There's not really a way to disambiguate the two though - the fact that there are lots of medical technology startups and new drugs coming out of the US is because of the costs involved and how much can be harvested by being a little better. This creates new technologies that the US can't really protect against proliferation - so all of the money has to be harvested from the US market.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing - I for one happen to think it's great that our expensive medical system is financing all kinds of wonderful new technologies that benefit the world overall. However, the major problem here is that things that would be useful for other places simply don't have the market to support it, so most medical innovation exists in the context of the US medical system and it's problems - some of which are widespread, some of which are not. I do wish there were some other testbed healthcare systems out there for companies to try to disrupt, but I don't think it is (by itself) a call for medical reform.
My preferred medical reform is to "legalize insurance markets" (ie: repeal laws that state that insurance companies operating in state Y cannot sell insurance to people in state X because state Y policies are not legally compatible) and try to break the monopoly that doctors and nurses enjoy....somehow. Telehealth? Maybe?
So we have 50 total out of thousands, if not millions of potentially negative police interactions.
You can't build a system of robots without some fault-tolerance. How are humans supposed to keep up to that?
Based on this data - how can you make the assumption that a police interaction is an inherent risk to life that is always unjustified?
We mostly pay police to show up and be generally aggravating to people who might be doing bad stuff - in some sense "being sketchy in the vicinity" is a valid reason for police action, which doesn't even always turn into an arrest, let alone a life-or-death situation. Those cases are the vast minority of police interactions total.
The bad faith argument was losing an internal fight with other Googlers and deciding to go public in the hopes the social media mobs would force management to capitulate to her ideas.
This is why the idea that people who are being censored by large tech organizations should "build their own platform" is an inherently bad faith apologia.
Timnit Gebru is not a sincere researcher, in any respect.
She has proven to be willing to act in bad faith on numerous occassions when she is losing an argument. Not to say that a researcher is forbidden to hold any political opinions whatsoever - but her research is primarily political activism, and when political activism goes into research, what you get out is political activism, not research.
The whole Algorithmic Justice League concept is the process of overstating the impact of difficult-to-handle problems in order to secure laudable research positions and book deals.
Which - there actually should be someone willing to pose those arguments, but treating them as sincere researchers and not motivated
That is technically correct today. But that is because there are many problems with renewables that only really start to appear at scale.
In the United States - many utilities gave up literal free money from the Federal Government on renewable deployment because it was creating problems with the grid at like, 2% of use.
Nuclear is a drop in replacement for coal or natural gas.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing - I for one happen to think it's great that our expensive medical system is financing all kinds of wonderful new technologies that benefit the world overall. However, the major problem here is that things that would be useful for other places simply don't have the market to support it, so most medical innovation exists in the context of the US medical system and it's problems - some of which are widespread, some of which are not. I do wish there were some other testbed healthcare systems out there for companies to try to disrupt, but I don't think it is (by itself) a call for medical reform.
My preferred medical reform is to "legalize insurance markets" (ie: repeal laws that state that insurance companies operating in state Y cannot sell insurance to people in state X because state Y policies are not legally compatible) and try to break the monopoly that doctors and nurses enjoy....somehow. Telehealth? Maybe?