Update

anarchism.md

@@ -6,7 +6,9 @@ Anarchism (from Greek *an*, no and *archos*, ruler) is a [socialist](socialism.m
 
 A great many things about anarchism are explained in the text *An Anarchist FAQ*, which is [free licensed](free_culture.md) and can be accessed e.g. at https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full.
 
-Anarchism is a wide term and encompasses many flavors such as [anarcho communism](ancom.md), [anarcho pacifism](anpac.md), [anarcho syndicalism](ansyn.md), [anarcho primitivism](anprim.md) or [anarcho mutualism](anmut.md). Some of the branches disagree on specific questions, e.g. about whether [violence](violence.md) is ever justifiable, or propose different solutions to issues such as organization of society, however **all branches of anarchism are socialist** and all aim for **elimination of social hierarchy** such as social classes created by wealth, [jobs](work.md) and [weapons](military.md), i.e. anarchism opposes [state](state.md) (e.g. police having power over citizens) and [capitalism](capitalism.md) (employers exploiting employees, corporations exploiting [consumers](consumerism.md) etc.). At the beginning stands the simple observation that **power ALWAYS comes with corruption** ("Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.") and therefore power inevitably comes with abuse of power -- it is impossible to ever have a position of power that won't be abused and so to eliminate abuse of power the only effective solution is to remove any positions (NOT the people) with power: be it kings, presidents, CEOs or managers, we simply have to let go of the concept of someone having a power over other people. To common folk this may seem equally impossible to achieve, however it stops being so once we realize power can only exist as long as it has support of majority of the people -- it is based on fear and so to remove power we may only have to do as much as [educate](education.md) and make the majority of people agree to not collaborate on sustaining the harmful societal system. Further extrapolation then predicts that removing power will achieve a truly good society in which no one is abused, everyone has abundance of all necessary resources and therefore most issues that stem from [competition](competition.md) and conflict such as [wars](war.md), criminality, [fascism](fascism.md) and declining mental health will simply disappear naturally on their own, as there will simply be no more reason for them to exist.
+Anarchism is a wide term and encompasses many flavors such as [anarcho communism](ancom.md), [anarcho pacifism](anpac.md), [anarcho syndicalism](ansyn.md), [anarcho primitivism](anprim.md) or [anarcho mutualism](anmut.md). Some of the branches disagree on specific questions, e.g. about whether [violence](violence.md) is ever justifiable, or propose different solutions to issues such as organization of society, however **all branches of anarchism are socialist** and all aim for **elimination of social hierarchy** such as social classes created by wealth, [jobs](work.md) and [weapons](military.md), i.e. anarchism opposes [state](state.md) (e.g. police having power over citizens) and [capitalism](capitalism.md) (employers exploiting employees, corporations exploiting [consumers](consumerism.md) etc.). At the beginning stands the simple observation that **power ALWAYS comes with corruption** ("Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.") and therefore power inevitably comes with abuse of power -- it is impossible to ever have a position of power that won't be abused and so to eliminate abuse of power the only effective solution is to remove any positions (NOT the people) with power: be it kings, presidents, CEOs or managers, we simply have to let go of the concept of someone having a power over other people. Literally every single government, corporation, church and any other kind of hierarchical organization in history got corrupted over time, there is not a single counterexample, it's almost as certain as a fundamental law of nature and it keeps repeating over and over that something small, more or less nice appears (be it any "democratic" state, religious idea, political party, any company, any "people's project", [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md), [google](google.md), [reddit](reddit.md), [Linux](linux.md), name any single thing), then grows bigger and ends up corrupted, abused, blatantly denying its original principles; then a revolt (often called a [revolution](revolution.md)) follows, with violence, wars, bloodshed and destruction to replace the corrupted thing with a newly created thing that's just as surely destined to repeat the same cycle. Anarchism means simply learning from repeating the mistake and stopping repeating it. To common folk it seems impossible to achieve removal of social hierarchy, i.e. positions of power, however it stops being so once we realize power can only exist as long as it has support of majority of the people -- it is based on fear and so to remove power we may only have to do as much as [educate](education.md) and make the majority of people agree to not collaborate on sustaining the harmful societal system. Further extrapolation then predicts that removing power will achieve a truly good society in which no one is abused, everyone has abundance of all necessary resources and therefore most issues that stem from [competition](competition.md) and conflict such as [wars](war.md), criminality, [fascism](fascism.md) and declining mental health will simply disappear naturally on their own, as there will simply be no more reason for them to exist.
+
+Anarchism comes with a **complete change of mindset**, it's not enough to say "state and corporations = bad" and then continue to live the comfortable life of a consumerist [NPC](npc.md); truly embracing anarchism means exploring and realizing in depth various societal forces, their extent, and as a result absolutely changing how one lives and thinks -- becoming active instead of passive, letting go of luxury, starting to rely as much as one can only on self, obtaining more [freedom](freedom.md) in every way, stopping [consumption](consumerism.md), becoming self sufficient as much as possible, becoming a generalist and so on. To have society without people being subdued to other people it's not possible to have passive zombies who rely on others: for example you are not an anarchist if you support a non-profit that is supposed to create "ethical" [free software](free_software.md) for you; you are an anarchist if you write that software yourself. You are not an anarchist if you wear a badge that says you support children in Africa or retweet inspirational messages about how we should support charities that do so, you are an anarchist if you go to Africa and help them yourself. Good society SHOULD provide people with what they need, with free food, free healthcare, free education, it should NOT be required to grow own food in order to be fed, but such society is only possible if people VOLUNTARILY try to do so, if they become wise enough to no longer require the capitalist's whip in order to do something. I.e. anarchism is NOT an excuse for being lazy, lying in bed and masturbating all day -- it is fine to be lazy and masturbate all day, but if that is your goal, you are better off dropping your morals and becoming a rich capitalist. The goal of anarchism is good society, and that indeed does take something, allowing people to be free in their decision of whether or not to work will require an effort. So before calling yourself an anarchist ask yourself: are you someone who is truly concerned with the greater values of anarchism, or just someone who selfishly likes what benefits it would bring him personally, on the detriment of others? The latter is nothing more than being a [capitalist](capitalism.md).
 
 There exist many **fake, pseudoanarchist ideologies** such as ["anarcho" capitalism](ancap.md) that deceive by their name despite by their very definition NOT fitting the definition of anarchism (just like [Nazis](nazi.md) called themselves [socialists](socialism.md) despite being the opposite). Also the "new", western [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) "anarchism" is NOT true anarchism, e.g. ["anarcha" feminism](anfem.md) is just fascist bullshit. Anything individualist, connected to [feminism](feminism.md), [LGBT](lgbt.md) etc. is not true anarchism. The propaganda also tries to deceive the public by calling various violent criminals anarchists, even though they very often can't fit the definition of a true anarchist.
 

cheating.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Official [LRS](lrs.md) stance on cheating is the following: **Cheating is fine.*
 
 The truth is that **cheating is only an issue in a [shitty](shit.md) society** that is driven by [competition](competition.md) (even if you disagree). Indeed, in such society there is a huge motivation for cheating (sometimes literally physical survival) as well as potentially disastrous consequences of it. Under the tyranny of capitalism we are led to worship [heroes](hero_culture.md) and high achievers and everyone gets pissed when we get fooled. Corporations go "OH NOES our multi billion dollar entertainment industry is going to go bankrupt if consoomers get annoyed by cheaters! People are gonna lose their bullshit jobs! Someone is going to get money he doesn't deserve! Our customers may get butthurt!!!" (as if corporations themselves weren't basically just stealing money and raping people lol). So they start a huge brainwashing propaganda campaign, a cheater witch hunt. States do the same, communities do the same, everyone wants to stone cheaters to death but at the same time the society pressures all of us to compete to death with others or else we'll starve. We reward winners and torture the losers, then bash people who try to win -- and no, many times there is no other choice than to cheat, the top of any competition is littered with cheaters, most just don't get caught, so in about 99% of cases the only way to the top is to cheat and try to not get caught, just to have a shot at winning against others. It is proven time after time, legit looking people in the top leagues of sports, business, [science](science.md) and other areas are constantly being revealed as cheaters, usually by pure accident (i.e. the number of actual cheater is MANY times higher). Take a look for instance at the [Trackmania](trackmania.md) cheating scandal in which after someone invented a replay analysis tool he revealed that a great number or top level players were just cheaters, including possibly the GOAT of Trackmania [Riolu](riolu.md) (who just ragequit and never showed again lol). Of course famous cases like Neil Armstrong don't even have to be mentioned. { I just randomly found out that in the world of Pokemon tournaments cheating at top level also showed to be a huge issue lol. ~drummyfish } Cheater detection systems are (and always will be) imperfect and try to minimize [false positives](false_positive.md), so only the cheaters who REPEATEDLY make MANY very OBVIOUS mistakes get caught, the smart cheaters stay and take the top places in the competitive system, just as surely as natural selection leads to the evolution of organisms that best adapt to the environment. Even if perfect cheat-detection systems existed, the problem would just shift from cheating to immoral unsportmanship, i.e. abuse of rules that's technically not cheating but effectively presents the same kind of problems. How to solve this enormously disgusting mess? We simply have to stop desperately holding to the system itself, we have to ditch it.
 
-**Anticheating is a totalitarian [cancer](cancer.md)** and has to be ended. Anticheating goes strictly against freedom and [anarchist](anarchism.md) ideas because it requires an authority, a kind of police, surveillance, punishment mechanisms and so on. Technically speaking anticheating can be implemented in two main ways, both of which are highly [harmful](harmful.md). First one is the [antivirus](antivirus.md)/[DRM](drm.md) way and requires invading the player's computer with spyware that checks he is not running any cheating programs -- this of course comes with ensuring the player is rid of control over his own machine so that he's not able to prevent the anticheating program to do its job, so this is absolutely unacceptable for anyone supporting [free software](free_software.md). The other was is [mathematical](math.md), based on just observing the games and [statistically](statistics.md) deciding whether the player cheats or not -- this is better in not having to take away the user's freedom over his own machine, however it takes away the freedom to behave however one desires and it dictates you always have to play the same way (and, naturally, is imperfect and comes with false positives etc.). For example a great indicator of cheating in chess is that someone takes the same time to think about every move, it's unnatural and not how normal humans plays, so if someone plays like it he is labeled a cheater. But what if someone WANTS to play like it? What if someone makes it a self imposed challenge to make ever move in exactly three seconds? Anticheater cults says you mustn't do it and you have to conform to how everyone else plays. Similarly they say that it is, for example, statistically impossible for a 1500 rated player to suddenly play ten moves in a row like a 2500 rated player so if this occurs, you're again labeled a cheater and banned. But what if someone is 2500 rated and has been purposefully playing like a 1500 until now to keep a moment of surprise for a difficult opponent? Then we observe the same thing under completely legit circumstances. Now the anticheating cult will even go aggressive on you and they will attack you for breaking their badly designed system (which is designed to abuse you in the first place), they will ban you for [trolling](trolling.md) and advise you to kill yourself. No [fun](fun.md) or diversity of play is allowed in anticheating world, only normality is allowed, otherwise statistics won't work. But people who accept anticheating measures are much more likely to later on accept the same measures implemented in other parts of their life as well (see also [slowly boiling the frog](slowly_boiling_the_frog.md)).
+**Anticheating is a totalitarian [cancer](cancer.md)** and has to be ended. Anticheating goes strictly against freedom and [anarchist](anarchism.md) ideas because it requires an authority, a kind of police, surveillance, punishment mechanisms and so on. Technically speaking anticheating can be implemented in two main ways, both of which are highly [harmful](harmful.md). First one is the [antivirus](antivirus.md)/[DRM](drm.md) way and requires invading the player's computer with spyware that checks he is not running any cheating programs -- this of course comes with ensuring the player is rid of control over his own machine so that he's not able to prevent the anticheating program to do its job, so this is absolutely unacceptable for anyone supporting [free software](free_software.md). The other way is [mathematical](math.md), based on just observing the games and [statistically](statistics.md) deciding whether the player cheats or not -- this is better in not having to take away the user's freedom over his own machine, however it takes away the freedom to behave however one desires and it dictates you always have to play the same way (and, naturally, is imperfect and comes with false positives etc.). For example a great indicator of cheating in chess is that someone takes the same time to think about every move, it's unnatural and not how normal humans plays, so if someone plays like it he is labeled a cheater. But what if someone WANTS to play like it? What if someone makes it a self imposed challenge to make every move in exactly three seconds? Anticheater cults says you mustn't do it and you have to conform to how everyone else plays, that if you're just an amateur trying to have fun in unconventional ways you're unimportant and must try to approach the game how professionals approach it:  the game suddenly becomes a tyranny of the people who are serious about it, fun and creativity disappears. Similarly they say that it is, for example, statistically impossible for a 1500 rated player to suddenly play ten moves in a row like a 2500 rated player so if this occurs, you're again labeled a cheater and banned. But what if someone is 2500 rated and has been purposefully playing like a 1500 until now to keep a moment of surprise for a difficult opponent? Then we observe the same thing under completely legit circumstances. Now the anticheating cult will even go aggressive on you and they will attack you for breaking their badly designed system (which is designed to abuse you in the first place), they will ban you for [trolling](trolling.md) and advise you to kill yourself. No [fun](fun.md) or diversity of play is allowed in anticheating world, only normality is allowed, otherwise statistics won't work. But people who accept anticheating measures are much more likely to later on accept the same measures implemented in other parts of their life as well (see also [slowly boiling the frog](slowly_boiling_the_frog.md)).
 
 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.
 
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Back in the day of early Internet there were practically no anticheating measure
 
 **Anticheating also doesn't make any sense.** Why would you want to ban cheating? Usually you'll get these answers:
 
-- "It ruins fun for others". **DEBUNKED**. No, what ruins fun for others is usually [rape](rape.md), not cheating -- a very skilled player can do this too without cheating. So this is not an argument against cheating, it's an argument against using high skill in certain ways. Cheater who is cheating well is literally indistinguishable from a skilled player. I.e. this shouldn't be addressed by banning cheating but perhaps by things like matchmaking similarly skilled players.
+- "It ruins fun for others". **DEBUNKED**. No, what ruins fun for others is usually [rape](rape.md), not cheating -- a very skilled player can do this too without cheating. So this is not an argument against cheating, it's an argument against using high skill in certain ways. Cheater who is cheating well is literally indistinguishable from a skilled player. I.e. this shouldn't be addressed by banning cheating but perhaps by things like matchmaking similarly skilled players. NOTE: we actually don't advise matchmaking though, that's another thing that kills fun. This is just debunking of the anticheating argument.
 - "It's unfair, the cheater doesn't have to try hard to beat people who try very hard." **DEBUNKED**. Firstly that's the same thing like talent for example: a talented man doesn't have to try that hard to beat untalented people -- so you think being talented is like cheating? Should talent be banned? Yes, of course, even a talented man has to try hard to become the best for example, but it likewise goes for the cheater: GOOD cheating is not laziness, it requires usually as much effort as getting good at the game, you just put the effort in different things --  just as making [tool assisted speedruns](tas.md) is no easier than making RTA runs, it's just energy spent differently -- cheating just yields better results for that same effort, but again, that's the same as with talent: talent makes you get better results for the same effort, so you cannot reject cheating without also rejecting talent this way. Take Lance Armstrong: he was doping but he was still trying his best and working as hard as others, probably even harder than many -- would you now say this was OK then by your logic? So again, this point makes no sense.
 - "It's disrespectful", "it's unethical" or some arbitrary emotional shit like that. **DEBUNKED**. This is not an argument, it's just sentences you've been taught to think based on the arguments given above that have already been debunked.
 
@@ -34,15 +34,15 @@ Here will be a general advice on how to cheat in online games and similar kinds
 NOTE: obviously a lot of this advice revolves around [competition](competition.md), a concept that's itself unethical, so naturally a lot of the advice given here is likewise not embraced by [LRS](lrs.md), but it's simply how you cheat well in current society. In a good society that accepts cheating things would actually get much better, it would get easier to cheat and would no longer for example require lying, you'd just declare you're cheating and be fine.
 
 - **Actually get somewhat good at the game.** This is step number one, a necessary prerequisite for success -- yes, successful cheating requires some "[work](work.md)", sometimes as much as actually getting legitimately good at the game -- cheating won't help you be lazier, it will just help you achieve seemingly better results. You can't fool anyone if you don't know basics of the game, and to fool experts you must at least be familiar with deeper aspects of the game. You must be able to mimic human play and not only that, you must mimic the best human play, answer questions about advanced concepts if someone interrogates you, demonstrate some skill if you're asked to show you can play or if you simply find yourself in a situation where you must play and can't cheat, like a real life event. If you just use chess engine to play better chess moves than the world champion but keep taking 1 minute to make absolutely obvious moves, or if someone talks to you and finds out you don't even know what "en passant" is or who Bobby Fisher was, you're absolutely busted right there. The most successful cheaters were actually often the BEST people at their game, for example Lance Armstrong, Riolu in Trackmania and so on. Successful cheating is not easy, it must be smart cheating, and smart cheating absolutely requires deep understanding of the game.
-- **Get familiar with how they detect cheating.** Spend a lot of time on researching anti-cheating systems and how people detect cheaters, study how other cheaters got caught and avoid that. For example in chess the time you take to make certain moves is used to detect cheating, so you want to have this covered -- don't blindly copy moves from an engine, rather try to play yourself and then only in a critical situation quickly let engine suggest a move, but still think about why it's good etc. Let the engine only give you a slight push, like a wind in your back -- if you fly a jetplane against a sprinter, someone's probably going to notice. In [speedrunning](speedrun.md) every game has quirks that are used to detect for example splicing (likely the most common form of cheating speedruns) -- for example in Mario 64 they use the fact that Mario blinks regularly, so if the video is edited there will be a discrepancy, you must think about this. Audio is used for this too, make sure regular patterns in the background noise don't give away that you cut the video.
+- **Get familiar with how they detect cheating.** Spend a lot of time on researching anti-cheating systems and how people detect cheaters, study how other cheaters got caught and avoid that. For example in chess the time you take to make certain moves is used to detect cheating, so you want to have this covered -- don't blindly copy moves from an engine, rather try to play yourself and then only in a critical situation quickly let engine suggest a move, but still think about why it's good etc. Let the engine only give you a slight push, like a wind in your back -- if you fly a jetplane against a sprinter, someone's probably going to notice. In [speedrunning](speedrun.md) every game has quirks that are used to detect for example splicing (likely the most common form of cheating speedruns) -- for example in Mario 64 they use the fact that Mario blinks regularly, so if the video is edited there will be a discrepancy, you must think about this. Audio is used for this too, make sure regular patterns in the background noise don't give away that you cut the video, check the audio spectrogram if it doesn't show the cuts etc.
 - **Don't cheat too much, you increase the chance of providing proof of you cheating and/or making a mistake.** It's easy to cheat more and more once you see it's working, it becomes a very comfortable habit AND it also comes with you becoming more relaxed, careless and prone to making a mistake. But remember: this is what will most likely get you caught and this is what anti-cheaters also rely on -- they may already be suspecting you but waiting for more evidence, you don't want to provide it. Perfect cheat detection doesn't exist -- they like to pretend they have bulletproof methods but it's a facade, they in fact rely on you fucking up, you have to cooperate a bit to get caught -- don't do it. Serial killers usually get caught because they don't stop, they keep doing it over and over until they make one small mistake, or they simply give the investigators so much data that statistics eventually extracts proof and predictions from it: each new murder simply gives a new data point to the detectives that reveals a little bit more about your location, habits, modus operandi etc. Be paranoid: if no one is suspecting you, it may be the case they are secretly suspecting you and want you to think you're safe, they may be closely watching you, so if you can, stop cheating for a very long time, then it's more likely they stopped watching you due to spending too many resources for long time without any results. Also know that each new cheating attempt is also a new risk: more attempts equals greater overall probability of failure; even if there is just 1 in 100 chance of you getting caught, cheating 100 times is suddenly pretty dangerous. So only cheat very, very sparingly -- save it for when it matters. For example in a chess tournament play yourself against opponents you know you can beat alone and against the strong opponents only cheat in the key, decisive moment; then outside tournaments, when losing doesn't matter as much, try again to play yourself as much as possible.
 - **Be good with technology, know your shit.** If you're a [Windows](windows.md) used who tries to cheat by googling  "minecraft cheating programs free download", you probably don't know shit about technology, you have to actually learn something. Many get caught for stupid shit like leaving metadata in their video that says the video is edited, or they have no clue that cheating software leaves [watermarks](watermark.md) in videos (this actually caught many geometry dash cheaters). Ideally you want to [program](programming.md) YOUR OWN tools, develop your own methods of modifying the game etc.
 - **Don't overcomplicate it, [keep it simple](kiss.md).** Remember that less is more, a complex way of cheating is probably more likely to fail due to just one part failing.
-- **Practice**, a cheater is like illusionist, he comes up with a trick but then also has to perfect its execution, he must NEVER fail it in public, else he gives it away. However practice in a way that doesn't pose risk, i.e. don't practice online against other people; instead practice offline, record yourself and see if you look convincing, if there is something suspicious etc. There may be a good way to e.g. fake blindfold plays by hiding a secondary monitor somewhere while wearing fake blindfold, however it's extremely hard to do many things at once so that you don't fuck anything up, some got caught like this because they were blatantly staring in the direction of the monitor and then sitting in very weird positions to see through the blindfold; one shitty [female](woman.md) streamer actually even fucked up by responding to Twitch chat she was reading on her hidden monitor when she was supposed to no longer see the monitor -- you want to absolutely train to avoid this kind of fuckup.
+- **Practice**, a cheater is like illusionist, he comes up with a trick but then also has to perfect its execution, he must NEVER fail it in public, else he gives it away. However practice in a way that doesn't pose risk, i.e. don't practice online against other people; instead practice offline, record yourself and see if you look convincing, if there is something suspicious etc. There may be a good way to e.g. fake blindfold plays by hiding a secondary monitor somewhere while wearing fake blindfold, however it's extremely hard to do many things at once so that you don't fuck anything up, some got caught like this because they were blatantly staring in the direction of the monitor and then sitting in very weird positions to see through the blindfold; one shitty [female](woman.md) streamer actually even fucked up by responding to Twitch chat she was reading on her hidden monitor when she was supposed to no longer see the monitor. You think it's stupid -- it is -- but under pressure it's extremely hard to do many things simultaneously correctly, you absolutely must train to avoid this kind of fuckup.
 - **Plan and be ready**, think ahead. If one day you play like a beginner and next week you're beating the champion, you're in trouble: plan your progression, progress slowly, make it look natural. Don't go from not cheating to full cheating mode, incorporate cheating by small doses, big spikes in performance are suspicious. Be ready for accusations and ways they might check you, anticipate that they may for example suddenly ask you to send a replay file of a record you just achieved: forge the replay, make sure it's good and have it ready. Prepare answers to interrogation questions, prepare ways to cover up your fuck ups if they happen, you don't want to be making up weak excuses on the spot. Take this as part of the whole cheating [project](project.md), every project requires planning, risk assessment, backup plans and so on.
 - **Don't overdo it** -- once again, it's tempting to become the absolute number one and GOAT if you can, but that also puts you in greater risk and under bigger scrutiny, number one is a dangerous spot, greed also got too many people caught. Lose sometimes on purpose. Achieve only as much as you need -- if you just stay in top 10, you will still be famous, get a lot of attention (if that's what you're after) with a lot less risk, AND you still keep a valuable excuse card: you may actually argue: "if I am cheating, why am I not number one?".
-- **Don't drag other people in**, not even your closest relative must know, keep it only for yourself, don't brag about cheating the system when you get drunk. Even if you trust the man, he will be become a weak link in your lie forever, he may slip sometimes, he may get pressured by someone to talk and break, just don't do it. For this it's best if you find methods that you can pull off yourself, without any help.
+- **Don't drag other people in**, not even your closest relative must know, keep it only for yourself, don't brag about cheating the system when you get drunk, don't ask other how to cheat etc. Even if you trust the man, he will be become a weak link in your lie forever, he may slip sometimes, he may get pressured by someone to talk and break, just don't do it. For this it's best if you find methods that you can pull off yourself, without any help.
-- **Learn to lie, be a psychopath**, you must 100% convince yourself you are not doing anything wrong and completely believe it, only that way you can absolutely convincingly lie with dead straight face looking someone in the eyes, even if it's your wife or your children, you can just be looking at them and say: "NO, I swear on my life and everything that's dear to me I NEVER, NEVER cheated and NEVER will, I would NEVER cheat, it is an absolutely disgusting behavior and I would rather die than cheat at this beautiful game that means everything to me." Being a [capitalist](cpaitalism.md) is advantage here -- you already posses these abilities, you must just see it as [business](business.md) now: there is no good or wrong, only an abstract game, people are just pawns, nothing besides this game exists, you are just trying to extracting maximum profit for yourself. If you become charismatic, a kind of [unquestionable authority](hero_culture.md), you increase chance of success: many cheaters went on undetected because they simply LOOKED like amazing people, they were active in the community, helped other people, gave advice, made videos, and for this no one ever even checked them -- just like the serial killers, no one would have thought they could be doing it.
+- **Learn to lie, be a psychopath**, you must 100% convince yourself you are not doing anything wrong and completely believe it, only that way you can absolutely convincingly lie with dead straight face looking someone in the eyes, even if it's your wife or your children, you can just be looking at them and say: "NO, I swear on my life and everything that's dear to me I NEVER, NEVER cheated and NEVER will, I would NEVER cheat, it is an absolutely disgusting behavior and I would rather die than cheat at this beautiful game that means everything to me." Being a [capitalist](cpaitalism.md) is advantage here -- you already posses these abilities, you must just see it as [business](business.md) now: there is no good or wrong, only an abstract game, people are just pawns, nothing besides this game exists, you are just trying to extracting maximum profit for yourself. If you become charismatic, a kind of [unquestionable authority](hero_culture.md), you increase chance of success: many cheaters went on undetected because they simply LOOKED like amazing people, they were active in the community, helped other people, gave advice, made videos, and for this no one ever even checked them -- just like the serial killers, no one would have thought they could be doing it. If you are disabled or black or otherwise "inspiring" that's absolutely excellent -- no one is allowed to even accuse you unless there's like 300% blatant evidence.
 - ...
 
 ## See Also

chess.md

@@ -467,6 +467,7 @@ WORK IN PROGRESS, pls send me more tips :)
 - online only:
   - Be annoying and offensive in chat, if opponent blunders write `gg`, spam `ez` when you win. If he wins say it was a shit game and accuse him of [cheating](cheating.md).
   - Constantly ask for takebacks, offer draws, report legit opponents for cheating and offensive behavior.
+  - Definitely wish your opponent BAD luck and that he gets heart attack during the game so that you win. Even though spiritual forces probably aren't real and wishing someone bad or good luck actually does nothing, the chance is still non-zero that gods and ghosts exist and will actually do what you say, so you can't risk lowering your chances of winning by wishing your opponent good luck.
   - ...
 - Play the bongcloud, fool's mate, 1. h3, 1. g4 or similar offensive opening, especially against a stronger player. Offer a draw after (or even before) the 1st move. Just play knight f3 and back constantly. Castle manually even if you don't have to. Play the exact mirror of opponent's moves -- if he tries to break it then just always try to get back to mirrored position or do some similar shit.
 - When losing constantly offer draws, prolong the game AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, before the very last move just let the clock run out.

exercises.md

@@ -222,7 +222,8 @@ Bear in mind the main purpose of this quiz is for you to test your understanding
 115. What's the first sentence of the lyrics of the [Free Software](free_software.md) Song by [Richard Stallman](rms.md)?
 116. Consider we record moves in [chess](chess.md) with a simple notation as *<SQUARE_FROM><SQUARE_TO>*, for example *e3e5* or *g1f3* (i.e. we don't care about which chessman moves, if check or promotion happens etc., only start and end square are recorded). How many such moves exist if we only consider those that can ever legally happen (i.e. don't count moves such as *a2g1*, *b3b3* and so on)? Castling just means moving the king to his castled position.
 117. We keep hearing about "first world" and "third world", but what about "second world"? Why is that term not used?
-118. Did you enjoy this quiz?
+118. [Jara Cimrman](jara_cimrman.md) invented a brilliant self-powered mine elevator design that worked as follows. When miners came to start a new shift in the mine, two of them would enter a down-coming lift, which by the weight of the two workers started to move down and lifted another lift up; in the up-coming lift one miner, ending his shift in the mine, would come up (as he was lighter than the two miners in the down-coming lift). However they soon realized this system had one fatal flaw. What was it?
+119. Did you enjoy this quiz?
 
 ### Answers
 
@@ -344,7 +345,8 @@ sin(x) / cos(x) - log2(2) = tg(x) - 1*, so we get *tg(x) >= 1*. So that will hol
 115. "Join us now and share the software."
 116. Should be 1792 { Unless I counted it wrong lol. ~drummyfish }. We can count this by just considering each square on the board and summing all possible queen and knight moves from that square (queen and knight together cover all possible moves). Queen can obviously end up on any square and from knight's walk we know we can place a knight anywhere as well. This can probably be computed even manually but writing a quick program does the job quicker.
 117. The term "second world" used to exist -- during the Cold War "first world" was used for the "western world", countries allied with US/NATO; the "second world" meant the "USSR world", and "third world" everyone else. After dissolution of Soviet Union the second world basically stopped existing, or rather merged with the first world, and since then the terms got more of an economical meaning rather than political.
-118. yes
+118. Two miners were coming down but only one up, more workers were entering the mine than were leaving, so the workers started to pile up in the mine. Cimrman solved this by advising the workers to eat a lot before the shift and then work hard to lose some weight so that two heavy miners would be able to lift two lighter ones.
+119. yes
 
 ## Other
 

go.md

@@ -6,11 +6,11 @@
 
 { I am still learning the beautiful game of go, please excuse potential unintentional errors here. ~drummyfish }
 
-Go (from Japanese *Igo*, "surrounding board game", also *Baduk* or *Wei-qi*) is possibly the world's oldest original-form two-player board [game](game.md), coming from Asia, and is one of the most [beautiful](beauty.md), elegant, deep and popular games of this type in [history](history.md), whose cultural significance and popularity can be compared to that of [chess](chess.md), despite it largely remaining widely popular only in Asia (along with other games like [shogi](shogi.md), or "Japanese chess"). There however, especially in Japan, go is pretty big, it appears a lot in [anime](anime.md), there are TV channels exclusively dedicated to go etc., though in Japan [shogi](shogi.md) (the "Japanese chess") is probably a bit more popular; nevertheless go is likely the most intellectually challenging board games among all of the biggest board games. **Go is a bit difficult to get into** (kind of like [vim](vim.md)?) though the rules can be learned quite quickly; it is hard to make big-picture sense of the rule implications and it may take weeks to months before one can even call himself a beginner player. To become a master takes lifetime (or two).
+Go (from Japanese *Igo*, "surrounding board game", also *Baduk* or *Wei-qi*) is possibly the world's oldest original-form two-player board [game](game.md), coming from Asia, and is one of the most [beautiful](beauty.md), elegant, deep and popular games of this type in [history](history.md), whose cultural significance and popularity can be compared to that of [chess](chess.md), despite it largely remaining widely popular only in Asia (along with other games like [shogi](shogi.md), or "Japanese chess"). There however, especially in Japan, go is pretty big, it appears a lot in [anime](anime.md), there are TV channels exclusively dedicated to go etc., though in Japan [shogi](shogi.md) (the "Japanese chess") is probably a bit more popular; nevertheless may be the most intellectually challenging board game among all of the biggest traditional board games. **Go is a bit difficult to get into** (kind of like [vim](vim.md)?) though the rules can be learned quite quickly; it is hard to make big-picture sense of the rule implications and it may take weeks to months before one can even call himself a beginner player. To become a master takes lifetime (or two).
 
 { There is a nice non-bloated site hosting everything related to go: Sensei's Library at https://senseis.xmp.net/. ~drummyfish }
 
-**Compared to chess** (some purists dislike this, see https://senseis.xmp.net/?CompareGoToChess) the rules of go are much more simple -- which is part of the game's [beauty](beauty.md) (see [easy to learn, hard to master](easy_to_learn_hard_to_master.md)) -- though the emergent complexity of those few rules is grandiose; so much so that to play the game well is usually considered more challenging than learning chess well, as there are many more possibilities and mere calculation is not enough to be strong, one needs to develop a strong intuition; this is also the reason why it took 20 more years for [computers](computer.md) to beat the best humans in go than in chess. Many say that go is yet deeper than chess and that it offers a unique experience that can't be found anywhere else; go is more mathematical, something that just exists naturally as a side effect of logic itself, while chess is a bit of an arbitrary set of more complex rules fine-tuned so that the game plays well. The spirit of go is also more [zen](zen.md)-like and peaceful: while chess simulates [war](war.md) (something more aligned with western mentality), go is more about dividing territory, one could even see it not as a battle but rather a creation of [art](art.md), beautiful patterns (something better aligned with eastern mentality). Also the whole [culture](culture.md) around go is different, for example there is a strong tradition of go proverbs that teach you to play (there also exist many [joke](joke.md) proverbs).
+**Compared to chess** (some purists dislike this, see https://senseis.xmp.net/?CompareGoToChess) the rules of go are much more simple -- which is part of the game's [beauty](beauty.md) (see [easy to learn, hard to master](easy_to_learn_hard_to_master.md)) -- though the emergent complexity of those few rules is grandiose; so much so that to play the game well is usually considered more challenging than learning chess well, as there are many more possibilities (moves to make) and mere calculation is not enough to be strong, one needs to develop a strong intuition and so probably talent may be more of a factor in the game; this is also the reason why it took 20 more years for [computers](computer.md) to beat the best humans in go than in chess. Many say that go is yet deeper than chess and that it offers a unique experience that can't be found anywhere else; go is more mathematical, something that just exists naturally as a side effect of [logic](logic.md) itself, while chess is a bit of an arbitrary set of more complex rules fine-tuned so that the game plays well. The spirit of go is also more [zen](zen.md)-like and peaceful: while chess simulates [war](war.md) (something more aligned with western mentality and its [fight culture](fight_culture.md)), go is more about dividing territory, one could even see it not as a battle but rather a creation of [art](art.md), beautiful patterns (something better aligned with eastern mentality). Also the whole [culture](culture.md) around go is different, for example there is a strong tradition of go proverbs that teach you to play (there also exist many [joke](jokes.md) proverbs).
 
 **From [LRS](lrs.md) point of view go is one of the best games ever**, for similar reasons to chess (it's highly free, [suckless](suckless.md), cheap, [not owned by anyone](public_domain.md), [fun](fun.md), mathematically deep, nice for programming while the game itself doesn't even require a [computer](computer.md) etc.) plus yet greater [simplicity](minimalism.md) and beauty.
 
@@ -22,19 +22,19 @@ TODO: rating, programming, stats, programs and sites for playing, ...
 
 ## Rules
 
-The rules of go vary a bit more than those of chess, they are not as much unified, but usually the details don't play as much of a role because e.g. different scoring systems still mostly result in the same outcome of games. Here we'll describe possibly the most common rule set.
+The rules of go vary more than those of chess, they are not as much unified, but usually the details don't play as much of a role because e.g. different scoring systems still mostly result in the same outcome of games. Here we'll describe possibly the most common rule set.
 
 The game's **goal** is basically to surround a bigger territory than the enemy player. The formal rules are pretty simple, though their implications are very complex.
 
-Go is played by a black and white player, black plays first (unlike in chess) and then both players take turns placing stones of one's own color on squares -- a square is the INTERSECTION of the lines on the board, NOT the place between them (consider the lines to be carved in stone, the intersection is where the stone stands with stability). The stones are all the same (there are no different types of stones like in chess) and they cannot move; once a stone is placed, it stays on its position until the end of the game, or until it is captured by the enemy player. The board size is **19x19**, but for for students and quick games 13x13 and 9x9 boards are also used. As black plays first, he has a slight advantage; for this white gets bonus points at the end of the game, so called **komi**, which is usually set to be 6.5 points (the half point eliminates the possibility of a draw). Komi may differ depending on board size or a specific scoring system.
+Go is played by a black and white player, black plays first (unlike in chess) and then both players take turns placing stones of one's own color on squares -- a square is the INTERSECTION of the lines on the board, NOT the place between them (consider the lines to be carved in stone, the intersection is where the stone stands with stability). The stones are all the same (there are no different types of stones like in chess) and they cannot move; once a stone is placed, it stays on its position until the end of the game, or until it is captured by the enemy player. The board size is **19x19**, but for students and quick games 13x13 and 9x9 boards are also used. As black plays first, he has a slight advantage; for this white gets bonus points at the end of the game, so called **komi** (pronounced [commie](communism.md)), which is usually set to be 6.5 points (the half point eliminates the possibility of a draw). Komi may differ depending on board size or a specific scoring system.
 
 Any player can **pass** on his move, i.e. making a move isn't mandatory. However you basically always want to make a move, one only passes when he feels there is nothing more to be gained and the game should end. If both players pass consecutively, the game ends.
 
 The game considers **4-neighborhoods**, NOT 8-neighborhood, i.e. squares that don't lie on board edges have 4 neighbors: up, right, bottom and left; diagonal squares are NOT neighbors.
 
-**Capturing:** a player can capture a group of connected (through 4-neighborhoods) enemy player's stones by completely surrounding them, or more precisely by taking away all so called **liberties** of that group -- *liberty* is an empty square that's immediately neighboring with the group (note that liberties may lie even inside the group). If a player places his stone so that it removes the enemy group's last liberty, then the group is removed from the board and all its stones are taken as captured. It is possible to capture stones by a move that would otherwise be forbidden as suicide, if after the removal of the captured group the placed stone gains a liberty.
+**Capturing:** a player can capture a group of connected (through 4-neighborhoods) enemy player's stones by completely surrounding them, or more precisely by taking away all so called **liberties** of that group -- *liberty* is an empty square that's immediately neighboring with the group (note that liberties may lie even inside the group). If a player places his stone so that it removes the enemy group's last liberty, then the group is removed from the board and all its stones are taken as captured. It is possible to capture stones by a move that would otherwise be forbidden as [suicide](suicide.md), if after the removal of the captured group the placed stone gains a liberty.
 
-**[Suicide](kys.md) is forbidden:** it is not allowed to place a stone so that it would immediately result in that stone (or a group it would join) being captured by enemy. I.e. if there is an enemy group with one empty square in the middle of it, you cannot put a stone there as that stone would simply have no liberties and would immediately die. Exception to this is the above mentioned taking of a group, i.e. if a suicidal move results in immediately taking enemy's group, it is allowed.
+**[Suicide](kys.md) is forbidden:** it is not allowed to place a stone so that it (or the group it joins) would not have any liberties. I.e. if there is an enemy group with one empty square in the middle of it, you cannot put a stone there as that stone would simply have no liberties and would immediately die. Exception to this is the above mentioned taking of a group, i.e. if a suicidal move results in immediately taking enemy's group, it is allowed -- here the placed stone survives because it gains liberties by removing the captured group.
 
 The **ko** rule states that one mustn't make a move that returns the board to the immediately previous state; this basically applies just to the situation in which the enemy takes your stone and you would just place it back, retaking his capturing stone. By the *ko* rule you cannot do this IMMEDIATELY, but you can still do this any further following round. Some rulesets extend this rule to so called *superko* which prohibits repetition of ANY previously seen position (this covers some rare cases that can happen).
 

less_retarded_society.md

@@ -94,11 +94,11 @@ A paradise is achieved on [Earth](earth.md).
 - **How will you prevent discrimination and racism?** Things such as racism appear when one group of people feels endangered by another group, in a society without social competition these issues will naturally disappear.
 - **How will you fulfill the natural need of people for competition?** With sports and other games. Competition of people won't be forbidden, it just won't be mandatory and it won't be the basis of society.
 - **How will you prevent overpopulation?** By voluntary birth control.
-- **How will you force people to change so radically?** We won't force people to change, the change has to be voluntary, and that will be achieved by education. We don't advocate revolution but rather a slower, evolutionary transition. Just as now you're learning about our ideal society, more people will. With more people on the board the word should spread more quickly and with better conditions and greater general education of people over the world more will start to see and realize this is the only way forward.
+- **How will you force people to change so radically?** We won't force people to change, the change has to be voluntary, and that will be achieved by education and then, over generations, by slower but still relatively rapid evolutionary changes, like those seen in domesticated animals and those that have been selectively bred -- domesticated animals naturally became less aggressive (to the point of seeing cats, mice and dogs cuddle and coexist peacefully not being any rarity) because they started to live in abundance, with no need for aggression or figting; evolution will simply remove any unnecessary traits -- yes, very quickly if needed; evolution is nearly as quick as the change of environment. So we don't advocate revolution but rather a slower, evolutionary transition. Just as now you're learning about our ideal society, more people will. With more people on the board the word should spread more quickly and with better conditions and greater general education of people over the world more will start to see and realize this is the only way forward. With more people refusing competition and starting to live better and once we make it so that competition and aggression is no longer a prerequisite for survival and reproduction, evolution will start to take place, removing competitiveness, which will stabilize the society.
 - **Do you really think you can convince even diehard neonazis to accept these ideas?** Not in their lifetime -- some people can't practically be convinced, it would take longer than they will be alive. But these people will die one day and there will come a new generation, a tabula rasa, which will have the opportunity for a better upbringing and not growing up to become diehard nazis.
 - **Without any censorship how will you prevent "hate speech" or protect people's personal data?** As mentioned above, racism and issues of so called "hate speech" will simply disappear in a non-competitive society. The issues of abuse of personal information will similarly disappear without any corporations that abuse such data and without conflict between people, in the ideal society there won't even be any need for things such as passwords and encryption.
 - **How will you prevent psychopaths from just going and killing people?** In the ideal society maximum effort will be made to prevent wrong psychological development of people which can happen due to crime, poverty, discrimination, bullying etc., so the cases of lunatics killing for no reason would be extremely rare but of course they would happen sometimes, as they do nowadays, they cannot be prevented completely (they aren't completely prevented even nowadays, a psychopath is not afraid of police). Our society would simply see such events as unfortunate disasters, just like natural disasters etc. In transition states of our society there may still exist imperfect means of solving such situations such as means for non lethal immobilization of the attacker and his isolation (but not punishment, i.e. not a prison).
-- **Would such society be stable? Wouldn't people revert back to "old ways" over time?** We believe the society would be highly stable, much more than current society plagued by financial crises, climate changes, wars, political fights etc. The longer a good society stays, the more stable it will probably become as its principles will become more and more embedded in the culture and there will be no destabilizing forces -- no groups revolting "against the system" should appear because no one will be oppressed and therefore unhappy about the situation.
+- **Would such society be stable? Wouldn't people revert back to "old ways" over time?** We believe the society would be highly stable, much more than current society plagued by financial crises, climate changes, wars, political fights etc. The longer a good society stays, the more stable it will probably become as its principles will become more and more embedded in the culture and there will be no destabilizing forces -- no groups revolting "against the system" should appear because no one will be oppressed and therefore unhappy about the situation. Furthermore, like mentioned above, once competitiveness becomes unnecessary, evolution will slowly start removing the competitive trait of humans as it will no longer be needed, just like it removed our fur for example; humans will become less and less aggressive like domesticated animals have, and then it will be as rare to see an aggressive human as seeing a cow behave like a predator. Evolution is normally slow, but only because environmental changes are slow; with rapid change of society (for the better) a quite rapid evolution should be seen as well (this has already been observed in nature); just like humans degenerate very quickly by society getting rapidly worse (allergy, bad immunity, worse eyesight, more cancer, depression, autism and plethora of other things we see), they should start rapidly improving with fast changes for the better.
 - **Will you allow abortions?** There is no strict YES/NO answer here, as with everything there will be no simple allowing or forbidding laws, decisions about abortions will be made in the spirit of the common goal, handled on a case-by-case basis and strong prevention of unwanted and/or risky pregnancy. There will be more people willing to adopt children, birth control means will be better and accessible to anyone for free, children will not pose any financial burden or be an "obstacle to one's career", so this issue won't be nearly as great as it is today.
 - **You say you want equality of all living beings -- does this mean you will force animals to not kill each other or that you will refuse to e.g. kill viruses?** Ideally we would like to maximize the happiness and minimize suffering of all living beings, even primitive life forms such as bacteria, and if that cannot be achieved at the time, we will try to get as close to it as we can and do the next best thing. Sometimes there are no simple answers here but the important thing is the goal we have to keep in mind. For example provided that we want to sustain human life (i.e. we don't decide to starve to death) we have to choose what to eat: nowadays we will try to be vegan so as to spare animals of suffering but we are still aware that eating plants means killing plants which are living beings too -- we don't think the life of a plant is less worthy of an existence than that of an animal, but from what we know plants don't show signs of suffering to the degree to which e.g. mammals do, so eating plants rather than animals is the least evil we can do. Once we invent widely available artificial food, we will switch to eating that and we'll stop eating plants too.
 

version_numbering.md

@@ -8,11 +8,49 @@ TODO
 
 TODO
 
-## LRS Version Numbering
+## LRS Version Numbering Systems
 
-At [LRS](lrs.md) we suggest the following version numbering (invented/employed by [drummyfish](drummyfish.md)): { OFC I don't know if anyone else is already doing this, I'm not claiming any history firsts, just that this is what I independently started doing in my projects. ~drummyfish }
+Here are some possible version numbering systems usable by [LRS](lrs.md).
 
-This is a simple system that tries to not be [dependent](dependency.md) on having a [version control system](vcs.md) such as [git](git.md), i.e. this system works without being able to make different development branches and can be comfortably used even if you're just developing a project in a local directory without any fancy tools. Of course you can use a VCS, this system will just make you depend less on it so that you can make easier transitions to a different VCS or for example drop a VCS altogether and just develop your projects in a directory with FTP downloads.
+### Source Hash As Version
+
+We can make the version number be automatically derived, for example using the [hash](hash.md) or [checksum](checksum.md) of the source code, or maybe even better use the Unix timestamp of latest commit (that will allow to determine which version is newer), or something along these lines.
+
+Here is a small **example** in C. The source code may look like this:
+
+```
+gcc tmp.c -D VERSION=`cat tmp.c anarch_con.zip | cksum -a crc | sed "s/\([0-9]*\) [0-9]*/\1/g"`
+
+#include <stdio.h>
+
+#ifndef VERSION
+  #warning you should define VERSION
+//  #error please define VERSION      // this enforces the definition
+  #define VERSION 0
+#endif
+
+int main(void)
+{
+  printf("program version: %u\n",VERSION);
+  return 0;
+}
+```
+
+And may be compiled like this:
+
+```
+gcc program.c -D VERSION=`cat program.c | cksum -a crc | sed "s/\([0-9]*\) [0-9]*/\1/g"` -o program
+```
+
+And writes out:
+
+```
+program version: 1958623590
+```
+
+### Numbering only releases
+
+Another relatively simple system, closer to the mainstream ones, that tries to not be [dependent](dependency.md) on having a [version control system](vcs.md) such as [git](git.md), i.e. this system works without being able to make different development branches and can be comfortably used even if you're just developing a project in a local directory without any fancy tools. Of course you can use a VCS, this system will just make you depend less on it so that you can make easier transitions to a different VCS or for example drop a VCS altogether and just develop your projects in a directory with FTP downloads.
 
 Version string is of format *major.minor* with optional suffix letter `d`, e.g. 0.35, 1.0 or 2.1d.
 
@@ -48,8 +86,4 @@ Here is an example of version numbering a project with the LRS system:
 | 2.0d    | added a few features          | no        |
 | 2.0d    | fixed a bug                   | no        |
 | 2.01    | a few nice improvements       | YES       |
-| ...     | ...                           | ...       |
+| ...     | ...                           | ...       |
-
-## Even More KISS System
-
-Make the version number be automatically derived, for example use the [hash](hash.md) of the source code as version number, or maybe even better use the Unix timestamp of latest commit (that will allow to determine which version is newer), or something similar.

wiki_stats.md

@@ -3,9 +3,9 @@
 This is an autogenerated article holding stats about this wiki.
 
 - number of articles: 607
-- number of commits: 927
+- number of commits: 928
-- total size of all texts in bytes: 4622327
+- total size of all texts in bytes: 4643388
-- total number of lines of article texts: 34617
+- total number of lines of article texts: 34673
 - number of script lines: 294
 - occurrences of the word "person": 9
 - occurrences of the word "nigger": 100
@@ -15,8 +15,8 @@ longest articles:
 - [c_tutorial](c_tutorial.md): 128K
 - [exercises](exercises.md): 112K
 - [chess](chess.md): 96K
-- [capitalism](capitalism.md): 76K
 - [how_to](how_to.md): 76K
+- [capitalism](capitalism.md): 76K
 - [less_retarded_society](less_retarded_society.md): 64K
 - [faq](faq.md): 56K
 - [3d_rendering](3d_rendering.md): 56K
@@ -35,60 +35,82 @@ longest articles:
 
 top 50 5+ letter words:
 
-- which (2574)
+- which (2579)
-- there (1997)
+- there (2008)
-- people (1848)
+- people (1862)
-- example (1560)
+- example (1572)
-- other (1446)
+- other (1452)
-- number (1277)
+- about (1285)
-- about (1275)
+- number (1281)
-- software (1214)
+- software (1217)
-- program (1010)
+- because (1015)
-- because (1010)
+- program (1012)
-- their (989)
+- their (991)
-- would (949)
+- would (960)
-- something (903)
+- something (907)
-- being (899)
+- being (902)
-- things (882)
+- things (886)
-- called (870)
+- called (871)
 - language (858)
+- simple (811)
 - numbers (811)
-- simple (808)
 - computer (807)
-- without (779)
+- without (784)
 - programming (743)
-- different (731)
+- however (734)
-- however (730)
+- different (732)
+- these (723)
 - function (722)
-- these (721)
+- world (693)
-- world (688)
+- system (672)
-- system (671)
+- doesn (660)
-- doesn (652)
+- should (652)
-- should (648)
+- while (638)
-- while (636)
+- games (638)
-- still (629)
+- still (634)
-- games (629)
+- point (624)
-- point (619)
+- drummyfish (617)
-- drummyfish (615)
+- simply (608)
-- society (600)
+- society (602)
-- simply (598)
+- possible (588)
-- possible (587)
+- using (584)
-- using (582)
 - https (560)
 - though (559)
 - always (555)
-- course (552)
+- course (553)
-- similar (546)
+- similar (551)
-- basically (541)
+- probably (543)
-- probably (538)
+- basically (542)
 - memory (535)
-- really (528)
+- really (530)
-- technology (521)
+- technology (523)
-- value (520)
+- value (521)
 
 latest changes:
 
 ```
+Date:   Tue Nov 19 22:31:10 2024 +0100
+  21st_century.md
+  art.md
+  bullshit.md
+  cheating.md
+  doom.md
+  drummyfish.md
+  easy_to_learn_hard_to_master.md
+  how_to.md
+  linux.md
+  lotr.md
+  needed.md
+  often_confused.md
+  random_page.md
+  triangle.md
+  unretard.md
+  usa.md
+  wiki_pages.md
+  wiki_stats.md
+  wiki_tldr.md
+  xxiivv.md
+  zoomer.md
 Date:   Sun Nov 17 20:09:42 2024 +0100
   exercises.md
   often_confused.md
@@ -100,24 +122,6 @@ Date:   Sun Nov 17 15:37:32 2024 +0100
   faq.md
   human_language.md
   libertarianism.md
-  linux.md
-  markov_chain.md
-  nigger.md
-  random_page.md
-  triangle.md
-  wiki_stats.md
-  woman.md
-  zoomer.md
-Date:   Sat Nov 16 22:59:53 2024 +0100
-  compression.md
-  faq.md
-  lotr.md
-  main.md
-  random_page.md
-  wiki_pages.md
-  wiki_stats.md
-  zoomer.md
-Date:   Sat Nov 16 22:05:36 2024 +0100
 ```
 
 most wanted pages:
@@ -145,22 +149,22 @@ most wanted pages:
 
 most popular and lonely pages:
 
-- [lrs](lrs.md) (316) 
+- [lrs](lrs.md) (318) 
-- [capitalism](capitalism.md) (265) 
+- [capitalism](capitalism.md) (266) 
 - [c](c.md) (233) 
 - [bloat](bloat.md) (225) 
-- [free_software](free_software.md) (189) 
+- [free_software](free_software.md) (190) 
 - [suckless](suckless.md) (145) 
 - [game](game.md) (145) 
 - [proprietary](proprietary.md) (130) 
 - [minimalism](minimalism.md) (112) 
+- [modern](modern.md) (106) 
 - [computer](computer.md) (106) 
 - [censorship](censorship.md) (106) 
-- [modern](modern.md) (105) 
+- [fun](fun.md) (103) 
-- [fun](fun.md) (102) 
+- [kiss](kiss.md) (102) 
-- [kiss](kiss.md) (101) 
 - [math](math.md) (99) 
-- [programming](programming.md) (96) 
+- [programming](programming.md) (97) 
 - [gnu](gnu.md) (96) 
 - [linux](linux.md) (94) 
 - [shit](shit.md) (91) 
@@ -168,9 +172,9 @@ most popular and lonely pages:
 - [bullshit](bullshit.md) (89) 
 - [hacking](hacking.md) (88) 
 - [corporation](corporation.md) (85) 
+- [woman](woman.md) (84) 
 - [less_retarded_society](less_retarded_society.md) (84) 
 - [free_culture](free_culture.md) (84) 
-- [woman](woman.md) (83) 
 - [public_domain](public_domain.md) (83) 
 - [art](art.md) (83) 
 - [pseudoleft](pseudoleft.md) (81) 

www.md

@@ -6,17 +6,17 @@ World Wide Web (www or just *the web*) is (or was -- by 2023 mainstream web is d
 
 { **How to browse the web in the [age of shit](21st_century.md)?** Currently my "workflow" is following: I use the [badwolf](badwolf.md) browser (a super suckless, very fast from-scratch browser that allows turning JavaScript on/off, i.e. I mostly browse [small web](smol_internet.md) without JS but can still do banking etc.) with a **CUSTOM START PAGE** that I completely own and which only changes when I want it to -- this start page is just my own tiny HTML on my disk that has links to my favorite sites (which serves as my suckless "bookmark" system) AND a number of search bars for different search engines (Google, Duckduckgo, Yandex, wiby, Searx, marginalia, Right Dao, ...). This is important as nowadays you mustn't rely on Google or any other single search engine -- I just use whichever engine I deem best for my request at any given time. ~drummyfish }
 
-An important part of the web is also searching its vast oceans of information with [search engines](search_engine.md) such as the infamous [Google](google.md) engine. Websites have human readable [url](url.md) addresses thanks to [DNS](dns.md).
+An important part of the web is also searching its vast oceans of information with [search engines](search_engine.md) such as the infamous [Google](google.md) engine (as of 2024 still functioning technically but no longer practically). Websites have human readable [url](url.md) addresses thanks to [DNS](dns.md).
 
-Mainstream web is now EXTREMELY [bloated](bloat.md), unusable and beyond saving, for more [suckless](suckless.md) alternatives see [gopher](gopher.md). See also [smol web](smol_internet.md).
+Famous and big as it was, it's sad that mainstream web is now EXTREMELY [bloated](bloat.md) and **100% unusable**, beyond saving -- owing of course to [capitalism](capitalism.md). The murdering of web would be probably seen as one of the worst disasters of technological world in history, wasn't it for the fact that countless other disasters of similar magnitude are just happening constantly in [21st century](21st_century.md). The web is now like Chernobyl: a curious place to visit, however radioactive to such a high degree that you can't stay for too long else you acquire brain [cancer](cancer.md). For more [suckless](suckless.md) alternatives to web see [gopher](gopher.md). See also [smol web](smol_internet.md).
 
-Prior to the tragedy of [mainstreamization](mainstream.md) the web used to be perhaps the greatest and most spectacular part of the whole Internet, the service that made Internet widespread, however it soon deteriorated by [capitalist](capitalism.md) interests, commercialization and subsequent invasion of idiots from real world; by this date, in 2020s, it is one of the most illustrative, depressing and also hilarious examples of [capitalist](capitalist_software.md) [bloat](bloat.md). A good article about the issue, called *The Website Obesity Crisis*, can be found at https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm. There used to be a tool for measuring website bloat (now dead) which worked like this: it computed the ratio of the page size to the size of its screenshot (e.g. [YouTube](youtube.md), as of writing this, scored 35.7).
+Prior to the tragedy of [mainstreamization](mainstream.md) the web used to be perhaps the greatest and most spectacular part of the whole Internet, the service that made Internet widespread, however it soon deteriorated by [capitalist](capitalism.md) interests, commercialization and subsequent invasion of idiots from real world; by this date, in 2020s, it is one of the most illustrative, depressing and also hilarious examples of [capitalist](capitalist_software.md) [bloat](bloat.md). A good article about the issue, called *The Website Obesity Crisis*, can be found at https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm. There used to be a tool for measuring website bloat (now ironically link rotted to some ad lol) which worked like this: it computed the ratio of the page size to the size of its screenshot (e.g. [YouTube](youtube.md), as of writing this, scored 35.7).
 
 Currently there's a "vision" of so called **"[web 3](web3.md)"** which is supposed to be the "next iteration" of the web with new "[paradigms](paradigm.md)", making use of "[modern](modern.md)" (i.e. probably [shitty](shit.md)) technology such as [bloackchain](blockchain.md); they say web 3 wants to use [decentralization](decentralization.md) to prevent central control and possibly things like [censorship](censorship.md), however [we](lrs.md) can almost certainly guarantee web 3 will be yet exponentially amplified pile of [bloat](bloat.md), garbage and a worse dystopia than our nightmares were able to come up with so far, we simply have to leave this ship sink. If web 3 is what web 2.0 was to web 1.0, then indeed we are [doomed](doom.md). Our prediction is that web will simply lose its status of the biggest Internet service just as [Usenet](usenet.md) did, or like TV lost its status of the main audiovisual media; web will be replaced by something like akin "islands of franchised social media accessed through apps"; it will still be around but will be just a huge ad-littered swamp inferior to [teletext](teletext.md) where the elderly go to share pictures no one wants to see and where guys go to masturbate.
 
 ## How It Went To Shit
 
-{ As of 2023 my 8GB RAM computer with multiple 2+ GHz CPUs has serious issues browsing the "modern" web, i.e. it is sweating on basically just displaying a formatted text, which if done right is quite comfortably possible to do on a computer with 100000 times lower hardware specs! In fact orders of magnitude weaker computers could browse the web much faster 20 years ago. Just think about how deeply fucked up this is: the world's foremost information highway and "marvel of technology" has been raped by capitalist soydevs so much that it is hundreds of thousands times less efficient than it should be, AND it wouldn't even require much effort to make it so. Imagine your car consuming 100000 litres of gasoline instead of 1 or your house leaking 99999 litres of water for any 1 litre of water you use. This is the absolute state of dystopian capitalist society. ~drummyfish }
+{ As of 2023 my 8GB RAM computer with multiple 2+ GHz CPUs has serious issues browsing the "modern" web, i.e. it is sweating on basically just displaying a formatted text, which if done right is quite comfortably possible to do on a computer with 100000 times lower hardware specs! In fact orders of magnitude weaker computers could browse the web much faster 20 years ago. Just think about how deeply fucked up this is: the world's forefront information highway and "marvel of technology" has been raped by capitalist soydevs so much that it is hundreds of thousands times less efficient than it should be, AND it wouldn't even require much effort to make it work well -- in fact it is much easier to make it work well. Imagine your car consuming 100000 litres of gasoline instead of 1 or your house leaking 99999 litres of water for any 1 litre of water you use, plus you paying extra money for it to be so. This is the absolute state of dystopian capitalist society. ~drummyfish }
 
 ```
  ________________________________________________________________________
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ Currently there's a "vision" of so called **"[web 3](web3.md)"** which is suppos
 
 { Ah this pseudoimage above [made it to Encyclopedia Dramatica](https://encyclopediadramatica.top/index.php?title=Internets&oldid=4018#In_a_nutshell) :D Thank you kind stranger <3 ~drummyfish }
 
-Back in the day (90s and early 2000s) web used to be a place of freedom working more or less in a decentralized manner, on the principles of [free speech](free_speech.md), [anarchism](anarchism.md) and, to the [Yankee](usa.md)'s dismay, even [communism](communism.md) --⁠ people used to run their own unique, non-commercial websites where they shared freely and openly, [censorship](censorship.md) was difficult to implement, unwelcome and therefore mostly non-existent and websites used to have a way better design, they were [KISS](kiss.md), lightweight, safer, "open" (no paywalls, registration walls, country blocks, [DRM](drm.md), ...), MUCH faster and more robust as they were pure [HTML](html.md) documents, without scripts, "[apps](app.md)", jumpscare [ads](marketing.md) -- simply without [bullshit](bullshit.md). It was also the case that most websites were truly nice, useful and each one had a "soul" as they were usually made by passionate nerds who had a creative freedom and true desires to create a good website (and this still continued for a while after the invasion of businesses, i.e. commercial sites were still pretty bearable).
+Back in the day (90s and early 2000s) web used to be a place of [freedom](freedom.md) working more or less in a decentralized manner, on the principles of [free speech](free_speech.md), [anarchism](anarchism.md) and, to the [Yankee](usa.md)'s dismay, even [communism](communism.md) --⁠ people used to run their own unique, non-commercial websites where they shared freely and openly, [censorship](censorship.md) was difficult to implement, unwelcome and therefore mostly non-existent and websites used to have a way better design, they were [KISS](kiss.md), lightweight, safer, "open" (no paywalls, registration walls, country blocks, [DRM](drm.md), ...), MUCH faster and more robust as they were pure [HTML](html.md) documents, without scripts, "[apps](app.md)", jumpscare [ads](marketing.md) -- simply without [bullshit](bullshit.md). It was also the case that most websites were truly nice, useful and each one had a "soul" as they were usually made by passionate nerds who had a creative freedom and true desires to create a good website (and this still continued for a while after the invasion of businesses, i.e. commercial sites were still pretty bearable).
 
 As the time marched on web used to stink more and more of [shit](shit.md), as is the fate of everything touched by the [capitalist](capitalist_software.md) hand -- the advent of so called **web 2.0** brought about a lot of [complexity](complexity.md), websites started to incorporate and push client-side scripts ([JavaScript](javascript.md), [Flash](flash.md), [Java](java.md) applets, ...) which led to many negative things such as incompatibility with browsers (kickstarting browser [consumerism](consumerism.md) and [update culture](update_culture.md)), performance loss and security vulnerabilities (web pages now became programs rather than mere documents) and more complexity in web browsers, which leads to immense [bloat](bloat.md) and browser [monopolies](bloat_monopoly.md) (higher effort is needed to develop a browser, making it a privilege of those who can afford it, and those can subsequently dictate de-facto standards that further strengthen their monopolies). Another disaster came with **[social networks](social_network.md)** in mid 2000s, most notably [Facebook](facebook.md) but also [YouTube](youtube.md), [Twitter](twitter.md) and others, which centralized the web and rid people of control. Out of comfort people stopped creating and hosting own websites and rather created a page on Facebook. This gave the power to corporations and allowed **mass-surveillance**, **mass-censorship** and **propaganda brainwashing**. As the web became more and more popular, corporations and governments started to take more control over it, creating technologies and laws to make it less free. By 2020, the good old web is but a memory and a hobby of a few boomers, everything is controlled by corporations, infected with billions of unbearable ads, [DRM](drm.md), malware (trackers, [crypto](crypto.md) miners, ...), there exist no good web browsers, web pages now REQUIRE JavaScript even if it's not needed in principle due to which they are painfully slow and buggy, there are restrictive laws and censorship and de-facto laws (site policies) put in place by corporations controlling the web. Official web standards, libraries and frameweworks got into such an unbelievably bloated, complicated, corrupted and degenerated state (look up e.g. [Shadow DOM](shadow_dom.md)) that one cannot but stare in astonishment about the stupidity.