neoliberal_dad

This headline is just not true. They retracted their study because its central claims were wrong due the authors' failure to understand Bayes' theorem:

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/3/1261

Basically, the question everybody is interested in is P(shot|attributes). The database of shootings they used only lets them estimate P(attributes|shot). But because they don't have data on the rate of police/attribute encounters, they can't support any claims about P(shot|attributes).

Speaking as someone who came from a less-than-stellar high school, referring to concepts as being "from high school X" can be pretty demoralizing to hear, and it's almost never necessary to mention. Consider using "introductory" instead, unless your audience is explicitly only people who went to advanced high schools.

That's good. Doctor salaries need to come down. You're not entitled to be compensated arbitrarily more than Medicare.

That this is being framed as a matter of free speech is preposterous. Richard Stallman isn't some low-level engineer. He runs one of the largest and most impactful open source foundations in the world. The question isn't whether it's ok to have these kinds of discussions. Stallman's questions were, to my mind, obtuse and silly, and a 74 year-old shouldn't need those things explained to him, but some people do. The important question is this: is somebody who is this obtuse about rape victims and the difficulties that women face in the workforce fit to lead one of the biggest and most impactful open source organizations in the world? The answer to that is clearly no.