Lots of terms in statistics could and should be renamed, according to my linear regression analysis professor who has a statistical distance named after him. Likelihood of effect by chance is close, but wordy.

If somebody can't explain statistical power, you can ignore their critique that the sample size is too small. People also do not know the difference between statistically significant and clinically significant.

So if I am reading this right business analyst it's second in volume but has a growth of 21 % but is in the middle to right of the line because of it's growth percentile?

Perfect example of when not to use pie charts. To many categories, hard to compare quickly. As they taught in my data visualization class, don't make people remember.

Not ugly, but not beautiful (only speaking about the viz, not the data).

I think you mean up to. Number one ecology program in the country was $17k only a couple years a ago. Duke biological sciences is much less than $40k , friend just got his PhD there.

It should be $40k a year for the work that grad students do

That is not a solution, that is a stop gap.

I can be ok with nuclear power AND be concerned about long term problems.

I am not anti nuclear . And whataboutism is not intellectually honest.

Nuclear waste is a problem that can't be ignored, a half life for 5000 years means engineers need to figure out how to turn waste into something beneficial or harmless.

Universities commercialize quite well by licensing their discoveries after they patent them.

Edit: I am not anti nuclear power. In it's short usage on this planet it is demonstrably safer than coal and natural gas. But that doesn't make it problem free.

Still waiting for nuclear power to figure out a long term solution to it's waste problem.

That problem alone can't be ignored and in a lot of people's eyes, outweighs the benefits.