What's exactly difficult in running the MDN? It's just a bunch of makrdown files contributed to by folks on payroll from Google and co. The content can be hosted on github and served via github pages. This looks like a $25/year operation to me (total, not from each MDN user). The real value comes from those folks on payroll who update MDN, but the big tech is already willing to pay for that.
A society of monks living mostly alone would be more advanced than a society of busy workers competing for resources in a city hive. Octopuses may also have other means of communication: just like we use radiowaves and electricity, octopuses may have some natural radiowave emitters and receivers in their brains. And a short lifespan is a subjective measure: what matters is the amount of experience.
"Statutes" have no power when nobody wants to enforce them. I think the generic uniform trick is a way to hire random folks to deal with protests. DHS probably doesn't want to risk its own personnel, so they hire "disposable" folks from the streets and give them generic uniform to hide what they are doing.
Wait, didn't Chinese authorities said when this all started that there was a minor outbreak in the BSL4 lab, but it's under control? It's just when the "under control" didn't work, they started to cover things up.
"Depression" is often just inability to adjust to depressing environment. In the most extreme case, prisoners in Nazi camps should feel depressed and I'd argue that so should most of the people below the poverty line that's forced to be cogs in the depressing machine of capitalism. If my only choice was to be a cog on one of Amazon's warehouses, I'd rather choose to be a hermit, try shrooms and generally decline to waste life on doing silly things to enrich someone.
If we discard true clinical depression where a young dude in perfect health feels suicidal in his own bentley, my approach to treat depression would be reading books that stimulate imagination, from Harry Potter to more exciting literature like Transcendental Magic by Eliphas Levi.
I see the "inclusiveness" rhetoric is getting very aggressive and is approaching the state "if you are not with us, you are against us." In other words, they want to divide the society along the skin color, so people would forget that it's really about poor vs rich.
I think our brains just picks all the letters in a word, mixes them up together into something like "e:a:l:p = 1:1:1:2", adds context and does a lookup into a dictionary of such "letters mix" -> meaning pairs. If this is correct, dyslexia is when the brain can't quickly estimate the "amount" of each letter in a word, and the incorrect proportions result into an incorrect lookup.
I think I've experienced this a few times, even though I'm not dyslexic. This happened when I haven't slept for long time and reading something at 4 am gave me that "thoughts out of focus" feeling, when the words are right in front of me, I know I can read them, but experiencing a funny difficulty assembling the letters together. This also happened a couple times on the half-asleep state when I've almost woken up, but still seeing the dream and for a few seconds I had this strange "out of focus" state when focusing attention on words or speech is difficult.
Ha, I can get an offer from any of the FAANG without even trying and can comfortably say that not only I failed the binary search question in past when interviews were 1 hour long, I would still fail it now.
I'm pretty sure the generated code will be an incomprehensible mess that passes precisely those tests and nothing more, e.g. it would correctly sort arrays [1,3,2] and [3,2,1], but not [2,1,3]; and obviously not [1,4,2], because the specs didn't mention number 4.
Ego is necessary to protect a rather fragile flame of intelligence. When the flame becomes stable, the ego can be discarded. Some do, and in case of Feynman, if he did that, he would be called St. Richard; while some choose to turn their ego into a blast furnace, so the fire would turn inwards.
That's a trivial triangle. Modern papers go far beyond that and invent some partial diff operators, like "F.∇" which means "do the grad first, then dot product", use uncommon context-depenedent subscript and superscript indices that can mean fairly arbitrary things and so on. But my complaint is mostly about the use of unnecessary and terse formalism where a short full form is replaced by a 40% shorter form just to use a uber generic high order operator to look fancy and refer to couple mysterious (and useless in the context) theorems or other papers. This is when I have to read other similar papers and see wtf that cryptic equation really means (and often it means some mundane thing). Programmers have the same kind of mental problem: in order to look sophisticated, they intentionally use more cryptic and terse solutions to impress "less initiated" and to hide the fact that what they are doing isn't that complex.
I'd recommend to start with Plato and do some research about who he really was. The Plato's wikipedia page is a good example of what I'm talking about: lots of attention to insignificant details and an attempt to present Plato as some kind of "inventor of dialogue techniques."
Modern math papers also love cryptic symbolism. I've been doing some research and been reading papers on a certain topic from 50s to these days. The difference in math presentation is startling: a paper from 50s really tries to explain things, e.g. it uses simple partial derivatives and some simplifications because that's just enough for the paper; on the other hand a paper from 2020 describes the very same math as a cryptic sequence of triangles and dots, and the reader really need to be familiar with the context to understand what this compressed formula expands into. I believe the main motivation behind this is the desire to look sophisticated, so anyone reading the author's paper would be impressed at a glance with the complexity of the math.
IMHO, people don't get philosophy. There's philosophy about the "inner side of things", that uses cryptic symbolism with ten layers of meanings, and philosophy for the public. Only the latter is taught in schools and discussed. All these famous philosophers of the past - Plato, Aristotle, and even the modern Kant - were known first for their contribution to that "inner" philosophy, and coincidentally they also left a few texts comprehensible by the public, and only those texts are discussed. There are famous philosophers that only cared about the "inner side of things", there are statues to honor them, their books are kept by some libraries and individuals who recognize significance of those books, but you wouldn't hear their names, unless you do some research.
Modern science has the same dualism: some scientists bother to educate the public and simplify ideas for them, while some don't and only leave incomprehensible cryptic math. Einstein is a good example: GTR is what made him famous, but he got a public award (Nobel prize) for some side research.
Beans and all that isn't cheap overall: it takes will, effort and time to figure out what to buy and how to cook it. If that was packaged into cheap ready to eat burgers, spiced with something to make it more tolerable, then poor folks would switch to it. This approach isn't economically sound, though: it has 0 profit margins and it cuts deep into the fastfood & healthcare owners.
SE is just a diff equation that approximates physics well. It's non relativistic in the same sense as the textbook wave equation is non relativistic. The "true SE" is likely way more complex, includes some bizarre math, but is compatible with GR and all relativistic effects.
The relativistic effects create this standing wave, i.e. the particle distorts the spacetime as it's moving and the relativistic "glitch" mixed with the modulated ds2 creates the standing wave. IIRC, the idea was to apply the Lorentz moving frame transformation to the ds2 x exp() interval to derive some bits of QM. To derive the non time-dependent SE, some bits of GR were needed and to derive the time-dependent SE, more GR was needed.