This is all in line with Disney's standard operating procedure. Take a series that has reached the end of its watchable life, then make a bunch more movies to everyone's dismay. Pirates of the Caribbean, anyone? The first was fine, the rest were painful.

This is one of the reasons I hated Biology as a subject. The best definition I ever got for 'species' was a set of organisms that could interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This guy reminds us "remember, that's not always the case". So, if that's not the definition of species, what is? Poke and prod any Zoology professor long enough and he'll finally say "that's just the way it is, so just memorize it". There's no logical process defined for assigning organisms a place in our taxonomy. The only answer is "They guy credited with finding these arbitrarily decided that it belonged in this phylum, genus, etc" (I forgot the orders because, like I said, it's all arbitrary anyway). There is no sure-fire way to decide whether 2 organisms belong to the same species (much less any more generic taxon) because the reproduce with fertile offspring test is not necessarily the answer. It then comes down to "Well, they look different and they act different enough that I now officially say so". Bah. Is anything that arbitrary truly a science?

And why is it in yro?

No, you won't use calculus as a programmer. If you want to more than the most boring and repetative programming jobs, though, you need a sound understanding of discrete math and preferably computational theory. The jobs where these are needed are the fun, fulfilling jobs where you feel like you did more than just rewrite the same form in a slightly different format over and over. If web design is your thing, you won't need as much math as you will need art and HCI skills. But you'll also be doing the same thing in slightly different colors every day for the tenure of your career. It's your call. You can either learn math or trust that the people who did wrote the libraries you are using correctly.

Want a great example of magical thinking being nearly universal? Go to the first 5 people you see and ask them what their suggestion on a cure for hiccups is. You will get 5 different answers with absolutely no reasoning propping them up. They usually come in pairs, too: hold your breath vs. breath deeply. Sip water vs. drink it rapidly, etc. Nobody can explain why their method of choice works (most of them don't), but they believe them nonetheless.

From the original post: "... we ought to be able to see more clearly how government spending bettered everyday life, confirmed Keynesian economic theory and revealed that, before the war, the New Deal did too little, rather than too much, to stimulate the U.S. economy." From the Sherlock Holmes novel A Scandal in Bohemia: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." What I got from that article is "Now that we have data, we can pick and choose what suits the theory we have already decided as true". The attitude people ought to take if they want the actual truth rather than just some sort of affirmation (which few people do in politically charged issues such as Keynesian economics, sadly) is "let's look at this massive bunch of data and see what theory it suggests is true",

Statistics and its rules, including margins of error, do not apply when the sample size is equal to the population. "Margin of error" does not mean "probability that someone messed up". It means the margin by which the statistical sample is likely to be different than the population. When the sample is the population (in this case, every caucus members vote was counted, and therefore the sample is indeed the population), then the statistical margin of error is zero. Whoever posted this either doesn't understand statistics or purposely misused the word "margin of error" in order to get a rise out of other people who don't understand statistics.