One of my pet peeves is getting stats wrong, and this is incorrect:

So I went through security late last night and, per usual, I opted out. (I opt out for a variety of reasons, but most significant is that if my body is going to be examined, I want to know exactly to what extent, and I can’t be 100% sure with the scanners.) They added a procedure. All brushing is about the pressure…

Oh! Well then I apologize, I really feel awful. I never want to shut down anybody who really wants to learn, it’s so hard to find people who bother. I hope my answer helped.

I know you’re trying to be snarky, but there’s a serious answer to your question. If you drop an apple to the earth, a la Newton, you might think that gravity moved the apple, but not the earth. This isn’t actually true. The earth did also move towards the apple. The force on each object was the same. F = ma, so the…

Well- if you want to get into it, you can actually debate that one. According to the linked article, she was only responsible for analyzing the data while her advisor had the idea to analyze the data. There’s debate in the field whether this qualifies you for a prize or not, since she wasn’t first, he was. For…

This isn’t the right analysis though- you can say they are being unfair if they have a significantly lower female prize percentage than the percentage of female candidates. But they have such a low number of prizes that it’s impossible to calculate statistics without huge error bars. There are tons of significant and…

I wish you had used this article to point out the bigger problem: inequality in the entire field. Yes, the award is political and yes, it’s mostly won by white men. The bigger issue is the demographics discrepancy that starts as soon as physics becomes an option in college. The problem stems from elementary education…

Yeah, it’s fundamentally guilt by association (what they’re doing is like blackface, and blackface is bad). It’s technically a logical fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associati…) but it is a powerful emotional argument, and sometimes that matters more than being technically correct.

Um... did you miss the cordon they’re using in the video...? I mean, it’s still a pretty cool visual, but the mob is being controlled by what looks like event staff and thick rope.

So just a small thing, you’re truly underestimating blackface. It was worse than making them a caricature or a joke. It often implied that black people are closer to monkeys than humans. Remember, people used to think that slavery was good for black people in the same way that domestication is good for dogs. They get…

What do you do with a white kid too young to understand these issues that makes Moana his idol? Or say one of the young boys that idolized Elsa from Frozen? How do we teach them about their own heritage and the gender roles they have chosen (assuming they’re capable of choosing) without instilling stereotypes?

It goes back to the original use of blackface. Pre-Civil Rights era, there would be plays with black characters. But black people would never be tolerated on stage. So white actors would paint their face black and pretend to be black. Without actually being black and this being the time period that it was, their…

Um... The point was that these people *aren’t* homeless. Or at least that was not the reason they were urinating in public, because in two cases they were literally less than 500 ft from a public bathroom; in the third, if you have a car and you're about to drive somewhere, you should be able to find a public bathroom…

While I understand the motivation behind saying, “what about the homeless,” in my (anecdotal) experience, it is not the homeless that do the majority of the public urination in San Francisco. The times I’ve seen it: One guy decided to urinate publicly on a footbridge wall in clear view of the entirety of Dolores Park,…

This post. There aren’t legal concerns to Gizmodo posting it. So, for instance, Keenan would finish writing the post. He’d send it to legal for approval. Legal would approve it because legal doesn’t have an editorial say. Their response, for instance, could be: “You’re being jerks. But that’s not legal grounds for not…

Not really, my understanding is the legal review is one of the last steps before publishing, and they wouldn’t have legal grounds to block the post. And they’re talking about reviewing something that’s going to air, not the transcript. Something that has nothing to do with the interview.

The lawyers review literally everything, every single article they publish. Like for instance, you’re allowed to insult the President, but threatening him is a felony, so legal would nix that. And when you’re giving an interview where there are legal concerns and privileges, it makes sense to have lawyers present. If…

One word: Netflix!

Not to me, actually, the opposite is really apparent. Did they say that anywhere?

I gave you references to the candidates’ positions on things. What would you like an answer to, specifically? Your question was broad. Economic policy? Police brutality? International policy? Nobody has one policy. Okay that’s a lie- Trump has one policy, “Make America great again,” which I would argue isn’t a policy…