drummyfish/less_retarded_wiki
5
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Update

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Miloslav Ciz 2025-07-01 23:56:20 +02:00
parent 5e2ef4f6db
commit 244dfff2a8
11 changed files with 2025 additions and 2007 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

1
acronym.md
View file

@ -149,6 +149,7 @@ Here is a list of some acronyms:
- **[GPU](gpl.md)** (graphics processing unit)
- **[GRUB](grub.md)** (grand unified boot loader)
- **[GSM](gsm.md)** (global system for mobile communication)
- **[GTFO](gtfo.md)** (get the fuck out)
- **[GTK+](gtk_plus.md)** (GIMP toolking)
- **[GUI](gui.md)** (graphical user interface)
- **[H8](hate.md)** (hate)

10
compression.md
View file

@ -31,9 +31,11 @@ What follows is an example of how well different types of compression work for a
| --------------------------------------------------- | --------- | ------ |
| none | 3000 | 1 |
| general lossless (lz4) | 396 | 7.57 |
| image lossless (PNG) | 300 | 10 |
| image lossy (JPG), nearly indistinguishable quality | 164 | 18.29 |
| image lossy (JPG), ugly but readable | 56 | 53.57 |
| general lossless (gzip) | 308 | 9.74 |
| image lossless (PNG) | 288 | 10.41 |
| image lossless (WEBP) | 176 | 17.04 |
| image lossy (JPG), good quality (75%) | 148 | 20.27 |
| image lossy (JPG), ugly but readable (15%) | 60 | 50 |
Mathematically there cannot exist a lossless compression algorithm that would always reduce the size of any input data -- if it existed, we could just repeatedly apply it and compress ANY data to zero bytes. And not only that -- **every lossless compression will inevitably enlarge some input files**. This is also mathematically given -- we can see compression as simply mapping input binary sequences to output (compressed) binary sequences, while such mapping has to be one-to-one ([bijective](bijection.md)); it can be simply shown that if we make any such mapping that reduces the size of some input (maps a longer sequence to a shorter one, i.e. compresses it), we will also have to map some short code to a longer one. However we can make it so that our compression algorithm enlarges a file at most by 1 bit: we can say that the first bit in the compressed data says whether the following data is compressed or not; if our algorithm fails to reduce the size of the input, it simply sets the bit to says so and leaves the original file uncompressed (in practice many algorithms don't do this though as they try to work as streaming filters, without random access to data, which would be needed here).
@ -41,7 +43,7 @@ Mathematically there cannot exist a lossless compression algorithm that would al
{ A quick intuitive example: [encyclopedias](encyclopedia.md) almost always have at the beginning a list of abbreviations they will use in the definition of terms (e.g. "m.a. -> middle ages", ...), this is so that the book gets shorter and they save money on printing. They compress the text. ~drummyfish }
**OK, but how much can we really compress?** Well, as stated above, there can never be anything such as a universal uber compression algorithm that just makes any input file super small -- everything really depends on the nature of the data we are trying to compress. The more we know about the nature of the input data, the more we can compress, so a general compression program will compress only a little, while an image-specialized compression program will compress better (but will only work with images). As an extreme example, consider that **in theory we can make e.g. an algorithm that compresses one specific 100GB video to 1 bit** (we just define that a bit "1" decompresses to this specific video), but it will only work for that one single video, not for video in general -- i.e. we made an extremely specialized compression and got an extremely good compression ratio, however due to such extreme specialization we can almost never use it. As said, we just cannot compress completely random data at all (as we don't know anything about the nature of such data). On the other hand data with a lot of redundancy, such as video, can be compressed A LOT. Similarly video compression algorithms used in practice work only for videos that appear in the real world which exhibit certain patterns, such as two consecutive frames being very similar -- if we try to compress e.g. static (white noise), video codecs just shit themselves trying to compress it (look up e.g. videos of confetti and see how blocky they get). All in all, some compression [benchmarks](benchmark.md) can be found e.g. at https://web.archive.org/web/20110203152015/http://www.maximumcompression.com/index.html -- the following are some approximate typical compression ratios: English text 8.33, image (lossy) 10, executable 4.
**OK, but how much can we really compress?** Well, as stated above, there can never be anything such as a universal uber compression algorithm that just makes any input file super small -- everything really depends on the nature of the data we are trying to compress. The more we implicitly know about the nature of the compressed data, the more we can compress it, and this makes very good sense -- that which we already know we don't have to encode and thus the more we know, the less data there has to be (the smaller the compressed file), but also the more we become limited in what we can compress. So a general compression program will compress only a little while an image-specialized compression program will compress better (but will only work with images). If we specifically focus only on compressing English text for instance, we can assume it will only consist of words in the English language and so the compressed text doesn't have to come with English dictionary, but we also won't be able to compress [Chinese](chinese.md) text as a result. For an extreme example consider that **in theory we can make an algorithm that compresses one specific 100GB video down to 1 bit** (we just define that a bit "1" decompresses to this specific video), but it will only work for that one single video, not for video in general -- i.e. we made an extremely specialized compression and got an extremely good compression ratio, however due to such extreme specialization we can almost never use it. As said, we just cannot compress completely random data at all (as we don't know anything about the nature of such data). On the other hand data with a lot of redundancy, such as video, can be compressed A LOT. Similarly video compression algorithms used in practice work only for videos that appear in the real world which exhibit certain patterns, such as two consecutive frames being very similar -- if we try to compress e.g. static (white noise), video codecs just shit themselves trying to compress it (look up e.g. videos of confetti and see how blocky they get). All in all, some compression [benchmarks](benchmark.md) can be found e.g. at https://web.archive.org/web/20110203152015/http://www.maximumcompression.com/index.html -- the following are some approximate typical compression ratios: English text 8.33, image (lossy) 10, executable 4.
## Methods

2
determinism.md
View file

@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
Deterministic system (such as a [computer](computer.md) [program](program.md) or an [equation](equation.md)) is one which over time evolves without any involvement of [randomness](randomness.md); i.e. its current state along with the rules according to which it behaves unambiguously and precisely determine its following state. As an implication a deterministic [algorithm](algorithm.md) will always give the same result if ran multiple times with the same input values. Determinism is a concept of uttermost importance in [computer science](compsci.md) and [programming](programming.md) (but likewise also in many other fields of [science](science.md) and philosophy). For example [game of life](game_of_life.md) is a deterministic system while [Markov chain](markov_chain.md) is not.
Along the same lines determinism is also a **[philosophical](philosophy.md) theory** and aspect of [physics](physics.md) theories -- here it signifies that our [Universe](universe.md) is deterministic, i.e. that everything is already predetermined by the state of the universe and the laws of physics, i.e. that we don't have "[free will](free_will.md)" (whatever it means) because our brains are just machines following laws of physics like any other matter etc. Many normies believe [quantum physics](quantum.md) disproves determinism which is however not the case, there may e.g. exist hidden variables that still make quantum physics deterministic -- some believe the Bell test disproved hidden variables but again this is NOT the case as it relies on statistical independence of the experimenters, determinism is already possible if we consider the choices of experimenters are also predetermined (this is called [superdeterminism](superdeterminism.md)). [Einstein](einstein.md) and many others still believed determinism was the way the Universe works even after quantum physics emerged. { This also seems correct to me. Sabine Hossenfelder is another popular physicist promoting determinism. ~drummyfish } Anyway, this is already beyond the scope of technological determinism.
Along the same lines determinism is also a **[philosophical](philosophy.md) theory** and a possible attribute of theories in [physics](physics.md) where it signifies that our [Universe](universe.md) is deterministic, i.e. that everything is already predetermined by the state of the universe and the laws of physics, i.e. that we don't have "[free will](free_will.md)" (whatever it means) because our brains are just machines following laws of physics like any other matter etc. Many normies believe [quantum physics](quantum.md) disproves determinism which is however not the case, there may e.g. exist hidden variables that still make quantum physics deterministic -- some believe the Bell test disproved hidden variables but again this is NOT the case as it relies on statistical independence of the experimenters, determinism is already possible if we consider the choices of experimenters are also predetermined (this is called [superdeterminism](superdeterminism.md)). [Einstein](einstein.md) and many others still believed determinism was the way the Universe works even after quantum physics emerged. { This also seems correct to me. Sabine Hossenfelder is another popular physicist promoting determinism. ~drummyfish } Anyway, this is already beyond the scope of technological determinism.
[Computers](computer.md) are mostly deterministic by nature and design, they operate by strict rules and engineers normally try to eliminate any random behavior as that is mostly undesirable (with certain exceptions mentioned below) -- randomness leads to hard to detect and hard to fix [bugs](bug.md), unpredictability etc. Determinism has furthermore many advantages, for example if we want to record a behavior of a deterministic system, it is enough if we record only the inputs to the system without the need to record its state which saves a great amount of space -- if we later want to replay the system's behavior we simply rerun the system with the recorded inputs and its behavior will be the same as before (this is exploited e.g. in recording gameplay demos in video [games](game.md) such as [Doom](doom.md); determinism is also oftentimes needed for good implementation of multiplayer).

107
distance.md
View file

@ -15,8 +15,7 @@ There are many ways to define distance within given space. Most common and impli
Computing Euclidean distance requires multiplication and most importantly [square root](sqrt.md) which is usually a pretty slow operation, therefore many times we look for simpler [approximations](approximation.md). Note that a possible approach here may also lead through computing the distance normally but using a fast approximation of the square root.
Two very basic and rough approximations of Euclidean distance, both in 2D and 3D, are [taxicab](taxicab.md) (also Manhattan) and [Chebyshev](chebyshev.md) distances. Taxicab distance
simply adds the absolute coordinate differences along each principal axis (*dx*, *dy* and *dz*) while Chebyshev takes the maximum of them (NOTE: taking minimum isn't possible due to the definition which requires two distinct points to always have positive distance). In [C](c.md) (for generalization to 3D just add one coordinate of course):
Two very basic and rough approximations of Euclidean distance, both in 2D and 3D, are [taxicab](taxicab.md) (also Manhattan) and [Chebyshev](chebyshev.md) distances. Taxicab distance is an upper bound on Euclidean distance (i.e. it's always greater than or equal to Euclidean distance) and is computed by merely adding the absolute coordinate differences along each principal axis (*dx*, *dy* and *dz*) while Chebyshev, a lower bound on Euclidean distance, takes the maximum of them (NOTE: taking minimum isn't possible due to the definition which requires two distinct points to always have positive distance). In [C](c.md) (for generalization to 3D just add one coordinate of course):
```
int distTaxi(int x0, int y0, int x1, int y1)
@ -38,60 +37,74 @@ int distCheb(int x0, int y0, int x1, int y1)
Both of these distances approximate a [circle](circle.md) in 2D with a square or a sphere in 3D with a cube, the difference is that taxicab is an upper estimate of the distance while Chebyshev is the lower estimate. For speed of execution ([optimization](optimization.md)) it may also be important that taxicab distance only uses the operation of addition while Chebyshev may result in [branching](branch.md) (*if*) in the max function which is usually not good for performance.
```
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Euclidean _____
_.'' ''._
sqrt( B / \ F
(B.x - A.x)^2 + _,-+ / C d \ _-+
(B.y - A.y)^2) _,--' ( +-------) _,-'
_,--' \ / _,-'
_,--' \_ _/ _,-'
A _,--' '--_____--' E _,-'
+-' +-'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxicab (Manhattan) _A_
B _/ \_ F
+ _/ \_ ,----+
abs(B.x - A.x) + | _/ C d \_ ,'
abx(B.y - A.y) | <_ +-------> ,'
| \_ _/ ,'
| \_ _/ ,'
A | \_ _/ E ,'
+-------------------------' V +----'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chebyshev _______________
B | | F
max( + | | ,+
abs(B.x - A.x), | C d | ,'
abs(B.y - A.y)) | +-------| ,'
| | ,--------'
| | ,'
A |_______________| E ,'
+-------------------------- +'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
```
*Three commonly used distance measures: the distance is the length of the path illustrated between points A and B; next are shown "circles" (sets of points with distance d from point C) and "lines" (one diagonal of a rhombus in which points E and F are opposite to each other) drawn by respective measures.*
A bit more accuracy can be achieved by averaging the taxicab and Chebyshev distances which in 2D approximates a circle with an 8 segment polygon and in 3D approximates a sphere with 24 sided [polyhedron](polyhedron.md). The integer-only [C](c.md) code is following:
Taking the average of taxicab and Chebyshev distances will slightly increases accuracy towards better approximating Euclidean distance -- in 2D a circle plotted by this new metric will be an 8 segment polygon and analogously in 3D a sphere will be a 24 sided [polyhedron](polyhedron.md) (taxicab or Chebyshev alone give a square in 2D and a cube in 3D). The average can be shown to be equal to the maximum coordinate difference plus a half of the minimum; here is an branchless, integer-only [C](c.md) function implementing the taxicab-Chebyshev average:
```
int dist8(int x0, int y0, int x1, int y1)
{
x0 = x1 > x0 ? x1 - x0 : x0 - x1; // dx
y0 = y1 > y0 ? y1 - y0 : y0 - y1; // dy
return (x0 + y0 + (x0 > y0 ? x0 : y0)) / 2;
x1 = x0 > y0; // use as helper
return (x0 >> !x1) + (y0 >> x1);
}
```
And a picture for summary:
```
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Euclidean _____ 1 1 2 3 4 5 6
_.'' ''._ 2 2 3 4 4 5 6
sqrt( B / \ 3 3 4 4 5 6 7
(B.x - A.x)^2 + _,-+ / C d \ 4 4 4 5 6 6 7 F
(B.y - A.y)^2) _,--' ( +-------) 5 5 5 6 6 7 8 _-+
_,--' \ / 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 _,-'
_,--' \_ _/ _,-'
A _,--' '--_____--' _,-'
+-' E _,-'
+-'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Taxicab (Manhattan) _A_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
B _/ \_ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
+ _/ \_ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 F
abs(B.x - A.x) + | _/ C d \_ 4 5 6 7 8 9 a ,----+
abx(B.y - A.y) | <_ +-------> 5 6 7 8 9 a b ,'
| \_ _/ 6 7 8 9 a b c ,'
| \_ _/ ,'
A | \_ _/ ,'
+-------------------------' V E ,'
+----'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Chebyshev _______________ 1 1 2 3 4 5 6
B | | 2 2 2 3 4 5 6
max( + | | 3 3 3 3 4 5 6 F
abs(B.x - A.x), | C d | 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 ,+
abs(B.y - A.y)) | +-------| 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 ,'
| | 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ,'
| | ,--------'
A |_______________| ,'
+-------------------------- E ,'
+'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Taxi-Chebyshev average ___ 1 1 2 3 4 5 6
B _.-'' ''-._ 2 2 3 4 5 6 7
max(abs(B.x - A.x), + : : 3 3 4 4 5 6 7 F
abs(B.y - A.y)) + : C d : 4 4 5 5 6 7 8 ,+
min(abs(B.x - A.x), : +-------: 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 /
abs(B.y - A.y)) / 2 , : : 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 /
| :_ _: _____----'''''
A | ''-.___.-'' /
+-------------------------' E /
+'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```
*The four mentioned distance measures: the distance is the length of the path illustrated between points A and B; next are shown "circles" (sets of points with distance d from point C), tables of distances of grid cells from the top-left cell (rounded to nearest integer if needed) and "lines" (one diagonal of a rhombus in which points E and F are opposite to each other) drawn by respective measures.*
{ The following is an approximation I came up with when working on [tinyphysicsengine](tpe.md). While I measured the average and maximum error of the taxi/Chebyshev average in 3D at about 16% and 22% respectively, the following gave me 3% and 12% values. ~drummyfish }
Yet more accurate approximation of 3D Euclidean distance can be made with a 48 sided [polyhedron](polyhedron.md). The principle is following: take absolute values of all three coordinate differences and order them by magnitude so that *dx >= dy >= dz >= 0*. This gets us into one of 48 possible slices of space (the other slices have the same shape, they just differ by ordering or signs of the coordinates but the distance in them is of course equal). In this slice we'll approximate the distance linearly, i.e. with a [plane](plane.md). We do this by simply computing the distance of our point from a plane that goes through origin and whose normal is approximately {0.8728,0.4364,0.2182} (it points in the direction that goes through the middle of space slice). The expression for the distance from this plane simplifies to simply *0.8728 * dx + 0.4364 * dy + 0.2182 * dz*. The following is an integer-only implementation in [C](c.md) (note that the constants above have been converted to allow division by 1024 for possible [optimization](optimization.md) of division to a bit shift):

1
great_trap.md
View file

@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ This continues and the poor being gets entangled more and more in the net, soon
## See Also
- [The Great Illusion](great_illusion.md)
- [unretard](unretard.md)
- [NPC](npc.md)
- [slowly boiling the frog](slowly_boiling_the_frog.md)

3828
random_page.md
View file

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load diff

5
stereotype.md
View file

@ -120,6 +120,11 @@ Some stereotypes are:
- things are more "sane" and balanced compared to the US
- socialists and [communists](communism.md) (from US perspective)
- europoor (also from US perspective)
- **Austria**:
- You mean Australia?
- You mean Germany?
- men often look like the typical Austria-Hungary officer with moustache and sabre sword
- skiing, schnitzel
- **Belgians**:
- You mean French?
- No famous Belgians exist (and if so, only fictional).

2
trolling.md
View file

@ -39,6 +39,8 @@ Here are some potentially entertaining ways of trolling (they'll be written from
- **Teh preprocesstroll**: A unique and very powerful feature of the [C](c.md) language is the [preprocessor](preprocessor.md): indeed, in the right hands it enables very powerful trolling. Sneaking a `#define` or two into someone else's code might have required my physical presence at someone's keyboard back in the day, but in the [age of constant updates](update_culture.md) it's become a child play: as a maintainer of a popular [library](library.md) I am handed a free access card to all the codebases my library has contaminated (I got inspired by that faggot who tried to keyboard fight Russia by sneaking Russian-IP-triggered malware into his library). Now for the defines themselves: some can be just a quick annoyance like kicking someone in the balls, like for example `#define if while`, but I rather like to go for something more sneaky like `#define true ((__LINE__ & 0x0f) != 0)` or `#define if(c) if ((c) || !(rand() % 16))`, which is more like ejaculating in someone's coffee for years -- you can watch him see something's wrong but he will struggle to find what it is and quite likely he'll conclude it's just his imagination. Of course, whenever I am redefining a common macro such as `NULL`, I pay attention to carefully make sure the compiler won't give any warning about it being redefined, so something like: `#ifdef NULL #undef NULL #endif #define NULL <insert evil here>`, and I diligently perform all explicit type casts to eliminate further warnings. And then we're getting to trolling the [security](security.md), or "unsecuring" systems from within -- all the security haxxors love to assume their system will be attacked by third parties, but they never suspect an attack from a long time colleague sitting next chair in the office who's even so nice to make him a coffee every day (...), and that's a crucial mistake to make because the number one rule of security is: NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING. So I unsecure highly critical systems by fiddling with stuff related to memory allocation, like `#define sizeof(x) (sizeof(x) - 1 + (sizeof(x) == 1))` or `#define memcpy(d,s,c) for(int ii=(int)c;ii;--ii)d[ii]=s[ii]^(ii%16==0);`. Sometimes I proudly watch those plane disaster documentaries with my grandchildren and I tell them: yep, this one's my define :D
- ...
{ Idea: give someone colorblind a T-shirt as a gift with something nasty written on it that he won't be able to read due to his disease so that he'll wear it in public. ~drummyfish }
{ Back in the times of [fax](fax.md) there was a cool troll known as "black fax". As the name suggests, the goal was to fax a completely black page to waste the receiver's ink :D ~drummyfish }
{ I got asked a very good question: is trolling in fact [fascism](fascism.md) and how can I, a LRS supporter, like it then? This topic can get pretty complicated, trolling is probably like games themselves, it is a simulation of behavior that could otherwise be unethical, we always have to think about what's happening -- sometimes what's called "trolling" is just bullying without any creativity, which is not trolling in the right sense; other times trolling is seeking self benefit (fun on detriment of others) which is normally unethical but may be fine as a part of game, and other times trolling may aim to bring fun for everyone, in which case it may even be selfless. Seeking fun (a kind of self benefit) on the detriment of others is, at least by our definition, a form of fascism. I enjoy the acts of trolling, and though it may be partly an imperfection of me as a human being, I try to keep it compatible with LRS in the following ways. Firstly I never support actually very harmful trolling (such as "cutting for Bieber") to be DONE, though I do enjoy reviewing the cases that already happened and I may find them both funny and sad at the same time -- this is similar to how one can be a pacifist and completely reject violence while still finding some value in watching gore videos. Secondly trolling may be done to entities that aren't living beings, for example companies or states. Thirdly I may support acts of trolling that I don't think are significantly harmful, for example lighthearted pranks (the kind of joke you play on someone and it eventually entertains both of you, but it mustn't be taken too far, harm must be negligible), or Internet trolling. It's similar to sports or video games -- it is completely acceptable (and desirable) to create environments -- which must always be entered VOLUNTARILY -- that simulate amoral behavior and relieve some of our amoral animal needs, for example those for competition or fight, despite such behavior not being acceptable in other contexts. I.e. it is for example acceptable to kill each other in video games. Internet, or at least a great part of it, is such an environment -- it is a kind of playground anyone can enter voluntarily, that's known to have the kind of trolling game going on. On the Internet we only interact by speech and speech alone can never hurt anyone -- if one cannot bear reading something on the Internet, he can avoid using it (at least that's how it should be). ~drummyfish }

2
usa.md
View file

@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ And the good things? [Zero](zero.md). Really, pause for a moment and try to come
*Use as your [toilet paper](shit.md).*
More than anything USA resembles [North Korea](north_korea.md), main difference being that USA actually acts on their promises of war and attacks other countries instead of just talking about it. Apart from this we only find striking similarities: in both countries citizens are successfully led to believing their country is the greatest and have strong propaganda based on [cults of personality](cult_of_personality.md), which to outsiders seem very ridiculous but which is nevertheless very effective: for example North Korea officially proclaims their supreme leader Kim Jong-il was born atop a sacred mountain and a new star came to existence on the day of his birth, while Americans on the other hand believe one of their retarded leaders named George Washington was a divine god who was PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO TELL A LIE, which was actually taught at their schools. North Korea is ruled by a single political party, US is ruled by two practically same militant capitalist imperialist parties (democrats and republicans), i.e. de-facto one party as well. Both countries are obsessed with weapons (especially nuclear ones) and their military, both are highly and openly [fascist](fascism.md) (nationalist). Both countries are full of extreme [propaganda](propaganda.md), [censorship](censorship.md) and [hero culture](hero_culture.md), people worship dictators such as Kim Jong-un or [Steve Jobs](steve_jobs.md). US is even worse than North Korea because it exports its toxic [culture](culture.md) all over the whole world and constantly invades other countries, it is destroying all other cultures and leads the whole world to doom and destruction of all life, while North Korea basically only destroys itself.
More than anything USA resembles [North Korea](north_korea.md), main difference being that USA actually acts on their promises of war and attacks other countries instead of just talking about it. Apart from this we only find striking similarities: in both countries citizens are successfully led to believing their country is the greatest and have strong propaganda based on [cults of personality](cult_of_personality.md), which to outsiders seem very ridiculous but which is nevertheless very effective: for example North Korea officially proclaims their supreme leader Kim Jong-il was born atop a sacred mountain and a new star came to existence on the day of his birth, while Americans on the other hand believe one of their retarded leaders named George Washington was a divine god who was PHYSICALLY UNABLE TO TELL A LIE, which was actually taught at their schools. Government surveillance of citizens is extreme and ever present in both countries, but lower in North Korea as its citizens aren't surrounded as much by [always-online devices](iot.md). North Korea is ruled by a single political party, US is ruled by two practically same militant capitalist imperialist parties (democrats and republicans), i.e. de-facto one party as well. Both countries are obsessed with weapons (especially nuclear ones) and their military, both are highly and openly [fascist](fascism.md) (nationalist). Both countries are full of extreme [propaganda](propaganda.md), [censorship](censorship.md) and [hero culture](hero_culture.md), people worship dictators such as Kim Jong-un or [Steve Jobs](steve_jobs.md). US is even worse than North Korea because it exports its toxic [culture](culture.md) all over the whole world and constantly invades other countries, it is destroying all other cultures and leads the whole world to doom and destruction of all life, while North Korea basically only destroys itself.
In US mainstream [politics](politics.md) there exists no true left, only [right](left_right.md) and [pseudoleft](pseudoleft.md). It is only in deepest underground, out of the sun's rays and sight of the public eye, where on rare occasion sometimes something of value comes to existence as an exception to the general rule that nothing good comes from the US. One of these exceptions is [free software](free_software.md) (established by [Richard Stallman](rms.md)) which was however quickly smothered by the capitalist [open source](open_source.md) counter movement. Also the [hippie](hippies.md) movement was kind of cool, and here and there a good videogame or movie happens to be made in the US, but remember you have to sift through an ocean of crap to find a small nugget of gold here.

2
wiki_pages.md
View file

File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long

70
wiki_stats.md
View file

@ -3,12 +3,12 @@
This is an autogenerated article holding stats about this wiki.
- number of articles: 644
- number of commits: 1035
- total size of all texts in bytes: 5615510
- total number of lines of article texts: 40370
- number of commits: 1036
- total size of all texts in bytes: 5618746
- total number of lines of article texts: 40378
- number of script lines: 324
- occurrences of the word "person": 10
- occurrences of the word "nigger": 157
- occurrences of the word "nigger": 158
longest articles:
@ -36,20 +36,20 @@ longest articles:
top 50 5+ letter words:
- which (3015)
- there (2375)
- there (2376)
- people (2249)
- example (1944)
- example (1945)
- other (1718)
- about (1534)
- number (1476)
- about (1535)
- number (1477)
- software (1339)
- because (1265)
- their (1191)
- something (1171)
- because (1266)
- their (1193)
- something (1174)
- would (1150)
- being (1131)
- being (1132)
- program (1088)
- language (1036)
- language (1038)
- called (1009)
- things (959)
- without (937)
@ -64,21 +64,21 @@ top 50 5+ letter words:
- however (810)
- should (790)
- still (785)
- system (778)
- system (779)
- doesn (757)
- games (743)
- drummyfish (741)
- always (736)
- possible (729)
- point (722)
- https (714)
- probably (709)
- https (709)
- while (698)
- while (699)
- society (697)
- simply (694)
- using (667)
- someone (651)
- course (648)
- using (668)
- someone (655)
- course (649)
- actually (640)
- similar (638)
- first (625)
@ -89,6 +89,17 @@ top 50 5+ letter words:
latest changes:
```
Date: Sun Jun 29 15:10:41 2025 +0200
acronym.md
licar.md
main.md
nigger.md
random_page.md
stereotype.md
trolling.md
wiki_pages.md
wiki_stats.md
wikipedia.md
Date: Thu Jun 26 21:52:18 2025 +0200
21st_century.md
elon_musk.md
@ -111,23 +122,6 @@ Date: Thu Jun 26 00:54:22 2025 +0200
game.md
hitler.md
jokes.md
licar.md
lrs_dictionary.md
main.md
microsoft.md
needed.md
progress.md
race.md
random_page.md
reddit.md
science.md
small3dlib.md
soyence.md
tinyphysicsengine.md
transsexual.md
unicode.md
update_culture.md
wiki_pages.md
```
most wanted pages:
@ -158,7 +152,7 @@ most popular and lonely pages:
- [lrs](lrs.md) (357)
- [capitalism](capitalism.md) (329)
- [bloat](bloat.md) (254)
- [c](c.md) (250)
- [c](c.md) (251)
- [free_software](free_software.md) (212)
- [game](game.md) (167)
- [suckless](suckless.md) (152)
@ -166,8 +160,8 @@ most popular and lonely pages:
- [modern](modern.md) (135)
- [minimalism](minimalism.md) (131)
- [computer](computer.md) (130)
- [kiss](kiss.md) (128)
- [censorship](censorship.md) (128)
- [kiss](kiss.md) (127)
- [fun](fun.md) (124)
- [math](math.md) (123)
- [shit](shit.md) (121)