If DOGE will document their claimed savings publicly, those claims can be tracked and challenged publicly. According to their claimed schedule, this will continue for the next 2 years. There can be case-by-case reviews by journalists, lawyers and courts.
You are the one who is claiming that they've saved $1.82 Billion dolars by posting some random website that thinks illegally destroying a federal agency is fiscally responsible.
Just embrace it. If they’re making claims, it would actually be prudent to document those claims and ask them about their methodology. Ask them if they consider any costs from second-order effects as subtracting from the total. If not, why not?
Calculate the totals yourself. Report the data to as many as possible. If you think it will look as bad as I do, there’s every reason to.
USAID is an entity created by Congress, a separate branch of government, via legislation, not via executive order. It lives in a separate universe, in legal terms, than entities created by executive order. This is called separation of powers. The executive branch cannot make substantive changes to an entity created by Congress due to separation of powers. It also cannot prevent moneys allocated by Congress to USAID from being spent, due to impoundment. These are tenets for you to learn, not argue about. The world was not invented with your birth, when you fell out of the coconut tree. You live in an inheritance, a world in which all of this- laws, independent branches, etc etc was already worked out, over many distinct countries and legal regimes over thousands of years.
>> You might want to use Fourier analysis instead.
Yep. There error plot clearly shows a 3rd harmonic dominating. IIRC the length of day is constant at the equator and the light/time function is a distorted sinewave as you go north or south from there. I am curious about the slope within a day. It seem to "get dark quickly" these day vs July.
You can and should talk about the biological and social origins of homosexuality if it interests you. But, you should avoid doing it in a way that's insulting.
I would also suggest, since it's a sensitive topic affecting people that have been persecuted, making sure the comments are thoughtful and non-reductionist.
For people who'd prefer to be cavalier about the subject though, there's not lack of spaces on the internet to do so.
I'd love more tools for using TeX and markdown. There are a few but they're not really given as a first choice anywhere.
About MathML... I mean I'm also not a fan. I'm not sure anyone really is. I've been cursed to work with it in some legacy pages. I love using mathjax. I'm not familiar at all with the two people who from the company who worked on it or that project. But I think it's going a bit far to think that MathML was nefarious corporate plot to manipulate the W3C. (0) MathML doesn't interoperate with WolframLanguage in any particularly great or exclusive way. (1) MathML makes more sense for the time period it was introduced than it does now. Mathjax is technology I don't think people foresaw at the time (Reparsing the DOM and injecting some kind of formatted math notation?!) People really thought math notation would need to be expressed in an XML like format. The other option at the time afaik was static images you'd generate from LaTeX and insert into your document. (2) TeX is a language for typesetting math in a paper and people thought we'd need something that went deeper, representing something closer to the intended semantics of the notation. This was probably a mistake.
Afaik MathML didn't make it harder for people to use TeX on the web.
Oh yes, definitely, I didn't mean that MathML was a nefarious corporate plot. Just that there's a tension between pragmatists and idealists: in this case those who just want to put math on the web for the common case in any way at all (images, MathJax, whatever works), and those who think/thought that semantics should be encoded, just as you said. (That's what the page I linked says too: "There was a danger during the 1990s that a standard would emerge for mathematical representation on the web that would be based on a TeX[…]-like typesetting language. This would have been disastrous […] To head off this possibility, Wolfram Research and Neil Soiffer decided to do everything they could to […]" etc.)
This tension has played out a few times in practice, e.g. when Wikipedia removed the (added in 2012) MathJax option and went back to images-only (2016? https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T99369) based to a large extent on arguments from people who are (still) MathML proponents (which I understand Wolfram may not be any more) — at least some of them are "semantic" advocates who believe in "structured" math input rather than "presentation" markup. So there's some conflict there.
(Anyway, this is all historical and unrelated to Wolfram Cloud.)
So I feel like you're right in that we can do a better job of explaining how to do this (I obviously work at Wolfram Research).
But I think it's very possible and a strength of ours. Wolfram|Alpha is used by many services, including now MS Excel which I think is a counter example to the paradox you mentioned.
I'm someone who occasionally works on Wolfram|Alpha and also a big fan of the account. Glad to see you're still going. Some of your examples have made me think really hard about ontological and organizational problems I hadn't yet considered.
Oh, it's not my account, I'm just a fan. All I know about the account is that it's run by the Reddit user Cosmologicon: https://www.reddit.com/user/Cosmologicon
