com essa gigante da literatura brasileira. Obrigada pela audiência e companhia sempre, angulers. Sirva-se!O Angu de Grilo ao vivo é dedicado a Shirley Vilela, nossa amiga querida, ouvinte fiel, que, com certeza, estaria na primeira fileira daquele auditório. E esteve. Saudade sempre, amor eterno. Edição e mixagem: Tico ProCaptação de áudio: @_criasom

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The most basic rationality techniques are often neglected, published by Vasco Grilo on August 27, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This is a crosspost for The most basic rationality techniques are often neglected and Rationality and discipline by Stefan Schubert, published on 30 August and 15 September 2021. The most basic rationality techniques are often neglected and Rationality and discipline How much can we "debias" ourselves? What should we do to become more rational? When discussing those issues, people usually focus on sophisticated debiasing techniques ("pre-mortem") and advanced concepts from epistemology and statistics. What's often forgotten is that we already have a bunch of very simple but effective techniques for improving our rationality, such as (cf. Grice's maxims): "Don't believe things for which you lack evidence. And don't say such things in discussions." "Don't make irrelevant personal attacks." "Don't attack straw men." "Define your terms clearly." "Make one point at a time." "Try not to be too emotional when thinking about heated issues." It seems to me that irrationality regarding moral and political issues (arguably the most important form of irrationality) is very often due to failure to apply these very simple techniques. That was certainly my experience when I argument-checked opinion pieces and election debates. Most fallacies I identified were extremely basic and boring (cf. my post Frequent fallacies). Maybe the most common was failure to provide evidence for claims that need evidence. So maybe what we need to do to make people more rational isn't primarily to teach them sophisticated debiasing techniques and advanced concepts. They are costly to learn, and most people have other, more pressing things to attend to. People who suggest new interventions and social reforms often neglect such time and attention costs. One might also suspect that people focus on the more sophisticated rationality techniques partly because they find them more interesting to think about than the basic and boring ones. Instead, maybe we should focus on getting people to apply the most basic techniques consistently. Some of the sophisticated techniques are no doubt useful, but I'm not sure the primary focus should be on them. To make people actually use these basic techniques, what's needed is strong social norms, saying that you shouldn't believe or say things you lack evidence for, that you should define your terms clearly, etc. The strength of such norms have varied a lot over the course of history - and still varies today across different contexts. And my sense is that people's actual rationality by and large reflects the strength of those rationality norms. So these norms can be pushed more or less, and I would guess that they are not yet pushed as much as they realistically could be pushed. Still, it's obviously a difficult task, and I'm unsure about how to best go about it. (This post was first posted on Facebook, 3 February 2020. Slightly revised.) Rationality and discipline Rationality has many aspects. It seems to me that the rationalist community often focuses on the fun bits, such as self-improvement, musings on one's own thought-processes, and speculative theorising (though no doubt there are important exceptions). What then gets a bit lost is that rationality is to a large extent about discipline, restraint, and rigour: things that aren't necessarily fun for most people. This is maybe natural given that the community is at least partly built around an intrinsic interest in rationality - they normally don't provide strong extrinsic incentives (e.g. degrees, money) to students of rationality. Nevertheless, I think a stronger emphasis on these less intrinsically appealing aspects of rationality is important. From Facebook, 16 January 2020. Thanks...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Charitable Giving is a Life Hack, published by Vasco Grilo on August 21, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This is a crosspost for Charitable Giving is a Life Hack by Connor Jennings, which was published on 24 July 2024. I'm going to start this post with something that will break my boss's heart. I hate work. I've always hated work. Productivity is Everest. Any academic success I had at school was motivated by a desire to finish as quickly as possible, so I could lean back on my chair, and look out the window. When completing a task, I feel the same sluggishness one feels when trying to run in a dream - my psyche is a thick sludge, and it wishes to rot away on the sofa playing Crash Bandicoot. Me, after changing my bed sheets. My early experience with the adult working world rhymed with my adolescence. I used to have a bad habit of switching jobs regularly, because I struggled with the increased productivity experience demands of you. I'm probably not alone when I say that most of my days were spent just trying to get through things so that I could go home and relax. I rarely went above the call of duty, and I always tried to cut corners where I could. In other words, I was a lazy dirtbag. I say this, because despite that not so great aspect of myself, I've now managed to have some success at a fairly demanding job. How? How could a sleepy tortoise such as myself do that? Well, apart from being motivated by the usual fear of homelessness, donating some of my salary has played a big role. I think what causes a lack of motivation is often a lack of purpose. The reason I don't want to excel at some boring office job is because I'm hardly going to get rewarded for it. Even the promise of more money doesn't move the needle, because it just promises more involvement and responsibility in a project I don't care about. I never cared about stationary, cocktails, or my bosses' bottom line, so my previous jobs were always devoid of meaning, and it felt like they wasted what precious little time I had on this Earth. Now, the usual response to this kind of despair is to say you should find work doing something you do care about. That would be great advice if it was universally practical - I'd love it if I could find a job helping animals, writing, or playing Crash Bandicoot. The problem is those jobs are hard to come by, and it's just not viable to expect everyone on Earth to achieve their dreams. In order to have a functioning society, someone has to build spreadsheets, grit the roads, and sit at reception. I don't think most people hate their jobs, but I do think most of us will have to work in roles that we don't find that meaningful. This is quite sad, but I do think there is a solution - Charitable Giving. I started taking donating seriously a year and a half ago. At first, it was a drag. I had just been put on the biggest salary of my life up to that point (not a high bar lol), and I didn't like the fact I had to live within smaller means. However, you get used to it, and the benefits of pledging away a portion of your salary become salient as time goes on. You find that by working to give, you're able to transform an otherwise monotonous job into something that feels truly worthwhile. The crisis of meaningless work is at it's most intense when work is stressful. It's when I'm working late, or have to deal with some seemingly unsolvable problem that I think "Why am I even doing this? This sucks! I should quit and find something else to do". When there's no greater goal that you're suffering for, the suffering is magnified. However, if you work because you're trying to do good, this issue is resolved. You no longer have that conversation with yourself, because now when you're up late you're thinking "Well, if I get a raise, I can help more people!". It closes the despair...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The Life You Can Save suggests people earning 40 to 80 k$/year donate just 1 %, published by Vasco Grilo on August 21, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. The views expressed here are my own, not those of my employers. Summary The Life You Can Save ( TLYCS) suggests people earning 40 to 80 k$/year donate just 1 % of their net income, which I think is too low. Would it even be good if some people in extreme poverty wanted to sign the 10% Pledge, and donated to the most cost-effective animal welfare interventions? Recommendations from The Life You Can Save TLYCS has a calculator to suggest the amount of annual donations based on the country of residence and annual pre-tax income. For people living in the United States earning: Less than 40 k$/year, they "recommend giving whatever you feel you can afford without undue hardship". 40 to 80 k$/year, they "recommend" annual donations equal to 1 % of the annual pre-tax income. TLYCS also emphasises the idea of striving towards one's personal best in terms of effective donations. Which amount of annual donations should be recommended to increase annual donations to their ideal level is an empirical question. I do not have an answer for this, and here I mostly wanted to start a discussion. However, I think the above recommendations are not sufficiently ambitious. A pre-tax income of 40 k$/year in New York for someone single would be a post-tax income of 31.3 k$/year, which is: 31.0 (= 31.3/1.01) times the maximum annual consumption of someone in extreme poverty of 1.01 k$/year (= 2.15* 1.28*365.25). More than what 95 % of the population earns. 1 % of the above post-tax income would be 0.857 $/d (= 0.01*31.3*10^3/365.25), which is 39.1 % (= 0.857/ 2.19) of the cost of the classic McDonald's burger, or 68.6 % (= 0.857/((1 + 1.5)/2)) of the cost of a beer. I believe the ideal donations as a fraction of post-tax income increase with post-tax income, and personally currently donate everything above a target level of savings. At the same time, I like that the 10% Pledge from Giving What We Can (GWWC) involves donating at least 10 % of post-tax income regardless of how much one earns. Besides the reasons given by GWWC: Life satisfaction increases roughly logarithmically with real gross domestic product ( real GDP), which suggests welfare may increase logarithmically with post-tax income. If so, decreasing post-tax income by 10 % would cause the same reduction in welfare regardless of the starting income. In practice, it is unclear to me whether there would be such a reduction in the context of donations. If people with modest incomes donate at least 10 %, people with higher incomes will arguably be more motivated to do so. Donations of people in extreme poverty Would it even be good if some people in extreme poverty wanted to sign the 10% Pledge? It might help with spreading significant giving among people with higher incomes, who would have a hard time arguing they are not wealthy enough. I guess some people in extreme poverty already donate at least 10 % of their net income via tithing. Yet, it is unclear to me if this giving is more/less cost-effective than their own marginal personal consumption, so I do not know whether it is beneficial/harmful. Would it be better if they donated to the most cost-effective animal welfare interventions? From the most to least relevant: I would argue the best animal welfare interventions are way more cost-effective than the marginal personal consumption of people in extreme poverty: I estimated corporate campaigns for chicken welfare, such as the ones supported by The Humane League ( THL), are 1.51 k times as cost-effective as GiveWell's top charities ( at the margin). My understanding is that GiveWell's top charities are 10 times as cost-effective as GiveDirectly ( at the margin), which provide...

Boa terça, angulers! Vamos comemorar os CINCO anos do Angu de Grilo em um evento ao vivo com Conceição Evaristo! Nosso encontro está marcado para dia 25/08, às 15h, no Museu do Amanhã! As vendas abrem nesta sexta, dia 02/08, às 12:13h. Acompanhem tudo no Instagram @angudegrilo! No #246, abrimos falando do nosso Angu de Grilo ao vivo. Depois, Flávia comentou a cerimônia de entrega da medalha Tiradentes para Sueli Carneiro. Em seguida, falamos sobre o relatório da Pnud sobre Esperança. No segundo bloco, as polêmicas eleições venezuelanas e a repercussão dos apoios a Kamala Harris na última semana. Por fim, nossos comentários sobre a abertura das Olimpíadas e expectativa pra essa semana. Sirva-se! Edição e mixagem: Tico Pro

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Cost-effectiveness of epidemic/pandemic preparedness, published by Vasco Grilo on June 30, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Summary I Fermi estimate the cost-effectiveness of epidemic/pandemic preparedness is 0.00236 DALY/$. Relative to the above, I calculate GiveWell's top charities are 4.12 times as cost-effective, and corporate campaigns for chicken welfare, such as the ones supported by The Humane League (THL), 6.35 k times. Calculations My calculations are in this Sheet. I Fermi estimate the cost-effectiveness of epidemic/pandemic preparedness of 0.00236 DALY/$ multiplying: The expected annual epidemic/pandemic disease burden of 68.2 MDALY. I obtained this from the product between: The expected annual epidemic/pandemic deaths of 1.61 M, which I determined multiplying: The epidemic/pandemic deaths per human-year from 1500 to 2023 of 1.98*10^-4, which is the ratio between 160 M epidemic/pandemic deaths, and 808 G human-years from Marani et. al 2021[1]. The population predicted for 2024 of 8.12 G. The disease burden per death in 2021 of 42.4 DALY. The relative reduction of the expected annual epidemic/pandemic disease burden per annual cost of 3.46 %/G$. I got this aggregating the following estimates with the geometric mean: 8 %/G$ (= 0.2/(250*10^9/100)), which is based on Millett & Snyder-Beattie 2017: "We extend the World Bank's assumptions to include bioterrorism and biowarfare - that is, we assume that the healthcare infrastructure would reduce bioterrorism and biowarfare fatalities by 20%". "We calculate that purchasing 1 century's worth of global protection in this form would cost on the order of $250 billion, assuming that subsequent maintenance costs are lower but that the entire system needs intermittent upgrading". 1.5 %/G$ (= 0.3/(20*10^9)), which is based on Bernstein et. al 2022: 30 % is the mean between 10 % and 50 %, which are the values studied in Table 2. "We find that the sum of our median cost estimates of primary prevention (~$20 billion) are ~1/20 of the low-end annualized value of lives lost to emerging viral zoonoses and

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Farmed animals are neglected, published by Vasco Grilo on June 24, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Summary Farmed cows and pigs account for a tiny fraction of the disability of the farmed animals I analysed. The annual disability of farmed animals is much larger than that of humans, even under the arguably very optimistic assumption of all farmed animals having neutral lives. The annual funding helping farmed animals is much smaller than that helping humans. Introduction I think one should decide on which areas and interventions to fund overwhelmingly based on (marginal) cost-effectiveness, as GiveWell does. Relatedly, I estimated corporate campaigns for chicken welfare, like the ones supported by The Humane League (THL), have a cost-effectiveness of 14.3 DALY/$, 1.44 k times that of GiveWell's top charities. However, for communication purposes, I believe it is fine to look into the benefits of fully solving a problem as well as philanthropic spending. Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) has a great graph highlighting the neglectedness of farmed animals in the United States relative to their scale. In this post, I estimate the annual disability of and philanthropic spending on humans and farmed animals, both globally and in China[1]. The data and calculations are in this Sheet. Methods I got the annual disability of each group of farmed animals multiplying its population by its disability per living time in (human) years lived with disability (YLD) per animal-year[2], which I calculated from (1 - "welfare per time as a fraction of that of a fully healthy human as a fraction of the welfare range (normalised welfare per time)")*"welfare range". For a normalised welfare per time equal to: 0, corresponding to a neutral life, the disabilty per living time is equal to the welfare range, which makes sense. By definition, a dying human has a disability per living time of 1 YLD/year (which is equal to the welfare range of humans of 1), and a welfare per time of 0. 1, respecting a fully healthy farmed animal, the disability per living time is 0, which checks out. By definition, a fully healthy human has a disability per living time of 0, and it is natural to extend this to farmed animals. In agreement with the above, disability throughout this post refers to the potential for increasing ( affective) welfare up to the level of a fully healthy being. In contrast, the global burden of disease study ( GBD) focuses on actual disability. For simplicity, I did not consider years of life lost ( YLL). I would have to figure out the life expectancy as a function of age for farmed animals living in ideal conditions, as GBD uses a reference life expectancy for ideal human conditions. A "reference life table, or theoretical minimum risk life table (TMRLT), is used in GBD to calculate years of life lost (YLLs) due to premature mortality. It was constructed based on the lowest observed age-specific mortality rates by location and sex across all estimation years from all locations with populations over 5 million in 2016". I used Rethink Priorities' median welfare ranges. I relied on the value for pigs for cows, the mean between the values for carp and salmon for fish, and the value for black soldier flies for insects. To find the normalised welfare per time of farmed broilers, hens and decapod shrimp, I assumed: The time that farmed broilers, hens and decapod shrimp on ongrowing farms experience each of the 4 pain categories defined by the Welfare Footprint Project (WFP). I also supposed all broilers are in a conventional scenario, and that hens are in conventional cages or cage-free aviaries, using data from WFP to find the respective fractions. Excruciating pain is 1 k times as bad as disabling pain[3]. Disabling pain is 100 times as bad as hurtful pain. Hurtful pain is 10 times as bad as...

Você se mudaria de estado por uma história de amor? Canal Suraniset: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8CZvdviocEA76b5G55gTHA Intro: Chupim - Loja de 1,99 Músicas: Grilo 13

Agreement78 % of my donations so far have gone to the Long-Term Future Fund[1] (LTFF), which mainly supports AI safety interventions. However, I have become increasingly sceptical about the value of existential risk mitigation, and currently think the best interventions are in the area of animal welfare[2]. As a result, I realised it made sense for me to arrange a bet with someone very worried about AI in order to increase my donations to animal welfare interventions. Gregory Colbourn (Greg) was the 1st person I thought of. He said: I think AGI [artificial general intelligence] is 0-5 years away and p(doom|AGI) is ~90% I doubt doom in the sense of human extinction is anywhere as likely as suggested by the above. I guess the annual extinction risk over the next 10 years is 10^-7, so I proposed a bet to Greg similar to the end-of-the-world bet between [...] ---Outline:(00:07) Agreement(03:53) Impact(05:18) AcknowledgementsThe original text contained 5 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: June 4th, 2024 Source: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/GfGxaPBAMGcYjv8Xd/i-bet-greg-colbourn-10-keur-that-ai-will-not-kill-us-all-by --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: I bet Greg Colbourn 10 k€ that AI will not kill us all by the end of 2027, published by Vasco Grilo on June 4, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Agreement 78 % of my donations so far have gone to the Long-Term Future Fund[1] (LTFF), which mainly supports AI safety interventions. However, I have become increasingly sceptical about the value of existential risk mitigation, and currently think the best interventions are in the area of animal welfare[2]. As a result, I realised it made sense for me to arrange a bet with someone very worried about AI in order to increase my donations to animal welfare interventions. Gregory Colbourn (Greg) was the 1st person I thought of. He said: I think AGI [artificial general intelligence] is 0-5 years away and p(doom|AGI) is ~90% I doubt doom in the sense of human extinction is anywhere as likely as suggested by the above. I guess the annual extinction risk over the next 10 years is 10^-7, so I proposed a bet to Greg similar to the end-of-the-world bet between Bryan Caplan and Eliezer Yudkowsky. Meanwhile, I transferred 10 k€ to PauseAI[3], which is supported by Greg, and he agreed to the following. If Greg or any of his heirs are still alive by the end of 2027, they transfer to me or an organisation of my choice 20 k€ times the ratio between the consumer price index for all urban consumers and items in the United States, as reported by the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), in December 2027 and April 2024. I expect inflation in this period, i.e. a ratio higher than 1. Some more details: The transfer must be made in January 2028. I will decide in December 2027 whether the transfer should go to me or an organisation of choice. My current preference is for it to go directly to an organisation, such that 10 % of it is not lost in taxes. If for some reason I am not able to decide (e.g. if I die before 2028), the transfer must be made to my lastly stated organisation of choice, currently The Humane League (THL). As Founders Pledge's Patient Philanthropy Fund, I have my investments in Vanguard FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Acc. This is an exchange-traded fund (ETF) tracking global stocks, which have provided annual real returns of 5.0 % since 1900. In addition, Lewis Bollard expects the marginal cost-effectiveness of Open Philanthropy's (OP's) farmed animal welfare grantmaking "will only decrease slightly, if at all, through January 2028"[4], so I suppose I do not have to worry much about donating less over the period of the bet of 3.67 years (= 2028 + 1/12 - (2024 + 5/12)). Consequently, I think my bet is worth it if its benefit-to-cost ratio is higher than 1.20 (= (1 + 0.050)^3.67). It would be 2 (= 20*10^3/(10*10^3)) if the transfer to me or an organisation of my choice was fully made, and Person X fulfils the agreement, so I need 60 % (= 1.20/2) of the transfer to be made and agreement with Person X to be fulfilled. I expect this to be the case based on what I know about Greg and Person X, and information Greg shared, so I went ahead with the bet. Here are my and Greg's informal signatures: Me: Vasco Henrique Amaral Grilo. Greg: Gregory Hamish Colbourn. Impact I expect 90 % of the potential benefits of the bet to be realised. So I believe the bet will lead to additional donations of 8 k€ (= (0.9*20 - 10)*10^3). Saulius estimated corporate campaigns for chicken welfare improve 41 chicken-years per $, and OP thinks "the marginal FAW [farmed animal welfare] funding opportunity is ~1/5th as cost-effective as the average from Saulius' analysis", which means my donations will affect 8.20 chicken-years per $ (= 41/5). Therefore I expect my bet to improve 65.6 k chicken-years (= 8*10^3*8.20). I also estimate corporate campaigns for chicken welfare have a cost-effectiveness of 14.3 DALY/$[5]. So I expect the benefits of the bet to be equiv...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: titotal on AI risk scepticism, published by Vasco Grilo on May 31, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This is a linkpost for titotal's posts on AI risk scepticism, which I think are great. I list the posts below chronologically. Chaining the evil genie: why "outer" AI safety is probably easy Conclusion Summing up my argument in TLDR format: 1. For each AGI, there will be tasks that have difficulty beyond it's capabilities. 2. You can make the task "subjugate humanity under these constraints" arbitrarily more difficult or undesirable by adding more and more constraints to a goal function. 3. A lot of these constraints are quite simple, but drastically effective, such as implementing time limits, bounded goals, and prohibitions on human death. 4. Therefore, it is not very difficult to design a useful goal function that raises subjugation difficulty above the capability level of the AGI, simply by adding arbitrarily many constraints. Even if you disagree with some of these points, it seems hard to see how a constrained AI wouldn't at least have a greatly reduced probability of successful subjugation, so I think it makes sense to pursue constraints anyway (as I'm sure plenty of people already are). AGI Battle Royale: Why "slow takeover" scenarios devolve into a chaotic multi-AGI fight to the death Summary The main argument goes as follows: 1. Malevolent AGI's (in the standard model of unbounded goal maximisers) will almost all have incompatible end goals, making each AGI is an existential threat to every other AGI. 2. Once one AGI exists, others are likely not far behind, possibly at an accelerating rate. 3. Therefore, if early AGI can't take over immediately, there will be a complex, chaotic shadow war between multiple AGI's with the ultimate aim of destroying every other AI and humanity. I outlined a few scenarios of how this might play out, depending on what assumptions you make: Scenario a: Fast-ish takeoff The AGI is improving fast enough that it can tolerate a few extra enemies. It boosts itself until the improvement saturates, takes a shot at humanity, and then dukes it out with other AGI after we are dead. Scenario b: Kamikaze scenario The AGI can't improve fast enough to keep up with new AGI generation. It attacks immediately, no matter how slim the odds, because it is doomed either way. Scenario c: AGI induced slowdown The AGI figures out a way to quickly sabotage the growth of new AGI's, allowing it to outpace their growth and switch to scenario a. Scenario d: AI cooperation Different AGI's work together and pool power to defeat humanity cooperatively, then fight each other afterwards. Scenario e: Crabs in a bucket Different AGI's constantly tear down whichever AI is "winning", so the AI are too busy fighting each other to ever take us down. I hope people find this analysis interesting! I doubt I'm the first person to think of these points, but I thought it was worth giving an independent look at it. How "AGI" could end up being many different specialized AI's stitched together Summary: In this post, I am arguing that advanced AI may consist of many different smaller AI modules stitched together in a modular fashion. The argument goes as follows: 1. Existing AI is already modular in nature, in that it is wrapped into larger, modular, "dumb" code. 2. In the near-term, you can produce far more impressive results by stitching together different specialized AI modules than by trying to force one AI to do everything. 3. This trend could continue into the future, as specialized AI can have their architecture, goals and data can be customized for maximum performance in each specific sub-field. I then explore a few implications this type of AI system might have for AI safety, concluding that it might result in disunified or idiot savant AI's (helping humanity), or ...

O mercado de influência cresceu muito nos últimos anos, mas hoje vivemos numa grande crise. Em meio a tantas divulgações de golpes e jogos do tigrinho, a pergunta que fica é: por que seguimos determinadas pessoas?  Hoje, o episódio do AFETOS tem a participação da jornalista Bela Reis, que apresenta o “Angu de Grilo” e o “Conselhos que você pediu”. Essa conversa continua no:  Instagram: @Afetospodcast;  Twitter: @PAfetos Grupo do Telegram: t.me/AFETOSpodcast 

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Founders Pledge's Climate Change Fund might be more cost-effective than GiveWell's top charities, but it is much less cost-effective than corporate campaigns for chicken welfare?, published by Vasco Grilo on May 5, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Summary I think decreasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has benefits to humans of 0.00957 DALY/tCO2eq, of which: 68.8 % are strictly linked to decreasing GHG emissions. 31.2 % are linked to decreasing air pollution from fossil fuels. GiveWell's Top Charities Fund (TCF) is 0.00994 DALY/$. Corporate campaigns for chicken welfare, such as the ones supported by The Humane League (THL), is 14.3 DALY/$. I estimated the cost-effectiveness of CCF is: 3.28 times that of TCF, with a plausible range of 0.175 to 30.2 times. So it is unclear to me whether donors interested in improving nearterm human welfare had better donate to GiveWell's funds or CCF. 0.228 % that of corporate campaigns for chicken welfare, with a plausible range of 0.0122 % to 2.10 %. Consequently, I recommend donors who value 1 unit of nearterm welfare the same regardless of whether it is experienced by humans or animals to donate to the best animal welfare interventions, such as the ones supported by the Animal Welfare Fund (AWF). I concluded the harm caused to humans by the annual GHG emissions of a random person is 0.0660 DALY, and that caused to farmed animals by their annual food consumption is 10.5 DALY, i.e. 159 times as much. In my mind, this implies one should overwhelmingly focus on minimising animal suffering in the context of food consumption. I calculated the cost-effectiveness of: Founders Pledge's Climate Change Fund (CCF) is 0.0326 DALY/$, with a plausible range of 0.00174 to 0.300 DALY/$. Calculations I describe my calculations below. You are welcome to make a copy of this Sheet to use your own numbers. Benefits to humans of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions I think decreasing GHG emissions has benefits to humans of 0.00957 DALY/tCO2eq (= 0.00658 + 0.00299), adding: 0.00658 DALY/tCO2eq strictly linked to decreasing GHG emissions, which comprises 68.8 % (= 0.00658/0.00957) of the total. 0.00299 DALY/tCO2eq linked to decreasing air pollution from fossil fuels, which comprises 31.2 % (= 0.00299/0.00957) of the total. I calculated a component strictly linked to decreasing GHG emissions of 0.00658 DALY/tCO2eq (= 0.0394*10^-3*167), multiplying: A value of increasing economic growth of 0.0394 DALY/k$ (= 0.5/(12.7*10^3)). I computed this from the ratio between: Open Philanthropy's (OP's) valuation of health of 0.5 DALYs per multiple of income (= 1/2). The global gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in 2022 of 12.7 k$. A social cost of carbon (SSC) in 2020 of 167 $/tCO2eq (= 17.1*1.14*2.76*2.06*1.51). I determined this from the product between: A partial SSC in 2020 representing just the effects on mortality of 17.1 2019-$/tCO2eq, as obtained in Carleton 2022 for the representative concentration pathway 4.5 (RCP 4.5), and their preferred discount rate of 2 %[1] (see Table III). Carleton 2022 got 36.6 2019-$/tCO2eq for RCP 8.5. Nevertheless, I considered the value for RCP 4.5 because this results in a global warming in 2100 of 2.5 to 3 ºC relative to the pre-industrial baseline, which is in agreement with Metaculus' median community prediction on 11 March 2024 of 2.81 ºC relative to the 1951-1980 baseline. In contrast, RCP 8.5 leads to a global warming in 2100 of 5 ºC relative to the pre-industrial baseline. Carleton 2022 says "a "full" SCC would encompass effects across all affected outcomes (and changes in mortality due to other features of climate change, like storms)". However, I believe Carleton 2022's estimates could be interpreted as encompassing all the impacts on mortality, as I guess additional deaths caused by GHG emissions through natu...

Será o último episódio do PIXSHOW ou o primeiro de uma nova Era?

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Animals in Cost-Benefit Analysis, published by Vasco Grilo on April 25, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This is a linkpost for Animals in Cost-Benefit Analysis by Andrew Stawasz. The article is forthcoming in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. Abstract Federal agencies' cost-benefit analyses do not capture nonhuman animals' ("animals'") interests. This omission matters. Cost-benefit analysis drives many regulatory decisions that substantially affect many billions of animals. That omission creates a regulatory blind spot that is untenable as a matter of morality and of policy. This Article advances two claims related to valuing animals in cost-benefit analyses. The Weak Claim argues that agencies typically may do so. No legal prohibitions usually exist, and such valuation is within agencies' legitimate discretion. The Strong Claim argues that agencies often must do so if a policy would substantially affect animals. Cost-benefit analysis is concerned with improving welfare, and no argument for entirely omitting animals' welfare holds water. Agencies have several options to implement this vision. These options include, most preferably, human-derived valuations (albeit in limited circumstances), interspecies comparisons, direct estimates of animals' preferences, and, at a minimum, breakeven analysis. Agencies could deal with uncertainty by conducting sensitivity analyses or combining methods. For any method, agencies should consider what happens when a policy would save animals from some bad outcomes and what form a mandate to value animals should take. Valuing animals could have mattered for many cost-benefit analyses, including those for pet-food safety regulations and a rear backup camera mandate. As a sort of "proof of concept," this Article shows that even a simple breakeven analysis from affected animals' perspective paints even the thoroughly investigated policy decision at issue in Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. in an informative new light. Table of contents Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Should the main text of the write-ups of Open Philanthropy's large grants be longer than 1 paragraph?, published by Vasco Grilo on March 31, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. On 17 February 2024, the mean length of the main text of the write-ups of Open Philanthropy's largest grants in each of its 30 focus areas was only 2.50 paragraphs, whereas the mean amount was 14.2 M 2022-$[1]. For 23 of the 30 largest grants, it was just 1 paragraph. The calculations and information about the grants is in this Sheet. Should the main text of the write-ups of Open Philanthropy's large grants (e.g. at least 1 M$) be longer than 1 paragraph? I think greater reasoning transparency would be good, so I would like it if Open Philanthropy had longer write-ups. In terms of other grantmakers aligned with effective altruism[2]: Charity Entrepreneurship ( CE) produces an in-depth report for each organisation it incubates (see CE's research). Effective Altruism Funds has write-ups of 1 sentence for the vast majority of the grants of its 4 funds. Founders Pledge has write-ups of 1 sentence for the vast majority of the grants of its 4 funds. Future of Life Institute's grants have write-ups roughly as long as Open Philanthropy. Longview Philanthropy's grants have write-ups roughly as long as Open Philanthropy. Survival and Flourishing Fund has write-ups of a few words for the vast majority of its grants. I encourage all of the above except for CE to have longer write-ups. I focussed on Open Philanthropy in this post given it accounts for the vast majority of the grants aligned with effective altruism. Relatedly, you may want to check this discussion. ^ Open Philanthropy has 17 broad focus areas, 9 under global health and wellbeing, 4 under global catastrophic risks ( GCRs), and 4 under other areas. However, its grants are associated with 30 areas. I define main text as that besides headings, and not including paragraphs of the type: "Grant investigator: [name]". "This page was reviewed but not written by the grant investigator. [Organisation] staff also reviewed this page prior to publication". "This follows our [dates with links to previous grants to the organisation] support, and falls within our focus area of [area]". "The grant amount was updated in [date(s)]". "See [organisation's] page on this grant for more details". "This grant is part of our Regranting Challenge. See the Regranting Challenge website for more details on this grant". "This is a discretionary grant". I count lists of bullets as 1 paragraph. ^ The grantmakers are ordered alphabetically. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Crises reveal centralisation, published by Vasco Grilo on March 28, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This is a crosspost for Crises reveal centralisation by Stefan Schubert, published on 3 May 2023. An important question for people focused on AI risk, and indeed for anyone trying to influence the world, is: how centralised is power? Are there dominant actors that wield most of the power, or is it more equally distributed? We can ask this question on two levels: On the national level, how powerful is the central power - the government - relative to smaller actors, like private companies, nonprofits, and individual people? On the global level, how powerful are the most powerful countries - in particular, the United States - relative to smaller countries? I think there are some common heuristics that lead people to think that power is more decentralised than it is, on both of these levels. One of these heuristics is what we can call "extrapolation from normalcy": Extrapolation from normalcy: the view that an actor seeming to have power here and now (in relatively normal times) is a good proxy for it having power tout court. It's often propped up by a related assumption about the epistemology of power: Naive behaviourism about power (naive behaviourism, for short): the view that there is a direct correspondence between an actor's power and the official and easily observable actions it takes. In other words, if an actor is powerful, then that will be reflected by official and easily observable actions, like widely publicised company investments or official government policies. Extrapolation from normalcy plus naive behaviourism suggest that the distribution of power is relatively decentralised on the national level. In normal times, companies are pursuing many projects that have consequential social effects (e.g. the Internet and its many applications). While these projects are subject to government regulation to some extent, private companies normally retain a lot of leeway (depending on what they want to do). This suggests (more so, the more you believe in naive behaviourism) that companies have quite a lot of power relative to governments in normal times. And extrapolation from normalcy implies that that this isn't just true in normal times, but holds true more generally. Similarly, extrapolation from normalcy plus naive behaviourism suggest that power is relatively decentralised on the global level, where we compare the relative power of different countries. There are nearly 200 independent countries in the world, and most of them make a lot of official decisions without overt foreign interference. While it's true that invasions do occur, they are relatively rare (the Russian invasion of Ukraine notwithstanding). Thus, naive behaviourism implies that power is decentralised under normal times, whereas extrapolation from normalcy extends that inference beyond normal times. But in my view, the world is more centralised than these heuristics suggest. The easiest way to see that is to look at crises. During World War II, much of the economy was put under centralised control one way or another in many countries. Similarly, during Covid, many governments drastically curtailed individual liberties and companies' economic activities (rightly or wrongly). And countries that want to acquire nuclear weapons (which can cause crises and wars) have found that they have less room to manoeuvre than the heuristics under discussion suggest. Accordingly, the US and other powerful nations have been able to reduce nuclear proliferation substantially (even though they've not been able to stop it entirely). It is true that smaller actors have a substantial amount of freedom to shape their own destiny under normal times, and that's an important fact. But still, who makes what official de...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Supervolcanoes tail risk has been exaggerated?, published by Vasco Grilo on March 6, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This is a linkpost for the peer-reviewed article "Severe Global Cooling After Volcanic Super-Eruptions? The Answer Hinges on Unknown Aerosol Size" ( McGraw 2024). Below are its abstract, my notes, my estimation of a nearterm annual extinction risk from supervolcanoes of 3.38*10^-14, and a brief discussion of it. At the end, I have a table comparing my extinction risk estimates with Toby Ord's existential risk guesses given in The Precipice. Abstract Here is the abstract from McGraw 2024 (emphasis mine): Volcanic super-eruptions have been theorized to cause severe global cooling, with the 74 kya Toba eruption purported to have driven humanity to near-extinction. However, this eruption left little physical evidence of its severity and models diverge greatly on the magnitude of post-eruption cooling. A key factor controlling the super-eruption climate response is the size of volcanic sulfate aerosol, a quantity that left no physical record and is poorly constrained by models. Here we show that this knowledge gap severely limits confidence in model-based estimates of super-volcanic cooling, and accounts for much of the disagreement among prior studies. By simulating super-eruptions over a range of aerosol sizes, we obtain global mean responses varying from extreme cooling all the way to the previously unexplored scenario of widespread warming. We also use an interactive aerosol model to evaluate the scaling between injected sulfur mass and aerosol size. Combining our model results with the available paleoclimate constraints applicable to large eruptions, we estimate that global volcanic cooling is unlikely to exceed 1.5°C no matter how massive the stratospheric injection. Super-eruptions, we conclude, may be incapable of altering global temperatures substantially more than the largest Common Era eruptions. This lack of exceptional cooling could explain why no single super-eruption event has resulted in firm evidence of widespread catastrophe for humans or ecosystems. My notes I have no expertise in volcanology, but I found McGraw 2024 to be quite rigorous. In particular, they are able to use their model to replicate the more pessimistic results of past studies tweeking just 2 input parameters (highlighted by me below): "We next evaluate if the assessed aerosol size spread is the likely cause of disagreement among past studies with interactive aerosol models. For this task, we interpolated the peak surface temperature responses from our ModelE simulations to the injected mass and peak global mean aerosol size from several recent interactive aerosol model simulations of large eruptions (Fig. 7, left panel). Accounting for these two values alone (left panel), our model experiments are able to reproduce remarkably similar peak temperature responses as the original studies found". By "reproduce remarkably well", they are referring to a coefficient of determination (R^2) of 0.87 (see Fig. 7). "By comparison, if only the injected masses of the prior studies are used, the peak surface temperature responses cannot be reproduced". By this, they are referring to an R^2 ranging from -1.82 to -0.04[1] (see Fig. 7). They agree with past studies on the injected mass, but not on the aerosol size[2]. Fig. 3a (see below) illustrates the importance of the peak mean aerosol size. The greater the size, the weaker the cooling. I think this is explained as follows: Primarily, smaller particles reflect more sunlight per mass due to having greater cross-sectional area per mass[3]. Secondarily, larger particles have less time to reflect sunlight due to falling down faster[4]. According to Fig. 2 (see below), aerosol size increases with injected mass, which makes intuitive sen...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Nuclear war tail risk has been exaggerated?, published by Vasco Grilo on February 26, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. The views expressed here are my own, not those of Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters ( ALLFED), for which I work as a contractor. Summary I calculated a nearterm annual risk of human extinction from nuclear war of 5.93*10^-12 ( more). I consider grantmakers and donors interested in decreasing extinction risk had better focus on artificial intelligence ( AI) instead of nuclear war ( more). I would say the case for sometimes prioritising nuclear extinction risk over AI extinction risk is much weaker than the case for sometimes prioritising natural extinction risk over nuclear extinction risk ( more). I get a sense the extinction risk from nuclear war was massively overestimated in The Existential Risk Persuasion Tournament ( XPT) ( more). I have the impression Toby Ord greatly overestimated tail risk in The Precipice ( more). I believe interventions to decrease deaths from nuclear war should be assessed based on standard cost-benefit analysis ( more). I think increasing calorie production via new food sectors is less cost-effective to save lives than measures targeting distribution ( more). Extinction risk from nuclear war I calculated a nearterm annual risk of human extinction from nuclear war of 5.93*10^-12 (= (6.36*10^-14*5.53*10^-10)^0.5) from the geometric mean between[1]: My prior of 6.36*10^-14 for the annual probability of a war causing human extinction. My inside view estimate of 5.53*10^-10 for the nearterm annual probability of human extinction from nuclear war. By nearterm annual risk, I mean that in a randomly selected year from 2025 to 2050. I computed my inside view estimate of 5.53*10^-10 (= 0.0131*0.0422*10^-6) multiplying: 1.31 % annual probability of a nuclear weapon being detonated as an act of war. 4.22 % probability of insufficient calorie production given at least one nuclear detonation. 10^-6 probability of human extinction given insufficient calorie production. I explain the rationale for the above estimates in the next sections. Note nuclear war might have cascade effects which lead to civilisational collapse[2], which could increase longterm extinction risk while simultaneously having a negligible impact on the nearterm one I estimated. I do not explicitly assess this in the post, but I guess the nearterm annual risk of human extinction from nuclear war is a good proxy for the importance of decreasing nuclear risk from a longtermist perspective: My prior implicitly accounts for the cascade effects of wars. I derived it from historical data on the deaths of combatants due to not only fighting, but also disease and starvation, which are ever-present indirect effects of war. Nuclear war might have cascade effects, but so do other catastrophes. Global civilisational collapse due to nuclear war seems very unlikely to me. For instance, the maximum destroyable area by any country in a nuclear 1st strike was estimated to be 65.3 k km^2 in Suh 2023 (for a strike by Russia), which is just 70.8 % (= 65.3*10^3/( 92.2*10^3)) of the area of Portugal, or 3.42 % (= 65.3*10^3/( 1.91*10^6)) of the global urban area. Even if nuclear war causes a global civilisational collapse which eventually leads to extinction, I guess full recovery would be extremely likely. In contrast, an extinction caused by advanced AI would arguably not allow for a full recovery. I am open to the idea that nuclear war can have longterm implications even in the case of full recovery, but considerations along these lines would arguably be more pressing in the context of AI risk. For context, William MacAskill said the following on The 80,000 Hours Podcast. "It's quite plausible, actually, when we look to the very long-term future, that that's [whether artificial...

BBB24: AMIZADE TÓXICA? DAVI x ISABELLE E TAPA NO GRILO DIVIDEM A WEB; BIA INCOMODA NA FESTA

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Brian Tomasik on charity, published by Vasco Grilo on January 31, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum. This is a linkpost for Brian Tomasik's posts on charity. My Donation Recommendations By Brian Tomasik First published: 2014 Nov 02. Last nontrivial update: 2018 May 02. Note from 2022 Jun 27: The details in this piece are slightly outdated. Maybe I'll update this page at some point, but for now, here's a quick summary of my current views. In terms of maximizing expected suffering reduction over the long-run future, my top recommendation is the Center for Reducing Suffering (CRS), closely followed by the Center on Long-Term Risk (CLR). (I'm an advisor to both of them.) I think both of these organizations do important work, but CRS is more in need of funding currently. CRS and CLR do research and movement building aiming to reduce risks of astronomical suffering in the far future. This kind of work can feel very abstract, and it's difficult to know if your impact is even net good on balance. Personally I prefer to also contribute some of my resources toward efforts that more concretely reduce suffering in the short run, to avoid feeling like I'm possibly wasting my life on excessive speculation. For this reason, I plan to donate my personal wealth over time toward charities that work mainly or exclusively on improving animal welfare. (I prefer welfare improvements over reducing meat consumption because the sign of the latter for wild-animal suffering is unclear.) The Humane Slaughter Association is my current favorite. A decent portion of the charities granted to by the EA Funds Animal Welfare Fund also do high-impact animal welfare work. I donate a bit to Animal Ethics as well. Summary This piece describes my views on a few charities. I explain what I like about each charity and what concerns me about it. Currently, my top charity recommendation for someone with values similar to mine is the Foundational Research Institute (an organization that I co-founded and volunteer for). Spreading Google Grants with Caution about Counterfactuals By Brian Tomasik First published: 2014 Feb 04. Last nontrivial update: 2016 Nov 09. Summary If you find an effective charity, write to them to ask whether they use Google Grants, and if not, suggest they sign up. Google Grants offers the prospect of immense returns for a small amount of labor, although one needs to be careful about not competing with other effective organizations and choosing keywords that draw in new people rather than preaching to the choir. Update (2015 Sep): Having used Google Grants for the last 1.5 years for several organizations, my conclusion is that the value of AdWords is modest. None of my organizations has found via AdWords a major donor or a promising future employee, even though our websites get high traffic volume from ads. Maybe part of the reason is that the best people don't click on ads much? Another reason is that the best people tend to be concentrated in dense social clusters, so that networking can be more effective. The Haste Consideration, Revisited By Brian Tomasik First published: 2013 Feb 03. Last nontrivial update: 2018 Apr 19. Summary Internal rates of return for charity are high, but they may not be as high as they seem naively. Haste is important, but because long-term growth is logistic rather than exponential, it's less important than has been suggested by some. That said, if artificial general intelligence (AGI) comes soon and exponential growth does not level off too quickly, naive haste may still be roughly appropriate. There are other factors for and against haste that parallel donate-vs.-invest considerations. Restating the summary in simpler language: Movements should saturate or at least show diminishing returns at some point, so that movement building sooner amounts to either j...

Chegamos com a energia lá em cima para o primeiro Lá do Bunker de 2024! E, para este programa super especial, reunimos a galera na nossa mesa de bar virtual para falar sobre o que mais estamos esperando para este novo ano. Tem expectativa para novos animes, filmes, jogos, séries e muito mais! Bora ouvir e Feliz Ano Novo galera! Citados no programa: Final Fantasy VII Rebirth terá de 40 a 100 horas de duração Final Fantasy VII Rebirth ganha visual poderoso em capa de revista 4ª temporada de True Detective ganha trailer tenso e cheio de mistérios 4ª temporada de True Detective terá referências a anos anteriores Série de Fallout tem monstros e apocalipse em primeiro trailer Confira data, sinopse, trailer e tudo sobre a série de Fallout Série de Fallout ganha novo teaser no TGA 2023 O Auto da Compadecida 2 ganha novas fotos com João Grilo e Chicó O Auto da Compadecida 2 confirma estreia para dezembro de 2024 Solo Leveling confirma data de estreia com direito a trailer frenético Solo Leveling revela música de abertura do anime com grupo de k-pop TXT Primeiro filme do final de Haikyuu!! ganha trailer decisivo e data de estreia Trailer do filme de Haikyuu!! antecipa partida de vôlei intensa Telegram - Lá do Bunker Entre no nosso grupo do Telegram! Apresentação Pri Ganiko -- Instagram / Twitter Camila Sousa -- Instagram / Twitter Edição  Doug Bezerra -- Instagram

Chegamos com a energia lá em cima para o primeiro Lá do Bunker de 2024! E, para este programa super especial, reunimos a galera na nossa mesa de bar virtual para falar sobre o que mais estamos esperando para este novo ano. Tem expectativa para novos animes, filmes, jogos, séries e muito mais! Bora ouvir e Feliz Ano Novo galera! Citados no programa: Final Fantasy VII Rebirth terá de 40 a 100 horas de duração Final Fantasy VII Rebirth ganha visual poderoso em capa de revista 4ª temporada de True Detective ganha trailer tenso e cheio de mistérios 4ª temporada de True Detective terá referências a anos anteriores Série de Fallout tem monstros e apocalipse em primeiro trailer Confira data, sinopse, trailer e tudo sobre a série de Fallout Série de Fallout ganha novo teaser no TGA 2023 O Auto da Compadecida 2 ganha novas fotos com João Grilo e Chicó O Auto da Compadecida 2 confirma estreia para dezembro de 2024 Solo Leveling confirma data de estreia com direito a trailer frenético Solo Leveling revela música de abertura do anime com grupo de k-pop TXT Primeiro filme do final de Haikyuu!! ganha trailer decisivo e data de estreia Trailer do filme de Haikyuu!! antecipa partida de vôlei intensa Telegram - Lá do Bunker Entre no nosso grupo do Telegram! Apresentação Pri Ganiko -- Instagram / Twitter Camila Sousa -- Instagram / Twitter Edição  Doug Bezerra -- Instagram

Chegamos com a energia lá em cima para o primeiro Lá do Bunker de 2024! E, para este programa super especial, reunimos a galera na nossa mesa de bar virtual para falar sobre o que mais estamos esperando para este novo ano. Tem expectativa para novos animes, filmes, jogos, séries e muito mais! Bora ouvir e Feliz Ano Novo galera! Citados no programa: Final Fantasy VII Rebirth terá de 40 a 100 horas de duração Final Fantasy VII Rebirth ganha visual poderoso em capa de revista 4ª temporada de True Detective ganha trailer tenso e cheio de mistérios 4ª temporada de True Detective terá referências a anos anteriores Série de Fallout tem monstros e apocalipse em primeiro trailer Confira data, sinopse, trailer e tudo sobre a série de Fallout Série de Fallout ganha novo teaser no TGA 2023 O Auto da Compadecida 2 ganha novas fotos com João Grilo e Chicó O Auto da Compadecida 2 confirma estreia para dezembro de 2024 Solo Leveling confirma data de estreia com direito a trailer frenético Solo Leveling revela música de abertura do anime com grupo de k-pop TXT Primeiro filme do final de Haikyuu!! ganha trailer decisivo e data de estreia Trailer do filme de Haikyuu!! antecipa partida de vôlei intensa Telegram - Lá do Bunker Entre no nosso grupo do Telegram! Apresentação Pri Ganiko -- Instagram / Twitter Camila Sousa -- Instagram / Twitter Edição  Doug Bezerra -- Instagram

Boa terça, angulers! Último Angu de Grilo de 2023! Abrimos o #217 comentando o novo capítulo das polêmicas envolvendo casas de apostas e cassinos online. O novo alvo é a Blaze e seus influenciadores. Depois, o primeiro pacote de medidas do Governo Milei na Argentina. Mudança no câmbio, inflação dos alimentos, fim dos subsídios nos transportes. Caos e tragédia. No mesmo bloco, comentamos a decisão - e revogação - de proibir que menores de idade fossem apreendidos nas praias do Rio apenas para averiguação, sem flagrante. Por fim, uma breve retrospectiva e balanço de 2023 e nossos desejos para o ano que vem aí. Obrigada pela escuta e pelo carinho, angulers! Feliz natal! Feliz ano novo! Edição e mixagem: Tico Pro - Indicações do #214: - Apoie o Angu no apoia.se/angudegrilo - Apoie o Angu na Orelo.cc/angudegrilo - Reportagem do Fantástico sobre o Jogo do Aviãozinho da Blaze e os influenciadores: https://globoplay.globo.com/v/12201974 - Pesquisa Creators e Negócios 2023 (Brunch e Youpix) https://tag.youpix.com.br/creators-amp-negocios-2023-download

Chegou o clássico momento do Estamos Bem?, um dos episódios favoritos dos ouvintes! Toda época de virada eu escolho a palavra que vai reger minhas metas e o que quero para o próximo ano e aqui estou com Isabela Reis, do Angu de Grilo, para conversamos sobre como a palavra de 2023 impactou o nosso ano e qual escolhemos para 2024. --------- PRA FICAR MELHOR LIVRO: Atlas do Coração (Link citado: https://www.ryandelaney.co/book-notes/atlas-of-the-heart-summary) SITE: Vida Organizada SITE: Hábitos que Mudam LIVRO: O Ano que eu disse sim PODCAST: Aquele sobre Autorresponsabilidade (Estamos Bem #155) --------- SIGA A GENTE NAS REDES SOCIAIS! Twitter: @estamosbempod | Instagram: @podcastestamosbem Bárbara dos Anjos: @dabarbara (Instagram) | @dabarbara (Twitter) Isabela Reis: @belareis --------- COLABORE COM O PODCAST PELA ORELO! Na Orelo, além de ouvir o Estamos Bem?, você pode contribuir com nosso podcast e ganha acesso ao grupo do Telegram e um programa exclusivo toda terça-feira em que entrevisto convidados que já passaram por aqui. Bora? Acesse https://orelo.cc/podcast/5e7f01d761d8770ee8d20aa7?forum=false --------- MANDE O SEU CASO PARA A GENTE! E-MAIL: podcastestamosbem@gmail.com