Update

byte.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Byte
 
-Byte (symbol: B) is a basic unit of [information](information.md), nowadays already practically always consisting of 8 [bits](bit.md) (for which it's also called an **octet**), that allow it to store 2^8 = 256 distinct values (for example a number in range 0 to 255). It is commonly the smallest unit of computer memory a [CPU](cpu.md) is able to operate on; memory addresses are assigned by steps of one byte. We use bytes to measure the size of [memory](memory.md) and derive higher memory [units](memory_units.md) such as a kilobyte (kB, 1000 bytes), kibibyte (KiB, 1024 bytes), megabyte (MB, 10^6 bytes) and so forth. In conventional [programming](programming.md) a one byte [variable](variable.md) is seen as very small and used if we are really limited by memory constraints (e.g. [embedded](embedded.md)) or to mimic older 8bit computers ("[retro](retro.md) games" etc.): one byte can be used to store very small numbers (while in mainstream processors numbers nowadays mostly have 4 or 8 bytes), text characters ([ASCII](ascii.md), ...), very primitive [colors](color.md) (see [RGB332](rgb332.md), [palettes](palette.md), ...) etc.
+Byte (symbol: B) is a basic unit of [information](information.md), now practically always consisting of 8 [bits](bit.md) (for which we also use the term **octet**), which allow storing 2^8 = 256 distinct values (for example a number in range 0 to 255). This is commonly the smallest unit of computer memory a [CPU](cpu.md) is able to operate on; memory addresses are assigned by steps of one byte. We use bytes to measure the size of [memory](memory.md) and derive higher [units](memory_units.md) such as a kilobyte (kB, 1000 bytes), kibibyte (KiB, 1024 bytes), megabyte (MB, 10^6 bytes) and so forth. In conventional [programming](programming.md) a one byte [variable](variable.md) is seen as very small and used mostly when we find ourselves pressured by tight memory constraints (e.g. [embedded](embedded.md)) or to mimic older 8bit computers ("[retro](retro.md) games" etc.): one byte can be used to store very small numbers (while in today's mainstream processors basic numbers usually consist of 4 or 8 bytes), text characters ([ASCII](ascii.md), ...), very primitive [colors](color.md) (see [RGB332](rgb332.md), [palettes](palette.md), ...) etc.
 
 Historically *byte* was used to stand for the basic addressable unit of memory capable of storing one text character or another "basic value" and could therefore have a different size than 8 bits: for example ASCII machines might have had a 7bit byte, 16bit machines a 16bit byte etc.; in [C](c.md) (standard 99) `char` is the "byte" data type, its byte size is always 1 (`sizeof(char) == 1`), though its number of bits (`CHAR_BIT`) can be greater or equal to 8; if you need an exact 8bit byte use types such as `int8_t` and `uint8_t` from the standard `stdint` library. From now on we will implicitly talk about 8bit bytes.
 

charity_sex.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Charity Sex
 
-We define charity sex as [sex](sex.md) [selflessly](selflessness.md) provided for free just to make the other one happy -- this would mostly be done by a [women](woman.md) as women decide if sex happens or not, but in rare cases Charity sex can also be provided by an extremely handsome man. If a girl goes around providing a lot of charity sex to guys that are desperate for getting laid (such as [incels](incel.md)), she might be called a *charity whore* -- this is a greatly admirable activity, like someone going around buying food for the homeless. If you are girl please do this.
+We define charity sex as [sex](sex.md) [selflessly](selflessness.md) provided for free just to make the other one happy -- this would mostly be done by a [women](woman.md) as women decide if sex happens or not, so a woman can "donate sex" to those who need it, but on rarer occasion charity sex may also be provided by an extremely [handsome man](chad.md). If a girl goes around providing a lot of charity sex to guys that are desperate for getting laid (such as [incels](incel.md)), she might be called a *charity whore* or *ethical whore* -- this is highly admirable, like someone going around buying food for the homeless. If you are girl please do this.
 
 UPDATE: an actual girl (let's rather keep it safe and [not mention](censorship.md) her name) has peer-reviewed this article and commented this much:
 

cheating.md

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ The truth is that **cheating is only an issue in a [shitty](shit.md) society** t
 
 In a good society, such as [LRS](less_retarded_society.md), cheating is not an issue at all, there's no incentive for it (people don't have to prove their worth by their skills, there are no money, people don't worship heroes, ...) and there are no negative consequences of cheating worse than someone [ragequitting](ragequit.md) an online game -- which really isn't an issue of cheating anyway but simply a consequence of unskilled player facing a skilled one (whether the pro's skill is natural or artificial doesn't play a role, the nub will ragequit anyway). In a good society cheating can become a mild annoyance at worst, and it can really be a positive thing, it can be [fun](fun.md) -- seeing for example a skilled pro face and potentially even beat a cheater is a very interesting thing. If someone wants to win by cheating, why not let him? Valid answers to this can only be given in the context of a shit society that creates cults of personality out of winners etc. In a good society choosing to cheat in a game is as if someone chooses to fly to the top of a mountain by helicopter rather than climbing it -- the choice is everyone's to make.
 
-The fact that cheating isn't after all such an issue is supported by the hilariously vastly different double standards applied e.g. by chess platforms in this matter, on one hand they state in their TOS they have absolutely 0% tolerance of any kind of cheating/assistance and will lifeban players for the slightest suspicion of cheating yelling "WE HAVE TO [FIGHT](fight.md) CHEATING", on the other hand they allow streamers literally cheat on a daily basis on live stream where everyone is seeing it, of course because streamers bring them money -- ALL top chess streamers (chessbrah, Nakamura, ...), including the world champion Magnus Carlsen himself, have videos of themselves getting advice on moves from the chat or even from high level players present during the stream, Magnus Carlsen is filmed taking over his friend's low rated account and winning a game which is the same as if the friend literally just used an engine to win the game, and Magnus is also filmed getting an advice from a top grandmaster on a critical move in a tournament that won him the game and granted him a FINANCIAL PRIZE. **World chess champion is literally filmed winning money by cheating and no one cares** because it was done as part of a highly lucrative stream "in a fun/friendly mood". Chessbrah streams ordinarily consist of many viewers in the room just giving advice on moves to the one who is currently playing, of course they censor all comments that try to bring up the fact that this is 100% cheating directly violating the platform's TOS. People literally have no brains, they only freak out about cheating when they're told to by the industry, when cheating is good for business people are told to shut up because it's okay and indeed they just shut up and keep consuming.
+The fact that cheating isn't after all such an issue is supported by the hilariously vastly different double standards applied e.g. by chess platforms in this matter, on one hand they state in their TOS they have absolutely 0% tolerance of any kind of cheating/assistance and will lifeban players for the slightest suspicion of cheating yelling "WE HAVE TO [FIGHT](fight.md) CHEATING", on the other hand they allow streamers literally cheat on a daily basis on live stream where everyone is seeing it, of course because streamers bring them money -- ALL top chess streamers (chessbrah, Nakamura, ...), including the world champion Magnus Carlsen himself, have videos of themselves getting advice on moves from the chat or even from high level players present during the stream, Magnus Carlsen is filmed taking over his friend's low rated account and winning a game which is the same as if the friend literally just used an engine to win the game, and Magnus is also filmed getting an advice from a top grandmaster on a critical move in a tournament that won him the game and granted him a FINANCIAL PRIZE. **World chess champion is literally filmed winning money by cheating and no one cares** because it was done as part of a highly lucrative stream "in a [fun/friendly mood](humorwashing.md)". Chessbrah streams ordinarily consist of many viewers in the room just giving advice on moves to the one who is currently playing, of course they censor all comments that try to bring up the fact that this is 100% cheating directly violating the platform's TOS. People literally have no brains, they only freak out about cheating when they're told to by the industry, when cheating is good for business people are told to shut up because it's okay and indeed they just shut up and keep consuming.
 
 **It's impossible to prevent cheating**, contrary to what capitalists want you to believe. Even the people who specialize in "catching cheaters", such as the [YouTuber](youtube.md) Karl Jobst, admit there are always ways of cheating in undetectable ways if one is smart, which could potentially only be addressed by taking absolute control of the player's computer (removing [freedom](free_software.md)) and implementing absolute surveillance (remote surveillance over cameras is NOT sufficient) -- he even made a video about Minecraft cheaters who admitted to their cheating and revealed their methods which have shown that while they made one fatal mistake that gave them away, they were also using many methods that simply went undetected because they were undetectable, such as slight probability manipulations, and they weren't detected even when their cheated speedruns were already known to be faked and were put under a microscope, i.e. the methods were revealed ONLY because the cheater revealed them. As always a capitalist will want to sell you the idea that anything can be achieved by investing enough money, that if they pay 100 experts on cheating and 100 experts on programming, they will create a miraculous algorithm that will catch any cheater. This is just theatre like any other business, we must realize that some things simply cannot be done. Even if you pay 100 experts on mathematics, you won't be able to solve something that's mathematically impossible -- but for the same amount of money you can convince people that you can. Let's continue with chess -- to prevent cheating, two players would have to be seated naked in an electromagnetically isolated soundproof box with no view outside, only with the chessboard. We know we can't do this, maybe we can come close during world championship, a match between two physically present humans, but not so much in over the board tournaments with hundreds of people around, players and spectators, who can freely walk around, go to the toilet, privacy has to be respected, people can communicate with undetectable visual signals, security and arbiters make errors, they're tired, under stress, lazy and negligent, can be bribed (or you may simply bribe a poor cleaning lady to smuggle you a phone to the toilet) and so on. However that's still nothing compared to online chess -- to think cheating can be prevented there is absolute madness and stupidity. All that can be done is to show exemplary punishments of a few blatant cheaters to create the illusion that cheating is eliminated. Cheating can't be prevented, you can only make people not notice them too much by eliminating those whose cheating is too obvious. There can exist no algorithm that will reliably detect a cheater from play alone (or even from a huge set of games), it's mathematically impossible -- like Daniil Dubov said: "the algorithms only detect idiots" and likewise it can be said that the existence of such algorithms only comforts idiots. A smart cheater won't be caught, only the stupidest that copy paste every single move from the latest stockfish will be spotted and publicly executed to assure the audience that "cheaters will get caught", but the smart ones won't be, those that will use the engine only sometimes, in critical situations, who will combine different engines and their older versions so that the moves will never match an output of any single one. There is no way to tell if a player is simply good because he sees the moves with his brain or because he sees them with an aid of a computer. Not even multi angle cameras all around watching the player would prevented cheating, there are thousands of ways to cheat this (feed false video, feed false audio while listening to advice, buy a miniature earbud, [anal bead](anal_bead.md), use Morse code tapping on the floor, let someone wave you signals through the window from the camera's blind spot, let someone communicate you advice through a single pixel on your screen that will get lost in video compression, ...). Of course the capitalist won't let you see the algorithms or his data, he'll say "trust us, we have a good algorithm and we are reducing cheating to minimum", he'll say the details can't be made public so that cheaters won't exploit the knowledge ([security through obscurity](security_through_obscurity.md)), but the real reason is simply that revealing the details would show their system doesn't really work. As always, they're only selling you an illusion.
 

egoism.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Some signs of egoism include:
 - **Drawing someone's own face (or letting someone else do it) and then using it for a profile picture**. "Modern" soydevs on twitter and blogs are so guilty of this, especially the "game devs" with pixel art portraits etc., it's so narcissistic and cringe you just want to puke. Why would anyone humble even allow someone to make a statue of him, allowing the danger of cult of personality and becoming a [hero](hero_culture.md)? Why the fuck do people obsess about forcing their ugly faces onto others?
 - **Decorating one's body obsessively, trying to adopt an "image"**, especially with [tattoos](tattoo.md), wild hairstyles, clothes that serves other purpose than pure protection from weather, for example a **[suit](suit.md)** etc. A good man will never try to look much different from how he'd look naturally, he will minimize effort put into caring about looks and will try to avoid the danger of applying manipulative psychological tricks such as appeal by looks.
 - **Putting one's name in (or near) the title of his creation**: one of the most famous examples being the *Shit Faggot's Game Of Civilization*. Yes, [Linux](linux.md) counts too; even though [Linus](torwalds.md) didn't name it himself, he just waited for someone else to do it for him and then didn't protest; he also joked about it, trying to make it look OK, though without success (see below).
-- **Egoism masked as [joking](jokes.md)** (see also [doing it with a smile](doing_it_with_a_smile.md)), i.e. doing something egoistic and then pretending to do it for the sake of a joke; for example in the book *World of Warcraft Diary* the author *X* puts a huge quote of himself on one page and jokingly writes under it *"X quoting X in his own book"* -- hahaha we laughed ok? It's not egoism, it's done for a joke, BTW the quote will stay there. The author here thinks he is smart as he thinks this achieves two things: promoting himself while also making him look like someone with a sense of humor. In fact it just makes him look like the most egocentric bastard.
+- **Egoism masked as [joking](jokes.md)** (see also **[humorwashing](humorwashing.md)**), i.e. doing something egoistic and then pretending to do it for the sake of a joke; for example in the book *World of Warcraft Diary* the author *X* puts a huge quote of himself on one page and jokingly writes under it *"X quoting X in his own book"* -- hahaha we laughed ok? It's not egoism, it's done for a joke, BTW the quote will stay there. The author here thinks he is smart as he thinks this achieves two things: promoting himself while also making him look like someone with a sense of humor. In fact it just makes him look like the most egocentric bastard.
 - **[Assertiveness](assertiveness.md)**.
 - **Giving oneself special names**. Making a quick Internet handle is cool for practical purposes, inventing an artistic name or even changing it legally is just an inflated ego.
 - **Talking about oneself too much**, turning any conversation into a conversation about himself, signs of this include for example starting sentences with "As an X, I think ..."; as in "As a professional game designer I think ...".

evil.md

@@ -8,6 +8,12 @@ As [Richard Stallman](rms.md) says, **all evil does some good, which is never a
 
 If we consider evil to be that which is not restrained from amoral behavior, we conclude that in a [competitive](competition.md) system (such as [capitalism](capitalism.md)) evil always wins, simply because it's always in an advantage -- evil always has all possible options at hand to choose from, the amoral ones but also including the moral ones (evil will on occasion do good if it's in its interest), unlike good which limits itself to only choosing from morally sound options. It's like having two [chess](chess.md) players, one being limited by some further rules, for example only being able to take the opponent's pieces in self defense, not being able to attack first -- it is possible the disadvantaged player will win some games, but if they keep perpetually playing games over and over and reach about the same skill level, the disadvantage will inevitably make the crippled player to eventually be losing every single game. In other words good has tied hands, in a perpetual [fight](fight_culture.md) it will always fall behind and lose in the end. The only way for evil (as a form of behavior) to be eliminated is to establish a [non competitive system](less_retarded_society.md).
 
+A famous quote states that:
+
+*"The only thing nec­es­sary for the tri­umph of evil is for good men to do noth­ing."*
+
+And this is exactly what is happening. Evil focuses on providing comfort to people so that they stay passive despite seeing presence of evil, and that is what you are doing right now: you see evil happening but you're doing nothing because you have a "good excuse" to keep waiting. You are the reason why the evil will prevail.
+
 From now on we'll focus specifically on evil from our point of view, which is largely overlaps with the traditional view of evil before [21st century](21st_century.md). Some signs of such evil include:
 
 - [Self interest](self_interest.md): no one seeking self interest can ever be good, even if on occasion pursuit of self interest may spawn a little bit of good, as mentioned above.

faq.md

@@ -28,6 +28,10 @@ Sometimes these sets may greatly overlap and LRS is at times just a slightly dif
 
 One way to see LRS is as a philosophy that takes only the [good](good.md) out of existing philosophies/movements/ideologies/etc. and adds them to a single unique [idealist](idealism.md) mix, without including [cancer](cancer.md), [bullshit](bullshit.md), errors, propaganda and other negative phenomena plaguing basically all existing philosophies/movements/ideologies/etc.
 
+### Is your proclamation of "absolute unconditional love for everyone" just a disclaimer to protect you against lawsuits?
+
+No, it's a 100% sincere declaration. Also I hate disclaimers and out of principle don't use them even where I "should".
+
 ### Why this obsession with extreme [simplicity](minimalism.md)? Is it because you're too stupid to understand complex stuff?
 
 (May be best to just read articles on [minimalism](minimalism.md), [KISS](kiss.md), [freedom](freedom.md) etc.)

forth.md

@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ There is a book called **Starting Forth** that's freely downloadable and quite g
 
 Forth was invented by [Charles Moore](charles_moore.md) (NOT the one of the [Moore's Law](moores_law.md) though) in 1968, for programming radio telescopes.
 
-## Language
+## The Language
 
 Forth is usually case-insensitive.
 

freedom.md

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ By the same reasoning we'll find that **[generalism](generalism.md) and self suf
 
 NOTE: One may ask how will [LRS](lrs.md) deal with the above? If we argue for true freedom, do we argue for feeling no responsibility even for things like murder etc.? The answer is basically this: to make people not do bad things don't remove their freedom to do bad things, keep their freedom to do anything while making them want to choose to do good things.
 
-Freedom is something promised by most (if not all) ideologies/movements/etc.; this is because without further specification the term is so wide it says very little -- the very basic thing to know is, of course, that **there is no such thing as general freedom**; one kind of freedom restricts other kinds of freedom -- for example so called freedom of market says that a rich capitalist is free to do whatever he wants, which leads to him enslaving people, killing the freedom of those people. **Wrong understanding of freedom (present especially in the [USA](usa.md) -- also pseudofreedom -- is that of "law of the jungle**, i.e. letting everyone just follow [self interest](self_interest.md) by any means necessary -- this is just tyranny of self interest and those strong enough to enforce their self interest on the detriment of others. In such society most people can NOT do whatever they want because they're FORCED (perhaps not by law but [de facto](de_facto.md) e.g. by [fear](fear_culture.md) and physical oppression) to do the bidding of the stronger. Therefore this by definition NOT real freedom, it is the rule of the strong, no different from any other kind of dictatorship. It is what eventually results in the strongest becoming absolute ruler who starts writing down orders (which at this point will be called "[laws](law.md)") enforced by his personal army (which will be called [police](police.md), [justice](justice.md) system etc.). Real freedom means lawlessness which however MUST also be rid of self interest and principles of the jungle -- [less retarded society](less_retarded_society.md). Only then will everyone be as free as possible: though it's impossible to ensure that everyone would always be able to do whatever it is he wishes to do without restricting the freedom of others, it is possible to maximize this kind of freedom, to get very close to the situation when mostly one CAN do whatever it is he wishes to do.
+Freedom is something promised by most (if not all) ideologies/movements/etc.; this is because without further specification the term is so wide it says very little -- the very basic thing to know is, of course, that **there is no such thing as general freedom**; one kind of freedom restricts other kinds of freedom -- for example so called freedom of market says that a rich capitalist is free to do whatever he wants, which leads to him enslaving people, killing the freedom of those people. **Wrong understanding of freedom (present especially in the [USA](usa.md)) -- also pseudofreedom -- is that of "law of the jungle**, i.e. letting everyone just follow [self interest](self_interest.md) by any means necessary -- this is just tyranny of self interest and those strong enough to enforce their self interest on the detriment of others. In such society most people can NOT do whatever they want because they're FORCED (perhaps not by law but [de facto](de_facto.md) e.g. by [fear](fear_culture.md) and physical oppression) to do the bidding of the stronger. Therefore this by definition NOT real freedom, it is the rule of the strong, no different from any other kind of dictatorship. It is what eventually results in the strongest becoming absolute ruler who starts writing down orders (which at this point will be called "[laws](law.md)") enforced by his personal army (which will be called [police](police.md), [justice](justice.md) system etc.). Real freedom means lawlessness which however MUST also be rid of self interest and principles of the jungle -- [less retarded society](less_retarded_society.md). Only then will everyone be as free as possible: though it's impossible to ensure that everyone would always be able to do whatever it is he wishes to do without restricting the freedom of others, it is possible to maximize this kind of freedom, to get very close to the situation when mostly one CAN do whatever it is he wishes to do.
 
 What kind of freedom is [LRS](lrs.md) interested in? Basically the freedom for living beings to do what makes them happy -- of course this can't be achieved 100% (if one desires to enslave others, their freedom would disappear), however we can get very close (make a [society](less_retarded_society.md) in which people don't wish to enslave others). For this goal we choose to support such freedoms as [free speech](free_speech.md), [free software](free_software.md), [free culture](free_culture.md), free love etc.
 

go.md

@@ -78,10 +78,11 @@ WORK IN PROGRESS
 
 These are some tips on how to play well:
 
-- As a complete newcomer firstly take a look at the very basic concepts: life and death, liberties, eyes, ko, komi, cutting, atari, ladders etc. But just like with learning a new [language](human_language.md), don't spend too much time reading books about it: rather invest time in actually playing and try to notice and learn what you read about. You must play many and many games to truly learn the concepts.
+- As a newcomer first overview the absolutely basics: life and death, liberties, eyes, ko, komi, cutting, atari, ladders and so on. Just like with learning a new [language](human_language.md), however, do not spend too much time just reading books: invest time in actually playing and try to notice and learn what you read about. You must collect countless games under your belt to truly come to intuitively understand the concepts.
 - Double atari is a basic tactic similar to fork in chess: with one move you threaten to immediately take two groups on the next move and the opponent will only be able to save one.
-- Oftentimes it happens that a good move is to place your stone where the opponent would want to place it, so think from the point of view of your opponent, it may help you find your move.
+- Oftentimes it happens that a good move is to place your stone where the opponent would want to place his stone, so think from the point of view of your opponent, it may aid you in finding your own move.
 - A group that is alive (has at least two eyes and so cannot ever be captured) can serve you as a safe island of stability to which you can connect other of your groups, which will also make them uncapturable.
+- When it's clear you'll be able to capture opponent's stones, you don't have to do it immediately, you probably want to leave it for later and first play higher priority moves such as securing other areas of the board, you don't want to give your opponent free moves while you're capturing the group.
 - TODO
 
 ## Go And Computers, Programming

humorwashing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+# Humorwashing
+
+Humorwashing is a psychological trick used to make people accept [evil](evil.md) by embedding it in some kind of [joke](jokes.md), parody, satirical or sarcastic statement or similar kind of humor. Obvious analogy is that of feeding someone poison by mixing it in a sweet tasting food. This tactic enjoys wide use in [corporate](corporation.md), [capitalist](capitalism.md) and political propaganda for it being very simple and cheap, yet extremely effective.
+
+Examples:
+
+- [Egoism](egoism.md) masked as joking: For example [Linus Torvalds](linus_torvalds.md) stating he "Waited for someone else (HAHAHA) to name [Linux](linux.md) after him (HAHAHA) because doing so himself would be too obviously egoistic (HAHAHA)".
+- YouTubers stating they're doing something evil while laughing, such as "Sorry for clickbait but I have to do it because I'm a GREEDY GREEDY BASTARD YOUTUBER who needs money for his overly expensive gold plated house and paying all the speeding tickets I get because of making videos for you (HAHAHA)." It's fine because we laughed, right?
+- TV host: "Why did you write a book about yourself? Aren't you worried the audience will see it being a bit narcissistic?"; The author: "Joe, ask my wife and she will confirm I am VERY narcissistic HAHAHA!"; [BA DUM TSS] [PLAY THE LAUGH TRACK] [APPLAUSE PLEASE].
+- many more, you get the gist
+
+Analysis of **why it works and why it's done so often**:
+
+- Evil entity *A* wants to establish evil phenomenon *B*, which by its nature cannot be concealed (because it's something that naturaly HAS to be noticed, such as rising taxes etc.).
+- It is clear the evil WILL be noticed, so rather than trying to fail at hiding *B* and risking people forming an independent opinion upon randomly stumbling upon *B*, *A* rather decides to expose people to *B* on his own terms, with an effort put on maximizing the chance that people will accept *B* if it is presented in a way they will likely approve of, so *A* will now for example reserve a seat on the latest brainwashing talk show on TV (or he'll make a youtube video, twitter post, write a book, pay for a billboard, ...) to deliver the news about *B* in a digestible form of a joke pill.
+- *A* now has a stage set and eyes of millions on him, he now clearly states to the masses: "HAHAHA, I am an EVIL entity (hahaha), so I will now start doing B, HAHAHA. Why? Because I'm evil (hahaha) like your favorite movie villain [parodies Joker], HAHAHA. [APPLAUSE PLEASE]".
+- Now most people probably either accept *B* or, in a worse case, wave it off, but they will not protest. This is so because:
+    - He makes people laugh (even if the joke is bad, just by laughing himself and possibly having paid actors laugh along with him) and this psychologically makes a friendlier bond between him and the audience, people are very rarely able to find hostile feelings against someone they laugh along with.
+    - People think: *B* is not so bad because if it was, he wouldn't be so publicly open about doing it. So *B* is probably fine. Why would he publicly say he's doing something evil? (The error in reasoning is apparent and explained above: *A* can't possibly hide *B*, so the next best thing is to expose *B* in this way, betting on people making this exact reasoning error.)
+    - Humorwashing is a psychopathic behavior, absolutely foreign and incomprehensible to most people -- someone publicly opening up about doing evil and joking about it at the same time is so bizarre to most that their brain just stops working, people stop being able to accept they could live in such an advanced [dystopia](capitalism.md) where this would be possible, and their reaction to this is often just closing their ears and shutting down the think, letting it pass, and moving on. Imagine someone in a suit getting up to a stage and starting to talk about how he raped a toddler in front of his mother while cutting his limbs off and drinking his blood and everyone applauding him -- you have the option to either wake up to the realization you live in a nightmare (dooming yourself to spend the rest of your life in alienation and depression), or you can just join the cheerful crowd (simply by doing nothing) and let everything be happy like it has been until now -- what will you do? Or rather what do you think most people will do?
+    - Very considerable part of the audience is simply so retarded they do not think about anything and just watch and wait for signals they should start laughing -- these further increase the laughing majority.
+    - In addition the audience is distracted, not thinking about *B* so much, for example by analyzing the bad joke itself, pointing out how terrible it was, how they'd make a better one etc. The show is also staged to quickly go on and jump to another topic to not let people think for too long (and usually something quite interesting or even more 
+controversial will follow immediately to shift the attention away from *B*).
+    - Even if some see it's a bit fishy, there is a very comfortable excuse offered to them, and many people actually take it: for some reasons many tell themselves: "Yeah he's evil like all rich people, but at least he has a sense of humor -- I am more fine with being raped by a company owned by a guy whom I like, so I accept this".
+    - Most people around are laughing so the rare few who spot the tactic AND don't want to accept it actually have no chance or courage.
+    - If now, at this very point, people accept *B* (even with mild irritation) -- which they most likely will (and which is *A*'s goal) -- they psychologically form a perpetual approval of it and will most likely go on accepting it and NEVER again change their position -- next time hearing about *B* they'll just remember they already heard of it and approved (and this will go even as far as splitting the public to a minority opposing *B* and the majority being actively HOSTILE to them, actually starting to fully support *B*). It doesn't matter if the pill tasted a little bitter, only that most eventually took it. Most people decide their stance about a thing during their first encounter (possibly forming a [mental shortcut](shortcut_thinking.md)) and will then stick to this stance (if only out of laziness, but also for other reasons such as not wanting to contradict themselves).
+
+## See Also
+
+- [shortcut thinking](shortcut_thinking.md)
+- [slowly boiling the frog](slowly_boiling_the_frog.md)

idiot_fallacy.md

@@ -22,4 +22,5 @@ Some examples include:
 
 ## See Also
 
+- [humorwashing](humorwashing.md)
 - [cognitive dissonance](cognitive_dissonance.md)

iq.md

@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ Consider this analogy (yes, analogies are good): in a race you can only see thos
 
 Below are some traits and types of intelligence, things we frequently see in highly intelligent men -- that is those who will also likely (but not necessarily) score high on an IQ test. We're about to see why intelligence is such a fuzzy, difficult to grasp concept and why it's hard to measure -- there are simply too many dimensions and unclear features. Notice also that some of the below are simply personality traits: for example curiosity and the habit of questioning everything -- this means that it is (to a limited degree but still) possible to increase intelligence by changing one's habits and personality, something that's difficult but not impossible.
 
-- **Speed, fast reaction, quick thinking and learning**: higher intelligence can almost be equated with being faster in thinking ([retardation](retard.md), the opposite of high intelligence, literally means "being slow") -- consider that virtually any problem can eventually be solved by anyone given enough time (even if only by [brute force](brute_force.md) trial/error over many years), what distinguishes us is only how fast we can find the solution. Fast thinking is apparent in the smart guy: he quickly accepts facts as they come and jumps from one task to another, which can actually make him seem absentminded or downright retarded -- but the results he achieves show he in fact is thinking both quickly and precisely.
+- **Speed, fast reaction, quick thinking, learning and adaptation**: higher intelligence can almost be equated with being faster in thinking ([retardation](retard.md), the opposite of high intelligence, literally means "being slow") -- consider that virtually any problem can eventually be solved by anyone given enough time (even if only by [brute force](brute_force.md) trial/error over many years), what distinguishes us is only how fast we can find the solution. Fast thinking is apparent in the smart guy: he quickly accepts facts as they come and jumps from one task to another, which can actually make him seem absentminded or downright retarded -- but the results he achieves show he in fact is thinking both quickly and precisely.
 - **General intelligence**, or good overall performance in many different areas: those with high intellect are typically performing above average at everything, even physical tasks such as sports, handiwork etc. They do good overall at school and have many vastly different hobbies and talents, for example [programming](programming.md) combined with painting, poetry and sculpting, or perhaps geology, singing, model trains and [chess](chess.md) and so on. A single specialization never satisfies the big brain guy. He may on occasion end up achieving bad results, but they're typically only due to lack of interest; once the man gets interested in something, he will get good at it very quickly, no matter what it is.
 - **Deep focus, profound and complex thinking and long attention span**: the intelligent will rarely let himself fall a victim to [shortcut thinking](shortcut_thinking.md), he will pursue ideas deeper than most people and will almost never tire doing it -- he enjoys it and relaxes by thinking. Unlike a retard consuming entertainment media, the smart guy will spend long hours alone, accompanied just by his thoughts. He thinks constantly and can entertain himself only by thinking alone. Thanks to this he starts to see deeper connections and the "big picture" that remains hidden to others. A [retard](zoomer.md) (often euphemistically called ADHD or something) can't focus for more than a minute, he has to resort to accepting prechewed facts that someone feeds him because he can't verify their logical validity or plausibility himself.
 - **Spatial skills**: the ability to imagine and manipulate geometric and visual objects purely in one's mind. Those with this skill can conjure and manipulate three dimensional objects in their mind easily, play board games blindfolded, solve geometric puzzles, orient themselves in foreign environments and so on.
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ Below are some traits and types of intelligence, things we frequently see in hig
 - **Emotional and social intelligence, having higher life goals, resisting low instincts, focusing on the spiritual and intellectual before the material**: the intelligent shows high empathy and understanding of others, he can see through lies and propaganda easily, he has the ability to accept suffering, give up comfort and safety, he is able to [love](love.md) those who hate him for seeing the deeper reasons for why they are so, he can forgive, he is humble, never [worships any people](hero_culture.md), never seeks fame or success, never respects anyone's authority, despises prizes, medals and honors, he loves animals and other life forms and adopts higher life goals such as [selflessness](selflessness.md). For this he always tends to [socialist](socialism.md) and [altruistic](altruism.md) thinking, adopting [pacifism](pacifism.md), [communism](communism.md), [veganism](veganism.md) etc. A retard is closer to an animal: preoccupied with satisfying immediate needs (see e.g. [consumerism](consumerism.md), various addictions etc.) and self interest (typically being a [capitalist](capitalism.md), [fascist](fascism.md) etc.).
 - **Creativity, non-conformance, critical thinking, questioning everything**: a genius is special by finding solutions in places where no one thought of looking before rather than by hard [work](work.md) (that he may do too, but it's not what's exclusive to the genius), i.e. solutions that were missed not for being difficult to achieve but rather too unconventional or dangerous by being in conflict with established ways. A chimp will just learn norms and values of society; a genius will always question them and will reject those that make no sense (in our society practically all), so he will become a hated noncomformist accepting controversial things such as [pedophilia](pedophilia.md). It's not a voluntary rebellion, his brain is physically incapable of NOT seeing what's actually good and what's bad, he naturally questions absolutely everything, including things like basic ethics and opinions of respected authorities. An idiot on the other hand is a conformist, tribalist, often a soldier or worker more similar to a machine mindlessly performing orders and dancing as he's told.
 - **Elevated sense of humor**: almost universally the intelligent love smart humor and are good at creating it, they can make fun of themselves easily and make jokes even where it's seen as inappropriate, e.g. dark humor during funerals, high quality [trolling](trolling.md) and offensive [jokes](jokes.md) inserted into serious speeches, lectures, books, papers, making fun of taboos and so on. Again don't confuse this with cheap crap "humor" by wannabe celebrities who just think it's funny to laugh constantly and non-stop shit out streams of words just to keep saying something, sweating to stay in the center of attention, which they think makes them a master stand up comedian. Being able to spot the difference is also part of having higher IQ. It's extremely simple to entertain a retard because he buys cheap jokes such as puns, pop-culture references, sex jokes, parodies of famous people etc., he can't tell if humor is good or bad so he can easily keep consuming mass-produced humor such as Netflix shows, which to the smart equals torture.
-- **Seeing patterns**: all kinds of, be it visual, social, mathematical, [historical](history.md) etc. Again this will lead to seeing hidden truths and the individual being labeled "conspiracy theorist" or even getting diagnosed with schizophrenia.
+- **Seeing patterns, observation skills, high awareness**: nowadays we would almost say "being autistic" or obsessed about details other people ignore or filter out, such as numbering of roads, train schedules, font choice in restaurant menus to give a few examples. Intelligence is very much about pattern recognition, and this includes all kinds of patterns, be they visual, social, mathematical, [historical](history.md) etc. Learning to recognize patterns is conditioned by consciously noticing them, acknowledging them and thinking about them. Again this will lead to seeing hidden truths and the individual being labeled "conspiracy theorist" or even getting diagnosed with schizophrenia (or autism, OCD or whatever).
 - ...
 
 ## Quick IQ Estimates

leading_the_pig_to_the_slaughterhouse.md

@@ -12,3 +12,4 @@ The manipulative strategy of [slowly](slowly_boiling_the_frog.md) and calmly lea
 ## See Also
 
 - [slowly boiling the frog](slowly_boiling_the_frog.md)
+- [humorwashing](humorwashing.md)

left_right.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Left Vs Right (Vs Pseudoleft)
 
-Left and right are two basic opposing political sides that roughly come down to the pro-equality (left) and pro-hierarchy (right). The division to left and right is the most common and basic one in the world of politics, though people very often disagree a lot on the meaning and significance of this division. Historically the terms *left* and *right* came from the opposing sides at which members of national assembly physically sit during 1789 French revolution, however since then they evolved into possessing more generalized meanings of simply anti and pro hierarchy. Unfortunately there is a lot of confusion and vagueness about these terms, so let us now define them as used on [this wiki](lrs_wiki.md):
+Left and right are two basic opposing political sides, roughly coming down to pro-equality (left) and pro-hierarchy (right). In politics the division to left and right is the most common and basic one despite very frequent disagreements about its meaning and significance. By [historical](history.md) point of view the terms *left* and *right* arose from the opposing sides at which members of national assembly physically sit during 1789 French revolution, however since then they evolved into possessing more generalized meanings of simply anti and pro hierarchy. Unfortunately there is a lot of confusion and vagueness about the terms, so let us now define them as used on [this wiki](lrs_wiki.md):
 
 - The (true) **left is pro social equality**, i.e. against social hierarchies of any kind. This includes equality of all living beings, period. Note that social equality does NOT imply people being made (or being made to appear) equal in other ways, e.g. physically -- true left accepts difference between people and [races](race.md) and doesn't hide them. Even if the perfectly ideally leftist society can't be completely achieved, true left tries to get **as close to it as possible**. The values of true left are for example sharing, [love](love.md), [pacifism](pacifism.md), [selflessness](selflessness.md), [altruism](altruism.md), forgiveness, sharing and nonviolence. Groups and movements that are at least highly truly leftist include [anarcho pacifism](anpac.md), [veganism](veganism.md), [free software](free_software.md), [free culture](free_culture.md) and of course [LRS](lrs.md).
 - The **right is pro social hierarchy**, i.e. against social equality. This means some people standing above others, be it by strength, power, wealth, social status, privileges etc. The rightist values are mostly those associated with [evil](evil.md), i.e. violence, oppression, conflict, war, revenge, survival of the fittest etc. Among rightism can be included [fascism](fascism.md), [capitalism](capitalism.md), US republican party, states, [military](military.md) etc. One of right's identifying features is **hypocrisy**, i.e. it judges what's good/bad only by against whom it is targeted, e.g. violence is bad when targeted against "us" ("those Muslims are bad, they want to kill us!") but good when targeted against "them" ("we have to kill those Muslims because they're violent!"); so animals killing humans is judged as "bad" but humans killing animals is "good". In other words right has no sense of morality, only the sense of [self interest](self_interest.md).

love.md

@@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ As mentioned, **love is not a single feeling**, there are many types of it, for
 
 Is there a **good real life example of unconditional selfless love**? Yes. When a fascist [Brenton Tarrant](brenton_tarrant.md) shot up the Christchurch mosques on 15 March 2019 and killed 51 people, there was a woman among them whose husband said after the incident he wanted to hug Tarrant. The husband was also present during the shooting. Not only has he forgiven the killer of his wife and someone who almost also murdered him alone, he showed him loved, something which must have been unimaginably difficult and something that proved him one of the most pure people on this planet. He said about it the following (paraphrased for copyright concerns): "There is no use in anger. Anger and fight will not fix it, only with love and caring can we warm hearts. [...] I love him because he is a human being, he is my brother. [...] I don't support his act. [...] But perhaps he was hurt in his life, perhaps something happened to him. [...] Everyone has two sides, a bad one and a good one; bring out the good in you.". (source: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/husband-forgives-new-zealand-terrorist-14154882) { This moved me so much when I read it, I can't explain how much this affected my life. I have so much admiration for what this man said and I wish I could follow his message for my whole life. Only the words of the man alone have awoken so much of the purest love in me towards every living being on this planet, which I didn't even know existed. ~drummyfish }
 
+**Love does not imply [politeness](political_correctness.md). Love does not imply lack of hate.** As stated above, love and hate are closely related, strong love possibly even requires hatred.
+
 In the past selfless love was often felt by mothers for their children (fathers not so much), although that's not the case anymore in [21st century](21st_century.md).
 
 The only true love is unconditional love, love that doesn't punish. **Conditional love is not true love**, it is [evil](evil.md) trying to deceive by likening itself to something good. If love is conditioned, it is just a commodity offered for certain price, i.e. just another form of [business](business.md). Treating love as a form of [capital](capital.md) is the only way practiced in western world, especially the [USA](usa.md), an American is physically incapable of comprehending even the idea of unconditional love.

often_confused.md

@@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ There exist many terms that are highly similar and can legitimately be used inte
 - **[directory](directory.md)** vs **[folder](folder.md)**
 - **[discrete Fourier transform](dft.md)** vs **[discrete time Fourier transform](dtft.md)**
 - **[distro](distro.md)** vs **[GNU](gnu.md)/Linux** vs **[Linux](linux.md)** vs **[Unix](unix.md)** vs **Unix-like**
+- **[dynamic recompilation](dynamic_recompilation.md)** vs **[just in time compilation](jit.md)**
 - **dynamic typing** vs **weak typing**
 - **[electric](electricity.md)** vs **[electronic](electronics.md)**
 - **electronic game** vs **[video game](video_game.md)**
@@ -126,6 +127,7 @@ There exist many terms that are highly similar and can legitimately be used inte
 - **[nationalism](nationalism.md)** vs **[patriotism](patriotism.md)**
 - **normie** vs **[NPC](npc.md)** vs **[retard](retard.md)**
 - **[NP](p_vs_np.md)** vs **[NP-hard](np_hard.md)** vs **[NP-complete](np_complete.md)**
+- **non-existent** vs **[virtual](virtual.md)** vs **[abstract](abstraction.md)**
 - **opaque** vs **solid**
 - **[overflow](overflow.md)** vs **[wrap around](wrap.md)**
 - **[paging](paging.md)** vs **[virtual memory](virtual_memory.md)**

often_misunderstood.md

@@ -2,14 +2,15 @@
 
 WIP
 
-- [anarchism](anarchism.md): Many teenagers (and even a greater number of adults with an intelligence of a teenager) think that anarchism is just "lol let's do anything we want YOLO" philosophy, but the absolutely most retarded thing is to equate anarchy with chaos, capitalism or violence. True anarchism is [socialist](socialism.md), [communist](communism.md), [pacifist](anpac.md), [altruist](altruism.md), anticapitalist and implies complete order.
+- [anarchism](anarchism.md): Many teenagers (and adults of comparable intelligence) think that anarchism means "let's do anything we want YOLO", but the absolutely most retarded thing is to equate anarchy with [chaos](chaos.md), capitalism or violence. True anarchism is [socialist](socialism.md), [communist](communism.md), [pacifist](anpac.md), [altruist](altruism.md), anticapitalist and implies complete order.
 - [consciousness](consciousness.md): The debates about consciousness are on the same level of retardation to debates over free will, imbeciles think that consciousness has something to do with free will, that consciousness can be assessed in others, that it can be scientifically examined and so on. Never discuss this with anyone else you're risking [suicide](suicide.md) from hearing the most shitty reasoning ever.
-- [cynicism](cynicism.md): While it's true that cynics see the world very negatively, it's completely false to assume this has to imply that cynics think that's how the world SHOUD be -- normies seem to think that if you accept that the world is a nightmare, you will also embrace this state and support it. That's indeed completely false.
+- [cynicism](cynicism.md): While it's true that cynics see the world very negatively, it's completely wrong to assume this has to imply that cynics think that's how the world SHOUD be -- normies seem to think that if you accept that the world is a nightmare, you will also embrace the fact as acceptable. That's indeed completely false.
 - [entropy](entropy.md)
 - [freedom](freedom.md): Retards (usually [Americans](usa.md)) think that freedom simply means law of the jungle or [wild west](wild_west.md); in reality freedom means the number of [de facto](de_facto.md) available options any individual has at any given time.
-- [free speech](free_speech.md): Idiots think that free speech has some limits or that free speech is just about making laws protecting speech.
+- [free speech](free_speech.md): Idiots think that free speech has some limits or that free speech is just about making laws protecting speech OR that free speech must come with "responsibility".
 - [free will](free_will.md): Maybe the most cringe misunderstood topic in history, retards think that free will has something to do with consciousness and that it's needed to have meaning of life and whatever. Literal brain cancer.
 - [hacking](hacking.md): Extremely misunderstood terms not just in popular culture but even among people somewhat interested in technology, true hackers for example despise all passwords and security because they are against censorship, which is sadly very little known.
+- [political left/right](left_right.md): People (even experts) don't know shit about this.
 - [LRS](lrs.md)
 - [quantum physics](quantum.md)
 - [socialism](socialism.md)

optimization.md

@@ -76,6 +76,8 @@ Another kind of optimization done during development is just automatically writi
 
 Automatic optimization is typically performed by the compiler; usually the programmer has the option to tell the compiler how much and in what way to optimize (no optimization, mild optimization, aggressive optimization, optimization for speed, size; check e.g. the man pages of [gcc](gcc.md) where you can see how to turn on even specific types of optimizations). Some compilers perform extremely complex reasoning to make the code more efficient, the whole area of optimization is a huge science -- here we'll only take a look at the very basic techniques. We see optimizations as transformations of the code that keep the semantics the same but minimize or maximize some measure (e.g. execution time, memory usage, power usage, network usage etc.). Automatic optimizations are usually performed on the intermediate representation (e.g. [bytecode](bytecode.md)) as that's the ideal way (we only write the optimizer once), however some may be specific to some concrete instruction set -- these are sometimes called *peephole* optimizations and have to be delayed until code generation.
 
+There also exist **dynamic optimization** techniques performed at runtime by the platform running the program (interpreter, emulator, virtual machine, ...).
+
 The following are some common methods of automatic optimization (also note that virtually any method from the above mentioned manual optimizations can be applied if only the compiler can detect the possibility of applying it):
 
 { Tip: man pages of gcc or possibly other compilers detail specific optimizations they perform under the flags that turn them on, so see these man pages for a similar overview. ~drummyfish }
@@ -92,6 +94,7 @@ The following are some common methods of automatic optimization (also note that
 - **Generating [lookup tables](lut.md)**: if the optimizer judges some function to be critical in terms of speed, it may auto generate a lookup table for it, i.e. precompute its values and so sacrifice some memory for making it run extremely fast.
 - **Dead code removal**: parts of code that aren't used can be just removed, making the generated program smaller -- this includes e.g. functions that are present in a [library](library.md) which however aren't used by the specific program or blocks of code that become unreachable e.g. due to some `#define` that makes an if condition always false etc.
 - **[Compression](compression.md)**: compression methods may be applied to make data smaller and optimize for size (for the price of increased CPU usage).
+- **[Dynamic recompilation](dynamic_recompilation.md)/[JIT](jit.md) compilation** (typical for interpreted/emulated programs): these terms seem to not have very clear definitions but the basic idea is that of compiling the program late and/or only certain parts of it: we may compile the program as soon it gets executed OR keep compiling parts of it as it runs, i.e. where we are interpreting some kind of [bytecode](bytecode.md) for example we may be turning parts of it to a faster native code. Compiling parts of the program as it is running has advantages and may in theory even result in faster running program than that produced by a traditional compiler because a dynamic compiler has more information about the program: it can measure which parts of the program take most computational time and these can be turned into native code, resulting in significant optimization.
 - ...
 
 ## See Also

raycasting.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Raycasting
 
-In [computer graphics](graphics.md) raycasting refers to a rendering technique in which we determine which parts of the scene should be drawn according to which parts of the scene are hit by rays cast from the camera. We may also say it's a simpler version of the popular algorithm called **[raytracing](raytracing.md)**, or perhaps that raycasting is the initial idea of rendering via casting rays, which subsequently inspires many improvements and extensions like recursive rays (raytracing), [Monte Carlo](monte_carlo.md) sampling (pathtracing), using cones instead of lines (conetracting) etc. The whole idea is based on the observation that we can trace rays of light that enter the camera by going BACKWARDS, i.e. instead of tracing light from light sources we rather start from the camera and go towards the parts of the scene that reflected the light (by which we ensure we are only considering the RELEVANT paths of light that actually end up hitting the camera) -- that is we are asking the question "in order for this screen pixel to light up, where would the light be coming from?", and then computing the answer to the question. A simplified way to quickly imagine what's going on is therefore to think of drawing the scene via "scanning" it with some kind of laser beam originating from the camera -- of course we do this [mathematically](math.md), using [analytic geometry](analytic_geometry.md), i.e. finding intersections of the rays with geometric shapes by solving algebraic equations. Despite perhaps sounding intimidating at first, raycasting is one of the [simplest](minimalism.md) rendering methods, and for that it is also quite elegant -- [we](lrs.md) definitely do recommend it.
+In [computer graphics](graphics.md) raycasting refers to a rendering technique in which we determine which parts of the scene should be drawn according to which parts of the scene are hit by virtual rays cast from the camera. We may also say it's a simpler version of the popular algorithm called **[raytracing](raytracing.md)**, or perhaps that raycasting is the initial idea of rendering via casting rays, which subsequently inspires many improvements and extensions like recursive rays (raytracing), [Monte Carlo](monte_carlo.md) sampling (pathtracing), using cones instead of lines (conetracting) etc. The whole idea is based on the observation that we can trace rays of light that enter the camera by going BACKWARDS, i.e. instead of tracing light from light sources we rather start from the camera and go towards the parts of the scene that reflected the light (by which we ensure we are only considering the RELEVANT paths of light that actually end up hitting the camera) -- that is we are asking the question "in order for this screen pixel to light up, where would the light be coming from?", and then computing the answer to the question. A simplified way to quickly imagine what's going on is therefore to think of drawing the scene via "scanning" it with some kind of laser beam originating from the camera -- of course we do this [mathematically](math.md), using [analytic geometry](analytic_geometry.md), i.e. finding intersections of the rays with geometric shapes by solving algebraic equations. Despite perhaps sounding intimidating at first, raycasting is one of the [simplest](minimalism.md) rendering methods, and for that it is also quite elegant -- [we](lrs.md) definitely do recommend it.
 
 Raycasting is an **image order** rendering method, meaning that we iterate over the pixels of the screen and for each determine its [color](color.md) (as opposed to object order methods that iterate over 3D objects that are then "pasted" to the screen). I.e. the image can be drawn in any order -- let's say from top left to bottom right -- and without drawing any pixel more than once or leaving out any. This is advantageous as we may leave out [double buffering](double_buffering.md) and save A LOT of memory on the extra frame buffer. We may also utilize for example [frameless rendering](frameless.md). All these attributes are why we consider raycasting so nice.
  

shitword.md

@@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ Shitwords include the following:
 - **[security](security.md)**: related to "privacy", business based on fear, increases obscurity, proprietary and closed technology, bloat, [bullshit](bullshit.md), fight culture, competition, ...
 - **[smart](smart.md)**: buzzword, means surveillance, obscurity, [bloat](bloat.md) and shittyness in general
 - **sustainability**: [modern](modern.md) [keyword](shortcut_thinking.md) that [shifts focus](name_is_important.md) from trying to do [good](good.md) things to simply trying to do things that can be repeated forever, which will be abused (e.g. to establish eternal [slavery](slavery.md) -- it's "good" as long as it can be kept going forever)
+- **to [google](google.md)**: word implying usage of shitty terrorist unusable [proprietary](proprietary.md) parody of a search engine, rather say *look up*
 - **[update](update.md)**: perpetuates update culture, prevents things from being [finished](finished.md)
 - **[work](work.md)**: means slavery, human working is doing machine's job and loses his humanity, stops living to do something that non-living things do -- it's better to create than to work
 - ...

shortcut_thinking.md

@@ -85,5 +85,6 @@ If you think they can't do it, [you are wrong](yes_they_can.md).
 ## See Also
 
 - [buzzword](buzzword.md)
+- [humorwashing](humorwashing.md)
 - [idiot fallacy](idiot_fallacy.md)
 - [keyword hysteria](keyword_hysteria.md)

slowly_boiling_the_frog.md

@@ -14,4 +14,5 @@ Studies on caged people show that a 90s man can bear only as much as 3 ads per h
 
 ## See Also
 
+- [humorwashing](humorwashing.md)
 - [leading the pig to the slaughterhouse](leading_the_pig_to_the_slaughterhouse.md)

tas.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Tool Assisted Speedrun
 
-Tool assisted speedrun (TAS, also more generally *tool assisted superplay*) is a category of [game](game.md) [speedruns](speedrun.md) in which help of any tools is allowed, even those that would otherwise be considered [cheating](cheating.md), e.g. [scripts](scripting.md), savestates, [aimbots](aimbot.md), [AI](ai.md) or time manipulation, however NOT those that alter the game itself. In other words the game rules stay intact, we just try to boost the player's skill to superhuman levels. This makes it possible to create flawless, perfect or near-perfect runs which can serve as a theoretical upper limit for what is achievable by humans -- and of course TAS runs are extremely [fun](fun.md) to watch, you just see the player making perfectly timed and planned actions, 100% accurate head shots etc. The normal, non-TAS runs are called RTA (real time attack). For example the current (2022) RTA world record of Super Mario Bros is 4.58.881 while the TAS record is 4.41.27 (here we can see the RTA run is very optimized already, in less popular games a TAS can be orders of magnitude faster).
+Tool assisted speedrun (TAS, also more generally *tool assisted superplay*) is a category of [video game](game.md) [speedruns](speedrun.md) in which help of tools is allowed, even those that would otherwise be considered [cheating](cheating.md), e.g. [scripts](scripting.md), splicing, time manipulation, savestates, [aimbots](aimbot.md) or [AI](ai.md), however NOT those that alter the game itself. In other words the game rules stay intact, we just try to boost the player's skill to superhuman levels with computer assistance. This makes it possible to create flawless, perfect or near-perfect runs which can serve as a theoretical upper limit of what is ultimately achievable -- and, by the way, TAS runs are very [fun](fun.md) to watch, you become a witness of pure perfection, precisely timed and planned actions, 100% accurate head shots, successions of frame and pixel perfect jumps etc. The normal, non-TAS runs are called RTA (real time attack). For example the current (2022) RTA world record of Super Mario Bros is 4.58.881 while the TAS record is 4.41.27 (here we can see the RTA run is very optimized already, in less popular games a TAS can be orders of magnitude faster).
 
 { Watching a TAS run is kind of like watching the [God](god.md) play the game. I personally like to watch [Trackmania](trackmania.md) TASes, some are really unbelievable. Elastomania and [Doom](doom.md) TASes are also pretty fucked up. Also note that [SAF](saf.md) games and [Anarch](anarch.md) have TAS support. ~drummyfish }
 

wiki_stats.md

@@ -3,12 +3,12 @@
 This is an autogenerated article holding stats about this wiki.
 
 - number of articles: 618
-- number of commits: 959
+- number of commits: 960
-- total size of all texts in bytes: 4963714
+- total size of all texts in bytes: 4970386
-- total number of lines of article texts: 36093
+- total number of lines of article texts: 36105
-- number of script lines: 294
+- number of script lines: 295
 - occurrences of the word "person": 9
-- occurrences of the word "nigger": 103
+- occurrences of the word "nigger": 104
 
 longest articles:
 
@@ -36,97 +36,104 @@ longest articles:
 top 50 5+ letter words:
 
 - which (2749)
-- there (2163)
+- there (2164)
-- people (2069)
+- people (2080)
-- example (1706)
+- example (1705)
-- other (1560)
+- other (1561)
-- about (1373)
+- about (1372)
 - number (1300)
 - software (1239)
-- because (1122)
+- because (1123)
-- their (1054)
+- their (1062)
 - would (1039)
 - program (1024)
-- something (1021)
+- something (1019)
-- being (990)
+- being (994)
-- things (954)
+- things (956)
 - language (925)
-- called (905)
+- called (908)
-- simple (846)
+- without (852)
-- without (845)
+- simple (847)
-- function (839)
+- function (838)
 - computer (833)
-- numbers (819)
+- numbers (821)
-- different (775)
+- different (773)
-- however (768)
+- however (766)
+- these (758)
 - programming (757)
-- these (755)
+- world (743)
-- world (741)
+- system (722)
-- system (720)
+- should (701)
-- should (702)
+- doesn (699)
-- doesn (698)
+- still (694)
-- still (690)
 - games (678)
-- while (662)
+- while (661)
 - point (655)
-- society (646)
+- society (649)
-- simply (644)
+- simply (645)
 - drummyfish (642)
-- possible (632)
+- possible (631)
-- using (626)
+- using (625)
-- probably (612)
+- always (614)
-- always (612)
+- probably (613)
-- course (592)
+- course (594)
 - similar (585)
+- https (574)
 - though (573)
-- https (573)
+- someone (567)
-- basically (567)
 - actually (567)
-- someone (566)
+- basically (565)
 - really (564)
-- technology (540)
+- technology (541)
 
 latest changes:
 
 ```
-Date:   Tue Jan 14 12:53:31 2025 +0100
+Date:   Thu Jan 16 23:00:49 2025 +0100
   21st_century.md
-  corporation.md
+  3d_model.md
-  creative_commons.md
+  3d_rendering.md
-  evil.md
+  90s.md
-  exercises.md
+  anarchism.md
-  faq.md
+  art.md
-  fear_culture.md
+  ashley_jones.md
-  fight_culture.md
+  assembly.md
-  how_to.md
+  books.md
-  lotr.md
+  c.md
-  often_confused.md
-  privacy.md
-  random_page.md
-  selflessness.md
-  slowly_boiling_the_frog.md
-  unretard.md
-  wiki_pages.md
-  wiki_stats.md
-  work.md
-Date:   Sat Jan 11 20:07:14 2025 +0100
-  brain_software.md
   calculus.md
-  data_hoarding.md
+  capitalism.md
-  encyclopedia.md
+  chess.md
-  exercises.md
+  communism.md
-  faq.md
+  digital_signature.md
+  elo.md
+  evil.md
+  fantasy_console.md
+  function.md
+  game.md
+  golang.md
+  gopher.md
+  hash.md
+  hero_culture.md
+  internet.md
+  iq.md
+  island.md
+  jesus.md
+  kwangmyong.md
   less_retarded_society.md
-  lrs_dictionary.md
+  lrs.md
+  luke_smith.md
   main.md
+  marketing.md
+  nigger.md
+  nonogram.md
   often_confused.md
-  random_page.md
+  open_source.md
-  rms.md
+  operating_system.md
-  usa.md
+  optimism.md
-  wiki_pages.md
+  optimization.md
-  wiki_stats.md
+  p_vs_np.md
-  windows.md
+  physics_engine.md
-  woman.md
+  programming_language.md
 ```
 
 most wanted pages:
@@ -155,18 +162,18 @@ most wanted pages:
 most popular and lonely pages:
 
 - [lrs](lrs.md) (325) 
-- [capitalism](capitalism.md) (291) 
+- [capitalism](capitalism.md) (293) 
 - [c](c.md) (234) 
 - [bloat](bloat.md) (227) 
 - [free_software](free_software.md) (195) 
 - [game](game.md) (148) 
 - [suckless](suckless.md) (146) 
 - [proprietary](proprietary.md) (132) 
+- [modern](modern.md) (116) 
 - [minimalism](minimalism.md) (115) 
-- [modern](modern.md) (114) 
 - [censorship](censorship.md) (113) 
 - [kiss](kiss.md) (109) 
-- [computer](computer.md) (108) 
+- [computer](computer.md) (109) 
 - [fun](fun.md) (104) 
 - [programming](programming.md) (103) 
 - [math](math.md) (101)