The FBI has finally released crime statistics for 2023!
Let's have a short thread.
First thing up is recent violent crime trends:
Now let's focus in on homicides.
The homicide statistics split by race show the same distribution they have for years.
As with every crime, it's still men doing the killing, but it's also largely men doing the dying.
What about Hispanics? Their data is still a mess, but here it is if you're interested.
The age-crime curve last year looked pretty typical. How about this year?
Same as always. Victims and offenders still have highly similar, relatively young ages.
Everything else, from locations to motives to weapons is pretty similar to previous years. What's different is that the OP might show incorrect numbers.
For the past two years, the FBI has silently updated their numbers after about two weeks.
You can use the web archive to see that the data from the OP is the data shown at release last year, and the data from 2023 is the 2022 data with the FBI's suggested reductions (i.e., -11.6% homicides, -2.8% aggravated assaults, -0.3% robberies, etc.).
But you can see on their site now that they've adjusted the numbers up, so the reduction they suggested has brought us down to a figure that's less impressive than my chart shows. The difference isn't huge so I showed the OP without updating to their new data.
For reference, 2022 as reported then had a homicide rate of 6.3/100k, and they silently updated that to 7.48/100k. The 2023 data they provided today actually has a murder rate of 6.61/100k, higher than last year's initially-reported number, but lower than the updated number. To make matters worse, if you use their Expanded Homicides Report, you get a rate of 5.94 for 2022 and 5.24 for 2023.
Methodology matters and we get to see inconsistency in this year's data, not even data that's been updated or anything. It's a mess, so take everything with a grain of salt and, in the interest of caution, only interpret trends. Trends are mostly common between all data sources even if the absolute magnitudes are off, constantly updated, etc.
Male and female biology PhDs without children are similarly likely to have tenure-track jobs after they receive their PhDs.
Males may get slightly ahead, but not enough to explain the sex gap in tenure🧵
To understand the larger gap in tenure-tracking, we have to look at the group of biology PhDs with children.
For men, their odds of of being in a tenure-track position just keep going up with the years.
For women, their odds plateau after having kids.
This comparison is subject to some confounding, but you can nevertheless see that the impact of a child on the gap is timed to when the birth of the child happens, suggesting that it really is a causal impact of having a kid.
Trump says his secret weapon in the fight to reform institutions of higher learning (38 USC § 3452(f)) is accreditation
He would actually gain a lot by deploying another weapon. This weapon is no secret to Democrats, but Republicans have only rarely used it
The weapon is data🧵
SFFA v. Harvard was a landmark case by the U.S. Supreme Court, wherein it was found that Harvard had been engaging in racially discriminatory admissions in violation of the law.
Per the court's decision, universities do not have the right to consider race during admissions.
SFFA v. Harvard was first filed in 2013 and the case was ultimately decided in 2023.
It took ten full years to decide against Harvard, even though the evidence that they discriminated in favor of Black students was shockingly obvious and insurmountable.
The picture looks much the same as the one last year🧵
When you rescale these curves by the numbers who took the test, you get this:
If you subset to the states where basically all high school students take the test (the "Representative" sample), the picture looks highly similar to the national one:
I just got done listening to Rogan's interview of Vance
It was substantive, and it is nice to hear that Vance would bring a lot of reasonability to the Trump White House if elected
Due to how long the interview was, it also showed off Vance's unusual-for-a-Republican priorities
To be frank, Vance is a Christian Democrat from 2008.
His views are basically just rejecting recent, wacky things and wanting a state that stays out of the way of the healthy, while providing extensive services for the unhealthy.
Vance focuses a lot on mental health, drug addiction, and people who he believes might only be temporarily struggling.
This makes total sense if you know about how disturbingly bad his early life was, and how it was plagued by drug addiction and poverty problems.
I'm not going to rig an ongoing poll by linking directly to it, but I will say that >90% of respondents so far were wrong:
The answer is climate🧵
Anatomically modern humans first appeared around 200,000 years ago.
After a few false starts, the dawn of man took place with a series of dispersions out of Africa about 60,000 years ago.
By 40-50 thousand years ago, humans had made it most places, and by 10-20, to the Americas
Practically all of that time dispersing took place as hunter-gatherers.
Specifically, nomadic hunter-gatherers. The real advent that made agriculture possible wasn't changing the mode of subsistence per se, but changing to sedentism.