You are absolutely correct. The fact that this statement is made by a website holding itself out as an educational source is very disappointing.
Ultralight vehicles meeting these requirements (weight, single seater, etc.) are subject to NO airworthiness regulation by the FAA at all. So the FAA is making no statement on whether they are safe or easy to fly.
What these regulations mean is it is not a crime to fly something meeting these requirements (even if it was assembled by your crazy neighbor in their shed). That doesn't mean anyone would think it is a good idea, let alone the FAA.
In my corner of the world/philanthropy discussion, I'd consider GiveWell one of the most well-known organizations and with a reputation of high quality, thorough research. In terms of charity evaluators who focus on the impact per dollar spent, I'd have a hard time thinking of anyone comparable.
Regarding what type of programs GiveWell currently recommends, they do evaluate a wide range of types of programs. For instance, here is a page on their website summarizing some of their work on education: https://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/ed.... However, with the facts as they exist in the world today, their analysis is that for a given amount of funding, more good can be done with certain specific health interventions.
For #1, see the section headed "The risk of non-payment". Prior to the mortgages going into the pool, insurance against default is purchased from a GSE. In exchange for this insurance payment, in the event of default, the GSE buys back the mortgage for the remaining principle balance. So as an investor in the typical MBS, you don't face this risk.
For #2 and #3, while it could go into it in more detail, this is discussed in the section titled "Every other risk you could imagine, of which there are many". It notes that the value does change as a result of interest rate changes (in the context of noting this as a key reason why most mortgages are not held by banks, but other institutional investors which can better tolerate this interest rate risk).
These experiences are interesting, but I think Annapurna might not be the right benchmark to evaluate against. One of the least climbed and most deadly mountains on Earth seems rather far from OSM's core use case.
It is cool that OSM has the data, but I hope anyone attempting the summit is getting information more directly from other climbers.
I volunteered yesterday after seeing this article. To be clear, this is a very early expression of interest and there is no specific human challenge trial which is ready to begin at this time. Consequently, the exact trial implementation details are to be determined.
That said, I would be shocked if any such trial didn't involve the isolation of subjects in provided accommodations for the full duration of the study. It would be necessary on ethical grounds for the purpose of community safety. Obviously, that doesn't mean you should volunteer (it is still a risk to your health and extended isolation from your family would suck), but they aren't just going to infect you and then send you home to come back in a few weeks.
I don't think this is a fair interpretation of the poster above or Duflo & Banerjee's work. It is an unfortunate, but nevertheless true, statement that in the world today, we don't have an allocation of resources which allows for the most basic healthcare for all children. Let alone a broader set of healthcare services, free education, clear water, preventing malnutrition etc.
Those who want to make practical improvements quickly with those limited funds available (from developing country governments, foreign aid, charity, etc.) need to make effective use of those funds. I don't think it is a stretch to say it is a moral obligation to make sure those funds are put to good use.
Doing RCTs is quite key to identifying the most effective approaches whether the goal is lives saved/$, incremental years of education/$, malaria cases reduced/$, etc. With that data, you can direct funds to the most efficient cause in any given area.
Duflo & Banerjee are quite modest about any judgement on whether the focus should be on improving quantity or quality of life and how one should measure quality of life. Their books are quite clear that one's one view of preferences doesn't necessarily line up with those who you are trying to help.
And one last point, yes, of course, their work would go through ethics review panels. Basically anything with human subjects does and their work would obviously qualify.
WeWork never achieving profitability does seem entirely possible, maybe even the most likely outcome. However, I'm not sure that leads to the conclusion that it will crush their landlords. All of those landlords are sophisticated parties who could understand the counterparty risk involved in their choice of tenant. They should be prepared to deal with making money from WeWork for the time being and then finding a new tenant.
With regard to Neumann walking away with $700m, I've got to say if you are going to make a bunch of money off schmuck investors, it would be hard to find a list of investors I have less sympathy for than the Vision fund investors.
Ultralight vehicles meeting these requirements (weight, single seater, etc.) are subject to NO airworthiness regulation by the FAA at all. So the FAA is making no statement on whether they are safe or easy to fly.
What these regulations mean is it is not a crime to fly something meeting these requirements (even if it was assembled by your crazy neighbor in their shed). That doesn't mean anyone would think it is a good idea, let alone the FAA.