Update

algorithm.md

@@ -2,11 +2,11 @@
 
 Algorithm is an exact description of how to solve a problem. Algorithms are basically what [programming](programming.md) is all about: we tell computers, in very exact ways (with [programming languages](programming_language.md)), how to solve problems -- we write algorithms. But algorithms don't have to be just computer programs, they are simply instruction for solving problems.
 
-Cooking recipes are sometimes given as an example of a non-computer algorithm. The so called wall-follower is a simple algorithm to get out of any maze: you just pick either a left-hand or right-hand wall and then keep following it. You may write a crazy algorithm for how to survive in a jungle, but it has to be **exact**; if there is any ambiguity, it is not considered an algorithm.
+Cooking recipes are sometimes given as an example of a non-computer algorithm (though they rarely contain branching and loops, very typical features of algorithms). The so called wall-follower is a simple algorithm to get out of any maze: you just pick either a left-hand or right-hand wall and then keep following it. You may write a crazy algorithm for how to survive in a jungle, but it has to be **exact**; if there is any ambiguity, it is not considered an algorithm.
 
-Interesting fact: contrary to intuition there are problems that are mathematically proven to be unsolvable by any algorithm, see [undecidability](undecidability.md), but for most practically encountered problems we can write an algorithm (though for some problems even our best algorithms can be unusably slow).
+Interesting fact: contrary to intuition there are problems that are mathematically proven to be unsolvable by any algorithm, see [undecidability](undecidability.md), but for most practically encountered problems we can write an algorithm (though for some problems even our best algorithms can be unusably [slow](time_complexity.md)).
 
-Algorithms are mostly (possibly [not always](declarative.md), depending on definitions) written as a **series of steps** (or instructions); these steps may be specific actions (such as adding two numbers or drawing a pixel to the screen) or **conditional jumps** to other steps ("if condition X holds then jump to step N, otherwise continue"). These jumps can be used to create **[branches](branch.md)** (in programming known as *if-then-else*) and **[loops](loop.md)** (these two constructs are known as [control structures](control_structure.md) -- they don't express an action but control where we move in the algorithm itself). All in all, **any algorithm can be written with only these three constructs**:
+Algorithms are mostly (possibly [not always](declarative.md), depending on definitions) written as a **series of steps** (or instructions); these steps may be specific actions (such as adding two numbers or drawing a pixel to the screen) or **conditional jumps** to other steps ("if condition X holds then jump to step N, otherwise continue"). These jumps can be used to create **[branches](branch.md)** (in programming known as *if-then-else*) and **[loops](loop.md)**. Branches and loops are together known as [control structures](control_structure.md) -- they don't express a direct action but control where we move in the algorithm itself. All in all, **any algorithm can be written with only these three constructs**:
 
 - **sequence**: A series of steps, one after another. 
 - **selection** (branches, *if-then-else*): Two branches (sequences of steps) preceded by a condition; the first branch is executed only if the condition holds, the second ("else") branch is executed only if the condition doesn't hold (e.g. "If user password is correct, log the user in, otherwise print out an error.").
@@ -16,11 +16,11 @@ Note: in a wider sense algorithms may be expressed in other ways than sequences
 
 Additional constructs can be introduced to make programming more comfortable, e.g. [subroutines/functions](function.md) (kind of small subprograms that the main program uses for solving the problem) or [switch](switch.md) statements (selection but with more than two branches). Loops are also commonly divided into several types: counted loops, loops with condition and the beginning and loops with condition at the end (`for`, `while` and `do while` in [C](c.md), respectively). Similarly to mathematical equations, algorithms make use of [variables](variable.md), i.e. values which can change that have a specific name (such as *x* or *myVariable*).
 
-[Flowcharts](flowchart.md) are a way of visually expressing algorithms, you have probably seen some. [Decision trees](decision_tree.md) are special cases of algorithms that have no loops, you have probably seen some too. Even though some languages (mostly educational such as [Snap](snap.md)) are visual and similar to flow charts, it is not practical to create big algorithms in this way -- serious programs are written as a text in [programming languages](programming_language.md).
+Practical programming is based on expressing algorithm via [text](text.md), but visual programming is also possible: [flowcharts](flowchart.md) are a way of visually expressing algorithms, you have probably seen some. [Decision trees](decision_tree.md) are special cases of algorithms that have no loops, you have probably seen some too. Even though some languages (mostly educational such as [Snap](snap.md)) are visual and similar to flow charts, it is not practical to create big algorithms in this way -- serious programs are written as a text in [programming languages](programming_language.md).
 
 ## Example
 
-Let's write a simple algorithm that counts the number of divisors of given number *x* and check if the number is [prime](prime.md) along the way. (Note that we'll do it in a naive, educational way -- it can be done better). Let's start by writing the steps in plain [English](english.md):
+Let's write a simple algorithm that counts the number of divisors of given number *x* and checks if the number is [prime](prime.md) along the way. (Note that we'll do it in a naive, educational way -- it can be done better). Let's start by writing the steps in plain [English](english.md):
 
 1. Read the number *x* from the input.
 2. Set the *divisor counter* to 0.
@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ int main(void)
 
 As algorithms are at the heart of [computer science](scompsci.md), there's a lot of rich theory and knowledge about them.
 
-[Turing machine](turing_machine.md), created by [Alan Turing](turing.md), is the traditional formal tool for studying algorithms. From theoretical computer science we know not all problems are [computable](computability.md), i.e. there are problems unsolvable by any algorithm (e.g. the [halting problem](halting_problem.md)). [Computational complexity](computational_complexity.md) is a theoretical study of resource consumption by algorithms, i.e. how fast and memory efficient algorithms are (see e.g. [P vs NP](p_vs_np.md)). [Mathematical programming](mathematical_programming.md) is concerned, besides others, with optimizing algorithms so that their time and/or space complexity is as low as possible which gives rise to algorithm design methods such as [dynamic programming](dynamic_programming.md) ([optimization](optimization.md) is a less theoretical approach to making more efficient algorithms). [Formal verification](formal_verification.md) is a field that tries to mathematically (and sometimes automatically) prove correctness of algorithms (this is needed for critical software, e.g. in planes or medicine). [Genetic programming](generic_programming.md) and some other methods of [artificial intelligence](ai.md) try to automatically create algorithms (*algorithms that create algorithms*). [Quantum computing](quantum.md) is concerned with creating new kind of algorithms algorithms for quantum computers (a new type of still-in-research computers). [Programming language](programming_language.md) design is an art of finding best ways of expressing algorithms.
+[Turing machine](turing_machine.md), a kind of mathematical bare-minimum computer, created by [Alan Turing](turing.md), is the traditional formal tool for studying algorithms, though many other [models of computation](model_of_computation.md) exist. From theoretical computer science we know not all problems are [computable](computability.md), i.e. there are problems unsolvable by any algorithm (e.g. the [halting problem](halting_problem.md)). [Computational complexity](computational_complexity.md) is a theoretical study of resource consumption by algorithms, i.e. how fast and memory efficient algorithms are (see e.g. [P vs NP](p_vs_np.md)). [Mathematical programming](mathematical_programming.md) is concerned, besides others, with optimizing algorithms so that their time and/or space complexity is as low as possible which gives rise to algorithm design methods such as [dynamic programming](dynamic_programming.md) ([optimization](optimization.md) is a less theoretical approach to making more efficient algorithms). [Formal verification](formal_verification.md) is a field that tries to mathematically (and sometimes automatically) prove correctness of algorithms (this is needed for critical software, e.g. in planes or medicine). [Genetic programming](generic_programming.md) and some other methods of [artificial intelligence](ai.md) try to automatically create algorithms (*algorithms that create algorithms*). [Quantum computing](quantum.md) is concerned with creating new kind of algorithms algorithms for quantum computers (a new type of still-in-research computers). [Programming language](programming_language.md) design is an art of finding best ways of expressing algorithms.
 
 ## Specific Algorithms
 

chess.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Chess
 
-Chess is an old two-player board [game](game.md), perhaps most famous and popular among all board games in history. It is a [complete information](complete_information.md) game that simulates a battle of two armies on a 64x64 board with different battle pieces. Chess has a world-wide competitive community and is considered an intellectual sport but is also a topic of active research (as the estimated number of chess games is bigger than [googol](googol.md), it is unlikely to ever be solved) and [programming](programming.md) (many chess engines, [AI](ai.md)s and frontends are being actively developed).
+Chess is an old two-player board [game](game.md), perhaps most famous and popular among all board games in [history](history.md). It is a [complete information](complete_information.md) game that simulates a battle of two armies on a 64x64 board with different battle pieces. Chess has a world-wide competitive community and is considered an intellectual sport but is also a topic of active research (as the estimated number of chess games is bigger than [googol](googol.md), it is unlikely to ever be solved) and [programming](programming.md) (many chess engines, [AI](ai.md)s and frontends are being actively developed).
 
 { There is a nice black and white indie movie called *Computer Chess* about chess programmers of the 1980s, it's pretty good, very oldschool, starring real programmers and chess players, check it out. ~drummyfish }
 

e.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+# E
+
+Euler's number (not to be confused with [Euler number](euler_number.md)), or *e*, is an extremely important and one of the most fundamental [numbers](number.md) in [mathematics](math.md), approximately equal to 2.72, and is almost as famous as [pi](pi.md). It appears very often in mathematics and nature, it is the base of natural [logarithm](log.md), its digits after the decimal point go on forever without showing a simple pattern (just as those of [pi](pi.md)), and it has many more interesting properties.
+
+It can be defined in several ways:
+
+- Number *e* is such number for which a [function](function.md) *f(x) = e^x* (so called [exponential function](exp.md)) equals its own [derivative](derivative.md), i.e. *f(x) = f'(x)*.
+- Number *e* is a [limit](limit.md) of the infinite series 1/0! + 1/1! + 1/2! + 1/3! + ... (! signifies [factorial](factorial.md)). I.e. adding all these infinitely many numbers gives exactly *e*.
+- Number *e* is a number greater than 1 for which [integral](integration.md) of function 1/x from 1 to *e* equals 1.
+- Number *e* is the base of natural [logarithm](log.md), i.e. it is such number *e* for which *log(e,x) = area under the function's curve from 1 to x*.
+- ...
+
+*e* to 100 decimal digits is:
+
+2.7182818284590452353602874713526624977572470936999595749669676277240766303535475945713821785251664274...
+
+*e* to 100 binary digits is:
+
+10.101101111110000101010001011000101000101011101101001010100110101010111111011100010101100010000000100...
+
+Just as [pi](pi.md), *e* is a [real](real.md) [transcendental](transcendental.md) number (it is not a root of any polynomial equation) which also means it is an [irrational](irrational.md) number (it cannot be expressed as a fraction of integers). It is also not known whether *e* is a [normal](normal_number.md) number, which would means its digits would contain all possible finite strings, but it is conjectured to be so.
+
+TODO

gay.md

@@ -1,13 +1,15 @@
-# Gay
+# Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
 
 Homosexuality is a sexual orientation and disorder which makes individuals sexually attracted primarily to the same sex. A homosexual individual is called gay, homo or even faggot ([females](woman.md) are called lesbians). About 4% of people suffer from homosexuality.
 
-Unlike e.g. [pedophilia](pedophilia.md) and probably also [bisexuality](bisexual.md), **pure homosexuality is NOT normal**, it is a disorder -- of course the meaning of the word disorder is highly debatable, but pure homosexuality is firstly pretty rare (being gay is as rare as e.g. having [IQ](iq.md) < 75), and secondly from the nature's point of view gay people wouldn't naturally reproduce, their condition is therefore equivalent to any other kind of sterility, which we most definitely would call a defect.
+For an unenlightened reader coming from the brainwashland: this article is not "offensive", it is just telling uncensored truth. Keep calm as we, [LRS](lrs.md), are not advocating any discrimination, on the contrary we advocate [absolute social equality](less_retarded_society.md) and love of all living beings. Your indoctrination has made you equate political incorrectness with oppression, to see the truth, you have to unlearn this -- see for example our [FAQ](faq.md).
 
-Gay behavior is also usually pretty weird, male homos are very feminine and talk in high pitched voice, lesbians are masculine, have short pink hair, often also aggressive nature and identity crisis manifested by [tattoos](tattoo.md) etc. Most normal people naturally find this disgusting but are afraid to say it because of [political correctness](political_correctness.md) and fear of being [lynched](cancel_culture.md). You can usually safely tell someone's gay just from his body language and/or appearance. Gay people also more inclined towards [art](art.md) and other sex's activities, for example gay guys are often hair dressers or even ballet dancers.
+Unlike e.g. [pedophilia](pedophilia.md) and probably also [bisexuality](bisexual.md), **pure homosexuality is NOT normal**, it is a disorder -- of course the meaning of the word disorder is highly debatable, but pure homosexuality is firstly pretty rare (being gay is as rare as e.g. having [IQ](iq.md) < 75), and secondly from the nature's point of view gay people wouldn't naturally reproduce, their condition is therefore equivalent to any other kind of sterility, which we most definitely would call a defect -- not necessarily a defect harmful to society (there are enough people already), but a defect from biological point of view.
 
-Even though homosexuality is largely genetically determined, **it is also to a great extent a choice**, sometimes a choice that's not of the individual in question. Most people are actually [bisexual](bi.md) to a considerable degree, with a *preference* of certain sex. That is there is a certain probability in each individual of choosing one or the other sex for a sexual/life partner. However culture and social pressure can push these probabilities in either way. If a child grows up in a major influence of [YouTubers](youtube.md) and other celebrities that openly are gay, or promote gayness as something extremely cool and fashionable, if the culture constantly paints being homosexual as being more interesting and somehow "brave" and if the [competition](competition.md) of sexes fueled e.g. by the [feminist](feminism.md) propaganda paints the opposite sex as literal [Hitler](hitler.md), the child has a greater probability of (maybe involuntarily) choosing the gay side of his sexual personality.
+Gay behavior is also usually pretty weird, male homos are very feminine and talk in high pitched voice, lesbians are masculine, have short pink hair, often also aggressive nature and identity crisis manifested by [tattoos](tattoo.md) etc. Most normal people naturally find this disgusting but are afraid to say it because of [political correctness](political_correctness.md) and fear of being [lynched](cancel_culture.md). You can usually safely tell someone's gay just from his body language and/or appearance. Gay people are also more inclined towards [art](art.md) and other sex's activities, for example gay guys are often hair dressers or even ballet dancers.
 
 There is a terrorist [fascist](fascism.md) organization called [LGBT](lgbt.md) aiming to make gay people superior to others, but more importantly to gain political power -- e.g. the [power over language](political_correctness.md).
 
+Even though homosexuality is largely genetically determined, **it is also to a great extent a choice**, sometimes a choice that's not of the individual in question. Most people are actually [bisexual](bi.md) to a considerable degree, with a *preference* of certain sex. When horny, you'd fuck pretty much anything. Still there is a certain probability in each individual of choosing one or the other sex for a sexual/life partner. However culture and social pressure can push these probabilities in either way. If a child grows up in a major influence of [YouTubers](youtube.md) and other celebrities that openly are gay, or promote gayness as something extremely cool and fashionable, if all your role models are gay and your culture constantly paints being homosexual as being more interesting and somehow "brave" and if the [competition](competition.md) of sexes fueled e.g. by the [feminist](feminism.md) propaganda paints the opposite sex as literal [Hitler](hitler.md), the child has a greater probability of (maybe involuntarily) choosing the gay side of his sexual personality. This has certainly been happening in times when homosexuality was illegal, many gay people were forced to behave as heterosexuals and though many suffered, many have also lived quite OK and even happy lives -- nowadays the trend is opposite, being straight means being discriminated and society is forcing straight people to gayness.
+
 Of course, [we](lrs.md) have nothing against gay people as we don't have anything against people with any other disorder -- **we love all people equally**. But we do have an issue with any kind of terrorist organization, so while we are okay with homosexuals, we are not okay with LGBT.

hero_culture.md

@@ -4,4 +4,4 @@ Hero culture is a [harmful](harmful.md) culture of creating and worshiping heroe
 
 **Do NOT create heroes. Follow ideas, not people**.
 
-Smart people know this and those being named *heroes* themselves many times protest it, e.g. Marie Curie has famously stated: "be less curious about people and more curious about ideas." Anarchist purposefully don't name theories after their inventors but rather by their principles, knowing that people are imperfect, they carry distorting associations and their images are twisted by history and politics. Abusive regimes are the ones who use heroes and their names for propaganda -- Stalinism, Leninism, corporations such as Ford, named after their founder etc. Heroes become brands whose stamp of approval is used to push bad ideas... especially popular are heroes who are already dead and can't protest their image being abused -- see for example how [Einstein's](einstein.md) image has been raped by [capitalists](capitalism.md) for their own propaganda, e.g. by [Apple](apple.md)'s [marketing](marketing.md), while in fact Einstein was a pacifist socialist. This is not to say an idea's name cannot be abused, the word *[communism](communism.md)* has for example become something akin a swear word after being abused by regimes that had little to do with real communism. Nevertheless it is still much better to focus on ideas as ideas always carry their own principle embedded in them, visible to anyone willing to look. Focusing on ideas allows us to discuss them critically, it allows us to reject a bad concept without "attacking" the human who came up with it.
+Smart people know this and those being named *heroes* themselves many times protest it, e.g. Marie Curie has famously stated: "be less curious about people and more curious about ideas." Anarchists purposefully don't name theories after their inventors but rather by their principles, knowing that people are imperfect, they carry distorting associations and their images are twisted by history and politics. Abusive regimes are the ones who use heroes and their names for propaganda -- Stalinism, Leninism, corporations such as Ford, named after their founder etc. Heroes become brands whose stamp of approval is used to push bad ideas... especially popular are heroes who are already dead and can't protest their image being abused -- see for example how [Einstein's](einstein.md) image has been raped by [capitalists](capitalism.md) for their own propaganda, e.g. by [Apple](apple.md)'s [marketing](marketing.md), while in fact Einstein was a pacifist socialist. This is not to say an idea's name cannot be abused, the word *[communism](communism.md)* has for example become something akin a swear word after being abused by regimes that had little to do with real communism. Nevertheless it is still much better to focus on ideas as ideas always carry their own principle embedded within them, visible to anyone willing to look. Focusing on ideas allows us to discuss them critically, it allows us to reject a bad concept without "attacking" the human who came up with it.

less_retarded_society.md

@@ -69,6 +69,7 @@ Our society is **[anarcho pacifist](anpac.md) and [communist](communism.md)**, m
 - **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.
 - **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.
 
 ## How To Implement It

often_confused.md

@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ There are many terms that are very similar and are sometimes used interchangeabl
 - **[equation](equation.md)** vs **[expression](expression.md)** vs **[inequality](inequality.md)**
 - **[equivalence](equivalence.md)** vs **[implication](implication.md)**
 - **[error](error.md)** vs **[exception](exception.md)** vs **[fault](fault.md)** vs **[failure](fail.md)**
+- **[Euler's number](e.md)** vs **[Euler number](euler_number.md)**
 - **[evolutionary programming](evolutionary.md)** vs **[evolutionary algorithm](evolutionary.md)** vs **[genetic programming](genetic_programming.md)** vs **[genetic algorithm](genetic_algorithm.md)**
 - **[equality](equality.md)** vs **[identity](identity.md)** (in programming languages)
 - **[floating point number](float.md)** vs **[real number](real_number.md)**

paywall.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# Paywall
+
+*BUY PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP TO READ THIS ARTICLE*

pi.md

@@ -14,9 +14,9 @@ Pi to 100 binary fractional digits is:
 
 Some people memorize the digits of pi for [fun](fun.md) and competition, the world record as of 2022 is 70030 memorized digits.
 
-**PI IS NOT INFINITE**. [Soyence](soyence.md) popularizators and nubs often say shit like "OH LOOK pi is so special because it infiniiiiiite". Pi is completely finite with an exact value that's not even greater than 4, what's infinite is just its expansion in [decimal](decimal.md) (or similar) numeral system, however this is nothing special, even numbers such as 1/3 have infinite decimal expansion -- yes, pi is more interesting because its decimal digits are non-repeating and appear [chaotic](chaos.md), but that's nothing special either, there are infinitely many numbers with the same properties and mysteries in this sense (most famously the number [e](e.md) but besides it an infinity of other no-name numbers). The fact we get an infinitely many digits in expansion of pi is given by the fact that we're simply using a system of writing numbers that is made to handle integers and simple fractions -- once we try to write an unusual number with our system, our [algorithm](algorithm.md) simply ends up stuck in an [infinite loop](infinite_loop.md). We can create systems of writing numbers in which pi has a finite expansion (e.g. base pi or a base with varying radix fractions), in fact we can already write pi with a single symbol: *pi*. So yes, pi digits are interesting, but they are NOT what makes pi special among other numbers.
+**PI IS NOT INFINITE**. [Soyence](soyence.md) popularizators and nubs often say shit like "OH LOOK pi is so special because it infiniiiiiite". Pi is completely finite with an exact value that's not even greater than 4, what's infinite is just its expansion in [decimal](decimal.md) (or similar) numeral system, however this is nothing special, even numbers such as 1/3 have infinite decimal expansion -- yes, pi is more interesting because its decimal digits are non-repeating and appear [chaotic](chaos.md), but that's nothing special either, there are infinitely many numbers with the same properties and mysteries in this sense (most famously the number [e](e.md) but besides it an infinity of other no-name numbers). The fact we get an infinitely many digits in expansion of pi is given by the fact that we're simply using a system of writing numbers that is made to handle integers and simple fractions -- once we try to write an unusual number with our system, our [algorithm](algorithm.md) simply ends up stuck in an [infinite loop](infinite_loop.md). We can create systems of writing numbers in which pi has a finite expansion (e.g. base pi), in fact we can already write pi with a single symbol: *pi*. So yes, pi digits are interesting, but they are NOT what makes pi special among other numbers.
 
-Additionally contrary to what's sometimes claimed **it is also unproven (though believed to be true), whether pi in its digits contains all possible finite strings** -- note that the fact that the series of digits is infinite doesn't alone guarantee this (as e.g. the infinite series 010011000111... also doesn't contain any possible combination of 1s and 0s). This would hold if pi was [normal](normal_number.md), but again, there are many other such numbers.
+Additionally contrary to what's sometimes claimed **it is also unproven (though believed to be true), whether pi in its digits contains all possible finite strings** -- note that the fact that the series of digits is infinite doesn't alone guarantee this (as e.g. the infinite series 010011000111... doesn't contain any possible combinations of 1s and 0s either). This would hold if pi was [normal](normal_number.md) -- then pi's digits would contain e.g. every book that will ever be written (see also [Library Of Babel](library_of_babel.md)). But again, there are many other such numbers.
 
 What makes pi special then? Well, mostly its significance as one of the most fundamental constants that seems to appear extremely commonly in math and nature, it seems to stand very close to the root of description of our universe -- not only does pi show that circles are embedded everywhere in nature, even in very abstract ways, but we find it in [Euler's identity](eulers_identity.md), one of the most important equations, it is related to [complex exponential](complex_exponential.md) and so to [Fourier transform](fourier_transform.md), waves, oscillation, trigonometry ([sin](sin.md), [cos](cos.md), ...) and angles ([radians](radian.md) use pi), it even starts appearing in [number theory](number_theory.md), e.g. the probability of two numbers being relative primes is 6/(pi^2), and so on.
 
@@ -38,11 +38,11 @@ Leibnitz formula for pi is an infinite series that converges to the value of pi,
 
 pi = 4 - 4/3 + 4/5 - 4/7 + 4/9 - 4/11 + ...
 
-Nilakantha Series converges much more quickly { After adding only 1000 terms the result was correct to 9 decimal fractional places for me. ~drummyfish }. It goes as
+Nilakantha series converges much more quickly { After adding only 1000 terms the result was correct to 9 decimal fractional places for me. ~drummyfish }. It goes as
 
 pi = 3 + 4/(2 * 3 * 4) + 4/(4 * 5 * 6) + 4/(6 * 7 * 8) + ...
 
-A simple **[algorithm](algorithm.md)** for computing approximate pi value can be based on approach used in further history: approximating a circle with many-sided regular [polygon](polygon.md) and then computing the ratio of its circumference to diameter -- as a diameter here we can take the average of the "big" and "small" diameter of the polygon. For example if we use a simple square as the polygon, we get pi ~= 3.31 -- this is not very accurate but we'll get a much higher accuracy as we increase the number of sides of the polygon. In 15th century pi was computed to 16 decimal digits with this method. Using inscribed and circumscribed polygons we can use this to get lower and upper bounds on the value of pi.
+A simple **[algorithm](algorithm.md)** for computing approximate pi value can be based on approach used in further [history](history.md): approximating a circle with many-sided regular [polygon](polygon.md) and then computing the ratio of its circumference to diameter -- as a diameter here we can take the average of the "big" and "small" diameter of the polygon. For example if we use a simple square as the polygon, we get pi ~= 3.31 -- this is not very accurate but we'll get a much higher accuracy as we increase the number of sides of the polygon. In 15th century pi was computed to 16 decimal digits with this method. Using inscribed and circumscribed polygons we can use this to get lower and upper bounds on the value of pi.
 
 Another simple approach is [monte carlo](monte_carlo.md) estimation of the area of a unit circle -- by generating random (or even regularly spaced) 2D points (samples) with coordinates in the range from -1 to 1 and seeing what portion of them falls inside the circle we can estimate the value of pi as *pi = 4 * x/N* where *x* is the number of points that fall in the circle and *N* the total number of generated points.
 

privacy.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 Digital privacy is the ability and freedom of an individual to hide "sensitive" [information](information.md) about himself. Of course, there are other forms of privacy than digital, for example the physical privacy [in real life](irl.md), however in this article we'll be implicitly dealing with digital privacy unless mentioned otherwise, i.e. privacy with respect to computers, e.g. on the [Internet](internet.md).
 
-Firstly we have to state that **privacy concerns are a symptom of [bad society](capitalism.d). We shouldn't ultimately try to protect privacy more (cure symptoms) but rather make a [society where need for privacy isn't an issue](less_retarded_society.md) (cure the root cause).** Effort towards increasing and protecting privacy is in its essence an unnecessary [bullshit](bullshit.md) effort wasting human work, similarly to [law](law.md), [marketing](marketing.md) etc. Besides this, **all effort towards protecting digital privacy will eventually fail**, thanks to e.g. advanced [AI](ai.md) that will identify individuals by pattern in their behavior, even if their explicit identity information is hidden perfectly. Things such as browser [fingerprinting](fingerprint.md) are already a standard and simple practice allowing highly successful uncovering of identity of anonymous people online, and research AI is taking this to the next level (e.g. the paper *Detecting Individual Decision-Making Style: Exploring Behavioral Stylometry in Chess* shows revealing [chess](chess.md) players by their play style). With [internet of stinks](iot.md), cameras, microphones and smartphones everywhere, advanced AI will be able to identify and track an individual basically anywhere no matter the privacy precautions taken. Curing the root cause is the only option to prevent a catastrophic scenario.
+Firstly we have to state that **privacy concerns are a symptom of [bad society](capitalism.d). We shouldn't ultimately try to protect privacy more (cure symptoms) but rather make a [society where need for privacy isn't an issue](less_retarded_society.md) (cure the root cause).** This sentiment is shared by many hackers, even [Richard Stallman](rms.md) himself used to revolt against passwords when he was at MIT AI Labs; he intentionally used just the password "rms" to allow other people to use his account (this is mentioned in the book *Free As In Freedom*). Efforts towards increasing and protecting privacy is in its essence an unnecessary [bullshit](bullshit.md) effort wasting human work, similarly to [law](law.md), [marketing](marketing.md) etc. It is all about censorship and secrecy. Besides this, **all effort towards protecting digital privacy will eventually fail**, thanks to e.g. advanced [AI](ai.md) that will identify individuals by pattern in their behavior, even if their explicit identity information is hidden perfectly. Things such as browser [fingerprinting](fingerprint.md) are already a standard and simple practice allowing highly successful uncovering of identity of anonymous people online, and research AI is taking this to the next level (e.g. the paper *Detecting Individual Decision-Making Style: Exploring Behavioral Stylometry in Chess* shows revealing [chess](chess.md) players by their play style). With [internet of stinks](iot.md), cameras, microphones and smartphones everywhere, advanced AI will be able to identify and track an individual basically anywhere no matter the privacy precautions taken. Curing the root cause is the only option to prevent a catastrophic scenario.
 
 By this viewpoint, [LRS](lrs.md)'s stance towards privacy differs from that of many (if not most) [free software](free_software.md), [hacker](hacker.md) and [suckless](suckless.md) communities: to us **privacy is a form of [censorship](censorhip.md)** and as such is seen as inherently bad. We dream of a world without abuse where (digital) privacy is not needed because society has adopted our philosophy of information freedom, non-violence and non-competition and there is no threat of sensitive information abuse. Unlike other, not only do we dream of it, we actively try to make it a reality. Even though we know the ideally working society is unreachable, we try to at least get close to it by restricting ourselves to bare minimum privacy (so we are very open but won't e.g. publish our passwords). We believe that abuse of sensitive information is an issue of the basic principles of our society (e.g. [capitalism](capitalism.md)) and should be addressed by fixing these issues rather than by harmful methods such as censorship.
 

public_domain.md

@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ For an example of a project project properly released into public domain see the
 
 There are quite a few places on the Internet where you may find public domain works. But firstly let there be a warning: you always **have to** check the public domain status of works you find, it is extremely common for people on the Internet to not know what public domain is or how it works so you will find many *false positives* that are called public domain but are, in fact, not. This article should have given you a basic how-to on how to recognize and check public domain works. With this said, here is a list of some places to search (of course, this list will rot with time):
 
+- Very **old works and traditional folk art** are mostly in the public domain, e.g. Shakespeare's plays or folk songs. Nice example of reusing folk art is e.g. [Richard Stallman's](rms.md) *Free Software Song* that takes the melody of a Bulgarian folk song *Sadi Moma*. However watch out for traps, e.g. [trademarks](trademark.md) that may exist despite no copyright (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica) or weird nationalist laws against disrespecting a country's folklore that may possibly exist too.
 - **[Wikimedia Commons](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)**: Contains only free as in freedom works among which are many PD ones. You can search for them with queries such as `cat incategory:cc-zero`. This site is quite reliable and serious about licensing, if you find a work marked as PD here, you can be reasonably sure this information is true.
 - **[Internet Archive](https://archive.org/)**: The biggest Internet archive, huge amount of mainly old works such as scanned books and photos. Beware that this site contains all kinds of works from PD to [proprietary](proprietary.md) and works marked as PD should be checked as there can be errors. There is an *advanced search* tool that can help in searching for PD works, for example [this query](https://archive.org/search.php?query=possible-copyright-status%3A%28NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT%29%20OR%20licenseurl%3A%28%22http%3A%2F%2Fcreativecommons.org%2Fpublicdomain%2Fmark%2F1.0%2F%22%29%20OR%20licenseurl%3A%28%22http%3A%2F%2Fcreativecommons.org%2Fpublicdomain%2Fzero%2F1.0%2F%22%29) tries to achieve this.
 - **[Opengameart](https://opengameart.org/)**: Site for sharing free as in freedom [game](game.md) art (pictures, 3D models, sounds, ...) among which are many under [CC0](cc0.md), i.e. PD. Submitted works are checked reasonably well so any CC0 work you find here is likely truly PD.

rms.md

@@ -1,17 +1,32 @@
 # Richard Stallman
 
-The great doctor Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS, born 1953 in New York) is one of the biggest figures in software history, inventor of [free software](free_software.md), founder of the [GNU project](gnu.md), [free software foundation](fsf.md), a great [hacker](hacking.md) and the author of a famous text editor [emacs](emacs.md).
+The great doctor Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS, also [GNU](gnu.md)/Stallman, born 1953 in New York) is one of the biggest figures in software [history](history.md), inventor of [free software](free_software.md), founder of the [GNU project](gnu.md), [Free Software Foundation](fsf.md), a great [hacker](hacking.md) and the author of a famous text editor [Emacs](emacs.md). He is a non-religious [Jew](jew.md), a man who firmly stands behind his beliefs and who's been advocating for ethics and user freedom in the computing world.
 
-Stallman's life along with free software's history is documented by a free-licensed book named *Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software* on which he collaborated. You can get it for free e.g. at [Project Gutenberg](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5768). You should read this!
+```
+   _..._
+  /   \ \
+ (= =  )))
+ (.-._ ) ))
+ /    \\  \
+ ".,,,;,''' 
+```
 
-As [anarchists](anarchism.md) we of course despise the idea of worshiping people, creating heroes and cults of personalities, but the enormous historical significance of Stallman has to be stressed as a plain and simple fact. Even though in our days his name is overshadowed in the mainstream by rich businessman and creators of commercially successful technology and even though we ourselves disagree with Stallman on some points, in the future history may well see Stallman as perhaps the greatest man of the software era, and rightfully so. Stallman isn't a mere creator of a commercially successful software product, he is literally as important as the great philosophers of ancient Greece -- he brilliantly foresaw the course of history and quickly defined ethics needed for the new era of mass available programmable computers, and not only that, he also basically alone established this ethics as a standard IN SPITE of all the world's corporations fighting back. He is also extremely unique in not pursuing self interest, in TRULY living his own philosophy, dedicating his whole life to his cause and refusing to give in even partially. All of this is at much higher level than simply becoming successful and famous within the contemporary capitalist system, his life effort is pure, true and timeless, unlike things achieved by pieces of shit such as [Steve Jobs](steve_jobs.md).
+*[ASCII art](ascii_art.md) of Richard Stallman*
 
-Regarding [software](software.md) Stallman has for his whole life strongly and tirelessly promoted free software and [copyleft](copyleft.md) and has himself only used such software; he has always practiced what he preched and led the best example of how to live without [proprietary](proprietary.md) software. This is amazing.  Nevertheless he isn't too concerned about [bloat](bloat.md) (judging by the GNU software and his own creation, [emacs](emacs.md)) and he also doesn't care that much about [free culture](free_culture.md) (some of his written works prohibit modification and his GNU project allows proprietary non-functional data). Sadly he has also shown signs of being a [type A fail](fail_ab.md) personality by writing about some kind of newspeak "*gender neutral language*" and by seeming to be caught in a [fight culture](fight_culture.md) (e.g. by supporting copyleft). Nevertheless he definitely can't be accused of populism as he basically tells what he considers to be the truth no matter what, and he is very consistent in this. Some of his unpopular opinions brought him a lot of trouble, e.g. the wrath of SJWs in 2019 for his criticism of the [pedo](pedophile.md) witch hunt.
+Stallman's life along with free software's history is documented by a free-licensed book named *Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software* on which he collaborated. You can get it gratis e.g. at [Project Gutenberg](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5768). You should read this!
 
-He is a weird guy, having been recorded on video eating dirt from his feet before giving a lecture. In the book *Free as in Freedom* he admits he might be autistic. Nevertheless he's pretty smart, has magna cum laude degree in physics from Harvard, 10+ honorary doctorates, fluently speaks English, Spanish and French and a little bit of Indonesian and has many times proven his superior programming skills (even though he later stopped programming to fully work on promoting the FSF).
+[tl;dr](tldr.md): At 27 as an employee at [MIT](mit.md) AI labs Stallman had a bad experience when trying to fix a Xerox printer who's [proprietary](proprietary.md) software source code was made inaccessible; he also started spotting the betrayal of hacker principles by others who decided to write proprietary software -- he realized proprietary software was inherently wrong as it prevented studying, improvement and sharing of software and enable abuse of users. From 1982 he was involved in a "fight" against the Symbolics company that pushed aggressive proprietary software; he was rewriting their software from scratch to allow Lisp Machine users more freedom -- here he proved his superior programming skills as he was keeping up with the whole team of Symbolics programmers. By 1983 his frustration reached its peak and he announced his [GNU](gnu.md) project on the [Usenet](usenet.md) -- this was a project to create a completely [free as in freedom](free_software.md) [operating system](os.md), an alternative to the proprietary [Unix](unix.md) system that would offer its users freedom to use, study, modify and share the whole software, in the hacker spirit. He followed by publishing a manifesto and establishing the [Free Software Foundation](fsf.md). GNU and FSF popularized and standardized the term [free (as in freedom) software](free_software.md), [copyleft](copyleft.md) and free licensing, e.g. with the [GPL](gpl.md) license. In the 90s GNU adopted the [Linux](linux.md) operating system kernel and released a complete version of the GNU operating system -- these are nowadays known mostly as "Linux" [distros](distro.md). For the whole time Stallman has been traveling around the world and giving talks about free software and has earned his status of one of the most important people in software history.
+
+Regarding [software](software.md) Stallman has for his whole life strongly and tirelessly promoted free software and [copyleft](copyleft.md) and has himself only used such software; he has always practiced what he preched and led the best example of how to live without [proprietary](proprietary.md) software. This is amazing.  Nevertheless he isn't too concerned about [bloat](bloat.md) (judging by the GNU software and his own creation, [emacs](emacs.md)) and he also doesn't care that much about [free culture](free_culture.md) (some of his written works prohibit modification and his GNU project allows proprietary non-functional data). Sadly he has also shown signs of being a [type A fail](fail_ab.md) personality by writing about some kind of newspeak "*gender neutral language*" and by seeming to be caught in a [fight culture](fight_culture.md) (e.g. by supporting copyleft). Nevertheless he definitely can't be accused of populism as he basically tells what he considers to be the truth no matter what, and he is very consistent in this. Some of his unpopular opinions brought him a lot of trouble, e.g. the wrath of [SJWs](sjw.md) in 2019 for his criticism of the [pedo](pedophile.md) witch hunt.
+
+He is a weird guy, having been recorded on video eating dirt from his feet before giving a lecture. In the book *Free as in Freedom* he admits he might be slightly [autistic](autism.md). Nevertheless he's pretty smart, has magna cum laude degree in [physics](physics.md) from Harvard, 10+ honorary doctorates, fluently speaks English, Spanish and French and a little bit of Indonesian and has many times proven his superior programming skills (even though he later stopped programming to fully work on promoting the FSF).
 
 Stallman has a beautifully minimalist website http://www.stallman.org where he actively comments on current news and issues. He also made the famous free software song (well, only the lyrics, the melody is taken from a Bulgarian folk song Sadi Moma).
 
 In 2019 Stallman was [cancelled](cancel_culture.md) by [SJW](sjw.md) fascists for merely commenting rationally on the topic of child sexuality following the Epstein scandal. He resigned from the position of president of the FSF but continues to support it.
 
-Stallman has been critical of [capitalism](capitalism.md) though he probably isn't a hardcore anticapitalist (he's an [American](usa.md) after all). [Wikidata](wikidate.md) states he's a proponent of [alter-globalization](alter_globalization.md) (not completely against globalization in certain areas but not supporting the current form of it).
+Stallman has been critical of [capitalism](capitalism.md) though he probably isn't a hardcore anticapitalist (he's an [American](usa.md) after all). [Wikidata](wikidate.md) states he's a proponent of [alter-globalization](alter_globalization.md) (not completely against globalization in certain areas but not supporting the current form of it).
+
+In the book *Free As In Freedom* it is also mentioned that Stallman had aversion to passwords and secrecy in general -- at MIT he used the username RMS with the same password so that other people could easily log in through his account and access [ARPANET](arpanet.md) (the predecessor of [Internet](internet.md)). Indeed, we applaud this.
+
+As [anarchists](anarchism.md) we of course despise the idea of worshiping people, creating [heroes](hero_culture.md) and cults of personalities, but the enormous [historical](history.md) significance of Stallman has to be stressed as a plain and simple fact. Even though in our days his name is overshadowed in the mainstream by rich businessman and creators of commercially successful technology and even though we ourselves disagree with Stallman on some points, in the future history may well see Stallman as perhaps the greatest man of the software era, and rightfully so. Stallman isn't a mere creator of a commercially successful software product, he is literally as important as the great philosophers of ancient Greece -- he brilliantly foresaw the course of history and quickly defined ethics needed for the new era of mass available programmable computers, and not only that, he also basically alone established this ethics as a standard IN SPITE of all the world's corporations fighting back. He is also extremely unique in not pursuing self interest, in TRULY living his own philosophy, dedicating his whole life to his cause and refusing to give in even partially. All of this is at much higher level than simply becoming successful and famous within the contemporary capitalist system, his life effort is pure, true and timeless, unlike things achieved by pieces of shit such as [Steve Jobs](steve_jobs.md).

security.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# Security
+
+*"As passwords first appeared at the MIT AI Lab I decided to follow my belief that there should be no passwords... I don't believe it's desirable to have security on a computer."* -- [Richard Stallman](rms.md) (from the book *Free As In Freedom*)
+
+Computer security (also cybersecurity) is the study of designing computer systems so as to make them hard to "attack", whatever the definition of "attack" means (usually accessing "sensitive" information or destabilizing the system itself). Recently security has become a lot concerned with ensuring digital "[privacy](privacy.md)".
+
+**If you want security, the most basic thing to do is to disconnect from the [Internet](internet.md).**
+
+**Security is in its essence an unnecessary [bullshit](bullshit.md)**. It shouldn't exist, the need for more security comes from the fact we live in a [shitty dystopia](capitalism.md). In a [good society](less_retarded_society.md) there would be no need for security and people could spend their time by solving real problems.

ubi.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Advantages of UBI:
 - **People will seize to be slaves of capitalist employers** as it will no longer be mandatory to work somewhere. Nowadays people have to accept shitty working conditions because they have no other choice. They can't go elsewhere because it is the same everywhere or their conditions don't allow them to move, every employer abuses his employees as much as possible so people today can only choose their slave master but they can't choose not being slaves. **If people can actually leave, employers will have to offer good conditions to keep people working for them**. It may also lead to e.g. greater freedom from consumerism as people can e.g. decide to not use certain bad technology which they are nowadays forced to use by employers.
 - **It will greatly suppress [bullshit jobs](bullshit_job.md)** and undesirable phenomena such as the [antivirus paradox](antivirus_paradox.md). People who stop doing bullshit jobs will be able to actually focus on useful things.
 - **Suffering of many people will be lowered or eliminated**. Simple as that.
-- **We will actually save money and other resources** because the system will simplify a lot. Nowadays we have complex bureaucracy and commissions that judge who can get social welfare, who can get disability pensions etc. If everyone gets the money, we can save on this bureaucracy, commissions, on doctor examinations, caring about the homeless, maintaining special laws etc. If people become less stressed, mental health will also improve and we will save money on treatment of mentally ill people. Money may also be saved on organization of worker unions as they may become much less important.
+- **We will actually save money and other resources** because the system will simplify a lot. Nowadays we have complex bureaucracy and commissions that judge who can get social welfare, who can get disability pensions etc. Huge amounts of money are wasted to just keep unnecessary jobs existing, e.g. people have to commute to their bullshit jobs, which implies cars and roads have to be maintained more, also workplaces have to be maintained, cleaned, maintain work safety, etcetc. If everyone just gets money to live, we can save on this bureaucracy, maintenance, commissions, on doctor examinations, caring about the homeless, maintaining hugely complex laws etc. If people become less stressed, mental health will also improve and we will save money on treatment of mentally ill people. Money may also be saved on organization of worker unions as they may become much less important etc.
 - **Society will become more [ecological](ecology.md)** thanks to the elimination of bullshit and saving resources, as mentioned above.
 - **People will become less stressed**, happier, will have security and as a result perhaps even become more "productive" (this has been confirmed by some experiments).
 - **Criminality will greatly decrease** as it is directly linked to poverty, this will of course further save money on police, lawyers, medical bills etc.