California is considering a plan to revamp math education, whose first draft aimed to reduce the advanced courses available now (only in some schools) for students who were good at math. The idea was to prioritize equality of outcomes over helping each student to go as far as possible.

If the goal is to help nonwhite students on the average to do better in math, how about making sure calculus courses are taught in all high schools? The lack of these is one factor in holding them back, and it has an obvious remedy in the school system. Meanwhile, the article suggests that San Francisco has a way of encourage more diversity of students to advance to calculus without holding anyone back.

Another aspect of racism that contributes to the problem is that people in disprivileged groups are more likely to be poor. The math curriculum can't fix that, but the government can reduce poverty. We did it before; it isn't hard to do, if the government spends the requisite sum. If we defeat the plutocrats, we can do it again.

The history of political corruption in the US. Around 1900 it had reached a level of blatant excess that spurred progressive politicians to enact strong campaign finance limits.

Since 1980, plutocratist politicians have swept them away, absurdly claiming that giving money to politicians' campaigns doesn't buy them. Americans need to eliminate plutocracy in order to bring back democracy.

One of Reagan's advisors warned him in 1970 that if college were gratis, it threatened to produce an "educated proletariat" which would endanger the power of the rich. So Reagan set about making college more expensive.

Right-wing politicians and organizations rebuke Biden's partial loan-forgiveness, saying that it would encourage "irresponsible behavior". It turns out that many of them recently benefited from forgiveness of much larger loans, or other sorts of business bailouts.

Right-wingers believe it is wrong for the government to help the poor, because they assume that the poor are poor because they are bad people and therefore deserve to be poor.

The Twitter whistleblower says that Chinese, Russian and Indian government agents are getting special surveillance cooperation from Twitter.

The article talks in a vague sense about "intellectual property rights" that Twitter would need license for in order to train AI systems on various databases. Because that term is a misguided overgeneralization, the statement gives us no clue about which law it is actually talking about. None of the various laws that are foolishly lumped together under that term would be relevant to this. Maybe the statement is garbled, or has been confused by the use of the misleading generalization.