"The manufactured outrage over the California math recommendations keep getting posted on HN. Read the actual text of the plans here [1]." This is not manufact

"The manufactured outrage over the California math recommendations keep getting posted on HN. Read the actual text of the plans here [1]." This is not manufactured outrage. I have read the framework (and many of the sources cited as support for the recommendations), and I am outraged. If you follow the footnotes, you'll find instances where: - the framework incorrectly states the conclusion/claim in the paper/study/web-page - the framework relies on a claim in a paper/study/web-page, when the paper/study/web-page lacks sufficient evidence to support the claim due to poor experimental design, poor interpretation, or lack of evidence altogether "The FAQ is at [2] and directly responds to these characterizations." The FAQ does not accurately portray the implications of the recommendations. (I read both the framework and FAQ a few months ago.)