This whole discussion you see above is part of the process of repeating a study. You can’t just do exactly what the previous study did and expect all the flaws to magically disappear. You need to first uncover the flaws, and more eyes and collaboration means a higher likelihood that the flaws get found, hence the importance of these discussions. Then you redesign the experiment to fix those flaws, and then you can run it again.

Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you said he endorsed Mamdani.

Was there actually an endorsement? All I’m finding is that Bill Clinton congratulated him on the primary victory.

There’s also the “science” that is your policy choices (personal or public policy) based on the science(n) and your values, risk tolerance, and lifestyle. Since the latter factors can change a lot over time, these policies can also fluctuate wildly and give the impression that “science” fluctuates wildly.

How are they managing to spend that much for imprisonment? Are they actual expenses or is someone pocketing most of it?

lowest charisma

What? This guy has one of the strongest cult followings of any human being I’ve ever heard of. How is that low charisma?