Update

democracy.md

@@ -6,6 +6,8 @@ Democracy (also *democrazy*) stands for *rule of the people*, it is a form of [g
 
 Nowadays the politics of most first world countries is based on elections and voting by people, but despite this being called democracy by the propaganda the reality is [de facto](de_facto.md) not a democracy but rather an [oligarchy](oligarchy.md), the rule THROUGH the people, creating an illusion of democracy which however lacks a real choice (e.g. the [US](usa.md) two party system in which people can either vote for capitalists or capitalists) or pushes the voters towards a certain choice by huge propaganda, misinformation and manipulation.
 
+Also nowadays democracy has mostly degenerated to "let's bully those who disagree with majority", i.e. "rule of the mainstream" (and of course, the mainstream is fully controlled by handful of rich etcetc.).
+
 Small brain simplification of democracy to mere "voting" may be highly ineffective and even dangerous. Democracy was actually considered to be very weak or even downright bad by many Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. We have to realize that **sometimes voting is awesome, but sometimes it's an extremely awful idea**. Why? Consider the two following scenarios:
 
 - **On simple issues wisdom of the crowd work very well**, as demonstrated by the famous experiment in which averaging guesses of many people on a number of beans in a jar resulted in an extremely precise estimate, a much more precise than any man alone could give. This is an example of when voting is the superior solution to making a decision.

iq.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+# IQ
+
+TODO
+
+## Pseudogenius VS Real Genius
+
+Most people are called a genius nowadays -- any recent so called "genius" (such as [Steve Jobs](steve_jobs.md)) is in fact most likely of below average IQ; just barely above mediocre idea someone comes up with by chance will be celebrated as that of a genius, **real genius ideas will be met with hostility**; real genius ideas are too good and too far ahead and unacceptable to normal people. Furthermore success in [business](business.md) requires lack of intelligence so as to be unable to see the consequences of one's actions. Your cat watching you solve Riemann hypothesis will not even know what's happening, to it you are a retard wasting time on sliding a stick over table, on the other hand the cat will judge a monkey capable of opening a can of cat food a genius. Society is composed solely of idiots, they can only see if someone is a tiny bit better at what they do than them, and those they celebrate, if you are light years ahead of them they don't even have the capacity to comprehend how good you are at what you do because they can't even comprehend the thing you do. This is why shit technology is prospering and [LRS](lrs.md) is being overlooked. It's just another confirmation our ideas as superior.
+
+## Quick IQ Test
+
+Here is a quick but extremely accurate IQ estimate. Let *x* be the approximate amount to which you agree with [LRS](lrs.md), expressed in percents. You IQ (SD 15) is approximately *2 * x*. If you can't compute that, subtract 200.
+
+DISCLAIMER: The previous paragraph is suitable to everyone. The following is a binding legal advice: STOP [CAPITALISM](capitalism.md).

linux.md

@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ Some alternatives to Linux (and Linux-libre) are:
 - [bare metal](bare_metal.md) UwU
 - [HyperbolaBSD](hyperbolabsd.md)
 - [Minix](minix.md)? Keep checking out smaller projects like [sortix](sortix.md), e.g. on osdevwiki.
-- non-Unix systems like [FreeDOS](freedos.md), [Haiku](haiku.md) etc.?
+- non-Unix systems like [FreeDOS](freedos.md), [Haiku](haiku.md) (tho possibly not 100% libre?) etc.?
 - TODO: MOAR
 
 ## Switching To GNU/Linux

paradigm.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+# Paradigm
+
+Paradigm (from Greek *paradeigma*, "pattern", "example") of a [programming languages](programming_language.md) means the very basic concepts that are used as a basis for performing computation in that language. Among popular paradigms are e.g. the [imperative](imperative.md), [object oriented](oop.md) and [functional](functional.md), but there are many more; we may see every paradigm as a set of basic ideas and mathematical models (e.g. [models of computation](model_of_computation.md)) that form the foundation of how the language works; these are typically additionally also accompanied by kind of "philosophy"/mindset/recommendations that will likely be used by the programmer who uses the language. Just to be clear, paradigm does NOT encompass other than purely technical aspects of performing computation (i.e. it does NOT include e.g. political, artistic or other ideas such as "eco-friendly language", "joke language" etc.). Just as e.g. music genres, paradigms are greatly fuzzy, have different definitions, flavors and are often combined; sometimes it's unclear how to classify paradigms (if one strictly falls under another etc.) or even if something is or isn't a paradigm.
+
+For example the [functional](functional.md) paradigm is built on top of [lambda calculus](lambda_calculus.md) (one of many possible mathematical systems that can be used to perform general calculations) which performs calculations by combining pure mathematical [functions](function.md) -- this then shapes the language so that a programmer will mostly be writing mathematical functions in it, AND this also usually comes with the natural "philosophy" of subsequently viewing everything as a function, even such things as loops or [numbers](number.md) themselves. In contrast [object oriented](oop.md) (OOP) paradigm tries to solve problems by constructing a network of intercommunicating "objects" and so in OOP we tend to see most things as objects.
+
+**Most common** practically used paradigm is the [imperative](imperative.md), one based on the simple concept of issuing "commands" to a [computer](computer.md) -- though it is nowadays almost always combined with some other [bullshit](bullshit.md) paradigm, most notably [object orientation](oop.md). Prevalence of imperative paradigm is probably caused by several factors, most importantly its simplicity (it's possibly the closest to human thinking, easiest to learn, predict etc.), efficiency thanks to being closest to how computers actually work (compilers have very small overhead in translation, they perform less "[magic](magic.md)"), historically established status (which is related to simplicity; imperative was the first natural approach to programming) etc.
+
+**List of notable paradigms** follows (keep in mind the subjectivity and fuzziness that affect classification):
+
+- **[imperative](imperative.md)**: Programmer issues commands, the computer blindly executes them ("impero" = "to command"). The focus is on the process of computation. This is the most common paradigm.
+  - **[procedural](procedural.md)**: Programmer writes procedures -- smaller subprograms that together solve the whole problem at hand. This is an extremely common paradigm; procedures are also often called *[functions](function.md)*, but they mustn't be confused with PURE mathematical functions used in functional paradigm. Examples: [Pascal](pascal.md), [C](c.md), [Fortran](fortran.md), ...
+  - **[stack](stack.md)-based**: Computation happens on stack (or multiple stacks), a [data structure](data_structure.md) very convenient for this purpose. These languages often naturally use prefix or postfix notation, it is easy to implement parameter passing and returning values, many computations are elegant. This is a popular paradigm for [minimalist](minimalism.md) languages. Examples: [Forth](forth.md), [comun](comun.md).
+  - **[event](event.md)-driven**: Programmer defines reactions to certain external events rather than a single run of a program. This is very often used in [GUI](gui.md) programming (with events such as "button clicked", "window resized" etd.). Example: [Javascript](javascript.md).
+  - **[array](array.md)-based**: Operations mostly work on [arrays](array.md) as opposed to working on single values (scalars).
+  - ...
+- **[declarative](declarative.md)**: Programmer defines ("declares") what the result should look like, the program finds something that fits the definition. The focus is on the result, not the process to obtain it.
+  - **[functional](functional.md)**: Programmer describes solution to a problem as composition of pure mathematical functions (which are not to be confused with more loosely defined "functions" present in many languages). Here everything, even branching and loops, are implemented as strictly mathematical functions that have no [side effects](side_effect.md). Formally this paradigm is based on [lambda calculus](lambda_calculus.md). Example: [Haskell](haskell.md).
+  - **[logic](logic.md)**: Programmer describes solution using formal [logic](logic.md). Example: [Prolog](prolog.md).
+  - ...
+- **[object oriented](oop.md)** (OOP): Programmer defines objects (greatly independent, small encapsulated abstract entities) that communicate with each other to solve given problem. Most generally the paradigm is only about "decomposing problems to objects" and so may be implemented as both imperative and declarative, though nowadays OOP is heavily combined with imperative programming and so is often seen as imperative. Examples: [Smalltalk](smalltalk.md), [Java](java.md), [C++](cpp.md), ...
+  - class-based
+  - classless
+  - ...
+- **[agent](agent.md) oriented** (AOP): Very similar to OOP, sometimes very vague, many times seen as OOP extension focusing on concurrency, agents are entities having their own goals (as opposed to mere objects as "service providers").
+- ...
+
+The list enumerates just the most important paradigms, other possible paradigms and "almost" paradigms may just include anything connected to any largely useful concept, e.g.: [recursive](recursion.md), [concurrent](concurrency.md), structured, [data](data.md) oriented, visual, [set](set.md)-based, table-based, [metaprogramming](metaprogramming.md), non[deterministic](determinism.md), value-level, message-based, [generic](generics.md), reflective, constraint programming, [genetic](genetic.md), term rewriting, [string](string.md)-based, symbolic etcetc.

programming_language.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ We divide programming languages into different groups. Perhaps the most common d
 
 Sometimes the distinction here may not be completely clear, for example Python is normally considered an interpreted language but it can also be compiled into [bytecode](bytecode.md) and even native code. [Java](java.md) is considered more of a compiled language but it doesn't compile to native code (it compiles to bytecode). [C](c.md) is traditionally a compiled language but there also exist C interpreters. [Comun](comun.md) is meant to be both compiled and interpreted etc.
 
-We can divide language in many more ways, for example based on their **[paradigm](paradigm.md)** ([impertaive](imperative.md), [declarative](declarative.md), [object-oriented](oop.md), [functional](functional.md), [logical](logical.md), ...), **purpose** (general purpose, special purpose), computational power ([turing complete](turing_complete.md) or weaker), level of **[abstraction](abstraction.md)** (high, low), [typing](data_type.md) (strong, weak, dynamic, static) or function evaluation (strict, lazy).
+We can divide language in many more ways, for example based on their **[paradigm](paradigm.md)** (roughly its core idea/model/"philosophy", e.g. [impertaive](imperative.md), [declarative](declarative.md), [object-oriented](oop.md), [functional](functional.md), [logical](logical.md), ...), **purpose** (general purpose, special purpose), computational power ([turing complete](turing_complete.md) or weaker), level of **[abstraction](abstraction.md)** (high, low), [typing](data_type.md) (strong, weak, dynamic, static) or function evaluation (strict, lazy).
 
 A computer language consists from two main parts:
 

ted_kaczynski.md

@@ -21,3 +21,7 @@ The manifesto is named *Industrial Society and Its Future*. In it he refers to h
 First he bashes "leftists", analyses their psychology and says they are kind of degenerate sheeple, characterized by low self esteem, inventing bullshit artificial issues (such as the issue of [political correctness](political_correctness.md)), sometimes using violence. He also criticizes conservatives for supporting technological and economical growth which in his view inevitably brings on shift in societal values and said degeneracy. The usual societal issues are presented such as bad mental health, people being slaves to the system, feeling powerless, having no security, no autonomy etc. The cause of unhappiness and other human issues is identified as people not being able to fulfill what he sees as a necessity for fulfilling life, so called *power process*, the process of considerable struggle towards a  *real* goal that can be achieved such as obtaining food by hunting -- he argues nowadays it's "too easy" to satisfy these basic needs and people invent artificial "surrogate" activities (such as sports, activism and even science) to do to try to fulfill the power process, however he sees these artificial activities as harmful, not *real* goals. It is mentioned we only have freedom in unimportant aspects of life, the system controls and regulates everything, brainwashes people etc. He defines real freedom as the opportunity to go through the power process naturally and being in control of one's circumstances. It is talked a lot about modification of humans themselves, either by advanced psychological means (propaganda), drugs or genetic modification which is seen as a future danger. A number of principles by which society works is outlined and it is concluded that the industrial society can't be reformed, a revolution is needed (not necessarily violent). Ted argues the system needs to be destroyed, we have to get back to the nature, and for this revolution he outlines a plan and certain recommendations (creation of ideology for intellectuals and common folk, the necessity of the revolution being world-wide etc.). He ends with again bashing "leftism" and warns they must never be collaborated with.
 
 Now Let us leave a few comments on the manifesto. Firstly we have to say the text is easy to read, well thought through and Ted makes some great points, many of which we completely agree; this includes the overall notion of technology having had mostly negative effects on recent society, the pessimistic view of our future and the criticism of "harmful modern bullshit" such as political correctness. He analyzes and identifies some problems in society very well (e.g. the propaganda that's so advanced that even its creators aren't usually consciously aware they're creating propaganda, his analysis of the inner working of the system is spot on). Nevertheless we also **disagree on many points**. Firstly we use different terminology; people who Ted calls *leftist* and whom he accuses of degeneracy and harmfulness we call [pseudoleftists](pseudoleft.md), we believe in a truly leftist society (i.e. nonviolent, altruistic, non-censoring, loving without fascist tendencies). **We disagree on Ted's fundamental assumption** that people can't change, i.e. that people are primitive animals that need to live primitive lives (go through the power process by pursuing *real* goals such as obtaining food by hunting) in order to be happy (we are not against primitivism but we support it for other reasons). We believe society can become adult, just like an individual, if it is raised properly (i.e. with effort) and that the primitive side of a human can be overshadowed by the the intellectual side and that activities he calls *surrogate* (and considers undesirable) can be fulfilling. We think that in a sane, adult society **advanced technology can be helpful** and compatible with happy, fulfilling lives of people, even if the current situation is anything but. And of course, we are completely nonviolent and disagree with murdering people for any reason such as bringing attention to a manifesto.
+
+## See Also
+
+- [Diogenes](diogenes.md)

wiki_stats.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 This is an auto-generated article holding stats about this wiki.
 
 - number of articles: 526
-- total size of all texts in bytes: 2627188
+- total size of all texts in bytes: 2626489
 
 longest articles:
 
@@ -23,6 +23,20 @@ longest articles:
 latest changes:
 
 ```
+Date:   Sat Dec 23 19:56:56 2023 +0100
+algorithm.md
+bytecode.md
+capitalism.md
+esolang.md
+freedom.md
+hash.md
+history.md
+less_retarded_society.md
+linux.md
+main.md
+markov_chain.md
+neural_network.md
+wiki_stats.md
 Date:   Fri Dec 22 00:43:13 2023 +0100
 blender.md
 bytecode.md
@@ -40,18 +54,5 @@ gemini.md
 needed.md
 programming_language.md
 wiki_stats.md
-Date:   Wed Dec 20 20:17:45 2023 +0100
-fascism.md
-feminism.md
-game_of_life.md
-go.md
-less_retarded_society.md
-linux.md
-lrs.md
-oop.md
-wiki_stats.md
-wiki_style.md
-woman.md
-Date:   Tue Dec 19 13:00:12 2023 +0100
 ```