Update

copyleft.md

@@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ In the [FOSS](foss.md) world there is a huge battle between the copyleft camp an
 
 ## Issues With Copyleft
 
-In the great debate of copyleft vs permissive free-licenses we, as technological anarchists, stand on the permissive side. Here are some reasons for why we reject copyleft:
+In the great debate of copyleft vs permissive free licenses we, as technological anarchists, stand on the permissive side. Here are some reasons for why we reject copyleft:
 
 - By adopting copyleft one is **embracing and supporting the copyright laws** ("marrying the lawyers") because copyleft relies on and uses copyright laws. Copyleft chooses to play along with the capitalist bullshit [intellectual property](intellectual_property.md) game and threatens to use force and bullying in order to enforce *correct* usage of information.
-- In a way it is **[bloat](bloat.md)**. Copyleft introduces **legal complexity**, [friction](friction.md) and takes programmers' [head space](head_space.md), especially when copyleft is probably mostly ineffective as **detecting its violation and actual legal enforcement is difficult, expensive and without a guaranteed positive outcome** ([FSF](fsf.md) encourages programmers to hand over their copyright to them so they can defend their programs which just confirms existence and relevance of this issue). Sure, corporations can probably "abuse" permissive (non-copyleft) software easier, but we argue that this is a problem whose roots lie in the broken basic principles of our society ([capitalism](capitalism.md)) and so the issue should be addressed by improving our socioeconomic system rather than by bullshit legal techniques that just imperfectly cure the symptoms.
+- In a way it is **[bloat](bloat.md)**. Copyleft introduces **legal complexity**, [friction](friction.md) and takes programmers' [head space](head_space.md), especially when copyleft is probably mostly ineffective as **detecting its violation and actual legal enforcement is difficult, expensive and without a guaranteed positive outcome** ([FSF](fsf.md) encourages programmers to hand over their copyright to them so they can defend their programs which just confirms existence and relevance of this issue). Sure, corporations can probably "abuse" permissive (non-copyleft) software easier, but we argue that this is a problem whose roots lie in the broken basic principles of our society ([capitalism](capitalism.md)) and so the issue should be addressed by improving our socioeconomic system rather than by bullshit legal techniques that just imperfectly and many times completely ineffectively try to cure the symptoms.
 - **The scope of copyleft is highly debatable** (which is why we have different kind of copyleft such as *strong*, *weak*, *network* etc.). I.e. it can't be objectively said what exactly should classify as violation of copyleft AND increasing copyleft scope leads to copylefted software being practically unusable. Consider this **example**: [Linux](linux.md) is copylefted which means we can't create a proprietary version of Linux, nevertheless we can create a proprietary operating system of which Linux is part (e.g. [Android](android.md) in which its proprietary app store makes it de-facto owned by [Google](google.md)), and so Linux is effectively used as a part of proprietary software -- the copyleft is bypassed. One might try to increase the copyleft scope here by saying *"everything Linux ever touches has to be free software"* which would however render Linux unusable on practically any computer as most computers contain at least some small proprietary software and hardware. The restriction would be too great.
 - In practice, **copyleft licenses have to be complex and ugly** because they have to strictly describe the copyleft scope and include lots of legal [boilerplate](boilerplate.md) in order to make them well defendable in court -- and as we know, complexity comes with bugs, vulnerabilities and other burden. Indeed, we see this in practice: the only practically used copyleft licenses are the various versions of GPL of which all are ugly and have historically shown many faults (which is again evident from e.g. looking at GPL v1 vs v2 vs v3). Permissive licenses on the other hand are simple, clear and well understandable.

copyright.md

@@ -4,11 +4,11 @@ Copyright (better called copyrestriction) is one of many types of so called [int
 
 When someone creates something that can even remotely be considered artistic expression (even such things as e.g. a mere collection of already existing things), they automatically gain copyright on it, without having to register it anywhere or let it be known anywhere. They then have practically full control over the work and can successfully sue anyone who basically just touches it in any way. Therefore **any code without a [free](free_software.md) license attached is implicitly fully owned by its creator** (so called "all rights reserved") and can't be used by anyone without permission. It is said that copyright can't apply to ideas, only to expressions of ideas, however that's [bullshit](bs.md), the line isn't clear and is arbitrarily drawn by judges; for example regarding stories in books it's been established that the story itself can be copyrighted, not just its expression (you can't rewrite the Harry Potter story in different words and start selling it).
 
-The current form of copyright (as well as other types of IP such as software patents) has been highly criticized by many people, even those whom it's supposed to "protect" (e.g. small game creators). Strong copyright laws basically benefit corporations and "trolls" on the detriment of everyone else. It smothers creativity and efficiency by prohibiting people to reuse, remix and improve already existing works. Most people are probably for *some* form of copyright but still oppose the current extreme form which is pretty crazy: copyright applies to everything without any registration or notice and last usually 70 years (!!!) **after** the author has died (!!!). This is 100 years in some countries. In some countries it is not even possible to waive copyright to own creations. Some people are against the very idea of copyright (those may either use waivers such as [CC0](cc0.md) or [unlicense](unlicense.md) or protest by not using any licenses and simply ignoring copyright which however will actually discourage other people from reusing their works).
+The current form of copyright (as well as other types of IP such as software patents) has been highly criticized by many people, even those whom it's supposed to "protect" (e.g. small game creators). Strong copyright laws basically benefit corporations and "trolls" on the detriment of everyone else. It smothers creativity and efficiency by prohibiting people to reuse, remix and improve already existing works. Most people are probably for *some* form of copyright but still oppose the current extreme form which is pretty crazy: copyright applies to everything without any registration or notice and last usually 70 years (!!!) **after** the author has died (!!!) and is already rotting in the ground. This is 100 years in some countries. In some countries it is not even possible to waive copyright to own creations. Some people are against the very idea of copyright (those may either use waivers such as [CC0](cc0.md) or [unlicense](unlicense.md) or protest by not using any licenses and simply ignoring copyright which however will actually discourage other people from reusing their works).
 
 Prominent critics include [Lawrence Lessig](lessig.md) (who established [free culture](free_culture.md) and [Creative Commons](creative_commons.md)) as a response), [Nina Paley](nina_paley.md) and [Richard Stallman](rms.md).
 
-The book *Free Culture* by Lessig talks, besides others, about how copyright has started and how it's been shaped by corporations to becoming their tool for monopolizing art. The concept of copyright has appeared after the invention of [printing press](printing_press.md). The so called *Statute of Anne* of 1710 allowed the authors of books to control their copying for **14 years** and only after **registartion**. The term could be prolonged by anothert 14 years if the author survived. The laws started to get more and more strict as control of information became more valued and eventually the term grew to **life of authour plus 70 years**, without any need for registration or deposit of the copy of the work. Furthermore with new technologies, the scope of copyright has also extended: if copyright originally only limited *copying* of books, in the Internet age it started to cover basically any use, as any manipulation with digital data in the computer age requires making local copies. Addidionally the copyright laws were passing despite being unconstitutional as the US constitution says that copyright term has to be finite -- the corporations have found a way around this and simply regularly increased the copyright's term, trying to make it de-facto infinite. Their reason, of course, was to firstly forever keep ovenership of their own art but also, maybe more importantly, to **kill the [public domain](public_domain.md)**, i.e. prevent old works from entering the public domain where they would become a completely free, unrestricted work for all people, competing with their proprietary art. Nowadays, with coprporations such as [YouTube](youtube.md) and [Facebook](facebook.md) de-facto controlling most of infromation sharing among common people, the situation worsens further: they can simply make their own laws that don't need to be passed by the government but simply implemented on the platform they control. This way they are already killing e.g. the right to [fair use](fair_use.md), they can simply remove any content on the basis of "copyright violation", even if such content would normally NOT violate copyright because it would fall under fair use. This would normally have to be devided by court, but a corporation here itself takes the role of the court itself. So in terms of copyright, corporations have now a greater say than governments, and of course they'll use this power against the people (e.g. to implement censorship and surveillance).
+The book *Free Culture* by Lessig talks, besides others, about how copyright has started and how it's been shaped by corporations to becoming their tool for monopolizing art. The concept of copyright has appeared after the invention of [printing press](printing_press.md). The so called *Statute of Anne* of 1710 allowed the authors of books to control their copying for **14 years** and only after **registartion**. The term could be prolonged by anothert 14 years if the author survived. The laws started to get more and more strict as control of information became more valued and eventually the term grew to **life of author plus 70 years**, without any need for registration or deposit of the copy of the work. Furthermore with new technologies, the scope of copyright has also extended: if copyright originally only limited *copying* of books, in the Internet age it started to cover basically any use, as any manipulation with digital data in the computer age requires making local copies. Additionally the copyright laws were passing despite being unconstitutional as the US constitution says that copyright term has to be finite -- the corporations have found a way around this and simply regularly increased the copyright's term, trying to make it [de-facto](de_facto.md) [infinite](infinity.md). Their reason, of course, was to firstly forever keep ownership of their own art but also, maybe more importantly, to **kill the [public domain](public_domain.md)**, i.e. prevent old works from entering the public domain where they would become a completely free, unrestricted work for all people, competing with their proprietary art. Nowadays, with coprporations such as [YouTube](youtube.md) and [Facebook](facebook.md) de-facto controlling most of infromation sharing among common people, the situation worsens further: they can simply make their own laws that don't need to be passed by the government but simply implemented on the platform they control. This way they are already killing e.g. the right to [fair use](fair_use.md), they can simply remove any content on the basis of "copyright violation", even if such content would normally NOT violate copyright because it would fall under fair use. This would normally have to be decided by court, but a corporation here itself takes the role of the court. So in terms of copyright, corporations have now a greater say than governments, and of course they'll use this power against the people (e.g. to implement censorship and surveillance).
 
 Copyright rules differ greatly by country, most notably the US measures copyright length from the publication of the work rather than from when the author died. It is possible for a work to be copyrighted in one country and not copyrighted in another. It is sometimes also very difficult to say whether a work is copyrighted because the rules have been greatly changing (e.g. a notice used to be required for some time), sometimes even retroactively copyrighting public domain works, and there also exists no official database of copyrighted works (you can't safely look up whether your creation is too similar to someone else's). All in all, copyright is a huge mess, which is why we choose [free licenses](free_software.md) and even [public domain](public_domain.md) waivers.
 

distance.md

@@ -1,6 +1,15 @@
 # Distance
 
-TODO
+Distance is a measure of how far away from each other two points are. Most commonly distance refers to physical separation in space, e.g. as in distance of planets from the Sun, but more generally distance can refer to any kind of parameter space and in any number of [dimensions](dimension.md), e.g. the distance of events in time measured in seconds (1D distance) or distance of two text strings as the amount of their dissimilarity ([Levenshtein distance](levenshtein_distance.md)). Distances are extremely important in [computer science](compsci.md) and [math](math.md) as they allow us to do such things as [clustering](clustering.md), path searching, physics simulations, various comparisons, [sorting](sort.md) etc.
+
+Distance is similar/related to [length](length.md), the difference is that distance is computed between two points while length is the distance of one point from some implicit origin.
+
+There are many ways to define distance within given space. Most common and implicitly assumed distance is the **[Euclidean distance](euclidean_distance.md)** (basically the "straight line from point A to point B" whose length is computed with [ Euclidean Theorem](euclidean_theorem.md)), but other distances are possible, e.g. the [taxicab distance](taxicab_distance.md) (length of the kind of perpendicular path taxis take between points A and B in Manhattan, usually longer than straight line). Mathematically a space in which distances can be measured are called [metric spaces](metric_space.md), and a distance within such space can be any [function](function.md) *dist* (called a *distance* or *metric* function) that satisfies these [axioms](axiom.md):
+
+1. *dist(p,p) = 0* (distance from identical point is zero)
+2. Values given by *dist* are never negative.
+3. *dist(p,q) = dist(q,p)* ([symmetry](symmetry.md), distance between two points is the same in both directions).
+4. *dist(a,c) <= dist(a,b) + dist(b,c)* (triangle inequality)
 
 ## Approximations
 
@@ -93,4 +102,24 @@ int32_t dist48(
 }
 ```
 
+A similar approximation for 2D distance is (from a 1984 book *Problem corner*) this: *sqrt(dx^2 + dy^2) ~= 0.96 * dx + 0.4 * dy* for *dx >= dy >= 0*. The error is <= 4%. This can be optionally modified to use the closest power of 2 constants so that the function becomes much faster to compute, but the maximum error increases (seems to be about 11%). C code with fixed point follows (commented out line is the faster, less accurate version):
+
+```
+int dist2DApprox(int x0, int y0, int x1, int y1)
+{
+  x0 = x0 > x1 ? (x0 - x1) : (x1 - x0);
+  y0 = y0 > y1 ? (y0 - y1) : (y1 - y0);
+  
+  if (x0 < y0)
+  {
+    x1 = x0; // swap
+    x0 = y0;
+    y0 = x1;
+  }
+  
+  return (123 * x0 + 51 * y0) / 128; // max error = ~4%
+  //return x0 + y0 / 2;              // faster, less accurate  
+}
+```
+
 TODO: this https://www.flipcode.com/archives/Fast_Approximate_Distance_Functions.shtml

fail_ab.md

@@ -7,4 +7,17 @@ Type A and type B fails are two very common cases of failing to adhere to the [L
 
 Type A/B fails are the "great filter" of the rare kind of people who show a great potential for adhering to LRS. It may be due to the modern western culture that forces a [right](right.md)-[pseudoleft](pseudoleft.md) false dichotomy that even those showing a high degree of non-conformance eventually slip into the trap of being caught by one of the two poles. These two fails seem to be a manifestation of an individual's true motives of [self interest](self_interest.md) which is culturally fueled with great force -- those individuals then try to not conform and support non-mainstream concepts like free culture or sucklessness, but eventually only with the goal of self interest. It seems to be extremely difficult to abandon this goal, much more than simply non-conforming. Maybe it's also the subconscious knowledge that adhering completely to LRS means an extreme loneliness; being type A/B fail means being a part of a minority, but still a having a supportive community, not being completely alone.
 
-However these kinds of people may also pose a hope: if we could educate them and "fix their failure", the LRS community could grow rapidly. If realized, this step could even be seen as the main contribution of LRS -- uniting the misguided rightists and pseudoleftists by pointing out errors in their philosophies (errors that may largely be intentionally forced by the system anyway exactly to create the hostility between the non-conforming, as a means of protecting the system).
+However these kinds of people may also pose a hope: if we could educate them and "fix their failure", the LRS community could grow rapidly. If realized, this step could even be seen as the main contribution of LRS -- uniting the misguided rightists and pseudoleftists by pointing out errors in their philosophies (errors that may largely be intentionally forced by the system anyway exactly to create the hostility between the non-conforming, as a means of protecting the system).
+
+
+```
+
+                  __
+                .'  '.                  
+               /      \                   drummyfish
+            _.'        '._                    |
+___....---''              ''---...____________v___
+                               |           |
+             normies           |    A/B    | LRS
+               FAIL            |    fail   |
+```

faq.md

@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ See the article on [less retarded society](less_retarded_society.md), it contain
 
 ### Who writes this wiki? Can I contribute.
 
-You can only contribute to this wiki if you're [white](white.md)! Just kidding, you can't contribute even if you're white.
+You can only contribute to this wiki if you're a straight [white](white.md) male. Just kidding, you can't contribute even if you're a straight white male.
 
 At the moment it's just me, [drummyfish](drummyfish.md). This started as a collaborative wiki name *based wiki* but after some disagreements I forked it (everything was practically written by me at that point) and made it my own wiki where I don't have to make any compromises or respect anyone else's opinions. I'm not opposed to the idea of collaboration but I bet we disagree on something in which case I probably don't want to let you edit this. I also resist allowing contributions because with multiple authors the chance of legal complications grows, even if the work is under a free license or waiver (refer to e.g. the situation where some Linux developers were threatening to withdraw their code contribution license). But you can totally fork this wiki, it's [public domain](cc0.md).
 
@@ -43,7 +43,9 @@ If you want to contribute to the cause, just create your own website, spread the
 
 ### Why is it called a wiki when it's written just by one guy? Is it to deceive people into thinking there's a whole movement rather than just one weirdo?
 
-There is no intention of deception, this project started as a collaborative wiki with multiple contributors, named *Based Wiki*, however I (drummyfish) forked my contributions (most of the original Wiki) into my own Wiki and renamed it to *Less Retarded Wiki* because I didn't like the direction of the original wiki. At that point I was still allowing and looking for more contributors, but somehow none of the original people came to contribute and meanwhile I've expanded my LRS Wiki to the point at which I decided it's simply a snapshot of my own views and so I decided to keep it my own project and kept the name that I established, the *LRS Wiki*. Even though at the moment it's missing the main feature of a wiki, i.e. collaboration of multiple people, it is still a project that most people would likely call a "wiki" naturally (even if only a personal one) due to having all the other features of wikis (separate articles linked via hypertext, non-linear structure etc.) and simply looking like a wiki -- nowadays there are many wikis that are mostly written by a single man (see e.g. small fandom wikis) and people still call them wikis because culturally the term has simply taken a wider meaning, people don't expect a wiki to absolutely necessarily be collaborative and so there is no deception. Additionally I am still open to the idea to possibly allowing contributions, so I'm simply keeping this a wiki, the wiki is in a sense waiting for a larger community to come. Finally the ideas I present here are not just mine but really do reflect existing movements/philosophies with significant numbers of supporters (suckless, free software, ...).
+Yes. 
+
+No, of course not you dumbo. There is no intention of deception, this project started as a collaborative wiki with multiple contributors, named *Based Wiki*, however I (drummyfish) forked my contributions (most of the original Wiki) into my own Wiki and renamed it to *Less Retarded Wiki* because I didn't like the direction of the original wiki. At that point I was still allowing and looking for more contributors, but somehow none of the original people came to contribute and meanwhile I've expanded my LRS Wiki to the point at which I decided it's simply a snapshot of my own views and so I decided to keep it my own project and kept the name that I established, the *LRS Wiki*. Even though at the moment it's missing the main feature of a wiki, i.e. collaboration of multiple people, it is still a project that most people would likely call a "wiki" naturally (even if only a personal one) due to having all the other features of wikis (separate articles linked via hypertext, non-linear structure etc.) and simply looking like a wiki -- nowadays there are many wikis that are mostly written by a single man (see e.g. small fandom wikis) and people still call them wikis because culturally the term has simply taken a wider meaning, people don't expect a wiki to absolutely necessarily be collaborative and so there is no deception. Additionally I am still open to the idea to possibly allowing contributions, so I'm simply keeping this a wiki, the wiki is in a sense waiting for a larger community to come. Finally the ideas I present here are not just mine but really do reflect existing movements/philosophies with significant numbers of supporters (suckless, free software, ...).
 
 ### Since it is public domain, can I take this wiki and do anything with it? Even something you don't like, like sell it or rewrite it in a different way?
 
@@ -69,9 +71,11 @@ This is a good point, we talk about capitalism simply because it is the system o
 
 We're not fascists, we're in fact the exact opposite: our aim is to create technology that benefits everyone equally without any discrimination. I (drummyfish) am personally a pacifist anarchist, I love all living beings and believe in absolute social equality of all life forms. We invite and welcome everyone here, be it gays, communists, rightists, trannies, pedophiles or murderers, we love everyone equally, even you and Hitler.
 
+Note that the fact that we love someone (e.g. Hitler) does NOT mean we embrace his ideas (e.g. Nazism) or even that we e.g. like the way he looks. You may hear us say someone is a stupid ugly fascist, but even such individuals are living beings we love.
+
 What we do NOT engage in is political correctness, censorship, offended culture, identity politics and pseudoleftism. We do NOT support fascist groups such as feminists and LGBT and we will NOT practice bullying and [codes of conducts](coc.md). We do not pretend there aren't any differences between people and we will make jokes that make you feel offended.
 
-### Why do you use the word nigger so much?
+### Why do you use the [nigger](nigger.md) word so much?
 
 To counter its censorship, we mustn't be afraid of words. The more they censor something, the more I am going to uncensor it. They have to learn that the only way to make me not say that word so often is to stop censoring it, so to their action of censorship I produce a reaction they dislike. That's basically how you train a dog. (Please don't ask who "they" are, it's pretty obvious).
 
@@ -93,18 +97,20 @@ And yeah, of course sometimes we make [jokes](jokes.md) and sarcastic comments,
 
 Yes, but it may need an elaboration. There are many different kinds of love: love of a sexual partner, love of a parent, love of a pet, love of a hobby, love of nature etc. Obviously we can't love everyone with the same kind of love we have e.g. for our life partner, that's impossible if we've actually never even seen most people who live on this planet. The love we are talking about -- our universal love of everyone -- is an unconditional love of life itself. Being alive is a miracle, it's beautiful, and as living beings we feel a sense of connection with all other living beings in this universe who were for some reason chosen to experience this rare miracle as well -- we know what it feels like to live and we know other living beings experience this special, mysterious privilege too, though for a limited time. This is the most basic kind of love, an empathy, the happiness of seeing someone else live. It is sacred, there's nothing more pure in this universe than feeling this empathy, it works without language, without science, without explanation. While not all living beings are capable of this love (a virus probably won't feel any empathy), we believe all humans have this love in them, even if it's being suppressed by their environment that often forces them compete, hate, even kill. Our goal is to awaken this love in everyone as we believe it's the only way to achieve a truly happy coexistence of us, living beings.
 
-### I dislike this wiki, our teacher taught us that global variables are bad and that OOP is good.
+### I dislike this wiki, our teacher taught us that global variables are bad and that [OOP](oop.md) is good.
 
 This is not a question you dummy. Have you even read the title of this page? Anyway, your teacher is stupid, he is, very likely unknowingly, just spreading the capitalist propaganda. He probably believes what he's saying but he's wrong.
 
 ### Lol you've got this fact wrong and you misunderstand this and this topic, you've got bugs in code, your writing sucks etc. How dare you write about things you have no clue about?
 
-I want a public domain encyclopedia that includes topics of new technology, and also one which doesn't literally make me want to kill myself due to inserted propaganda of evil etc. Since this supposedly modern society failed to produce even a single such encyclopedia and since every idiot on this planet wants to keep his copyright on everything he writes, I am forced to write the encyclopedia myself, even for the price of making mistakes. No, US public domain doesn't count as world wide public domain. Even without copyright there are still so called [moral rights](moral_rights.md) etc. Blame this society for not allowing even a tiny bit of information to slip into public domain. Writing my own encyclopedia is literally the best I can do in the situation I am in. Nothing is perfect, I still believe this can be helpful to someone. You shouldn't take facts from a random website for granted. If you wanna help me correct errors, email me.
+I want a public domain encyclopedia that includes topics of new technology, and also one which doesn't literally make me want to kill myself due to inserted propaganda of evil etc. Since this supposedly [modern](modern.md) society failed to produce even a single such encyclopedia and since every idiot on this planet wants to keep his copyright on everything he writes, I am forced to write the encyclopedia myself, even for the price of making mistakes. No, US public domain doesn't count as world wide public domain. Even without copyright there are still so called [moral rights](moral_rights.md) etc. Blame this society for not allowing even a tiny bit of information to slip into public domain. Writing my own encyclopedia is literally the best I can do in the situation I am in. Nothing is perfect, I still believe this can be helpful to someone. You shouldn't take facts from a random website for granted. If you wanna help me correct errors, email me.
 
 ### How can you use [CC0](cc0.md) if you, as anarchists, reject laws and intellectual property?
 
 We use it to **remove** law from our project, it's kind of like using a weapon to destroy itself. Using a [license](license.md) such as [GFDL](gfdl.md) would mean we're keeping our copyright and are willing to execute enforcement of intellectual property laws, however using a CC0 [waiver](waiver.md) means we GIVE UP all lawful exclusive rights that have been forced on us. This has no negative effects: if law applies, then we use it to remove itself, and if it doesn't, then nothing happens. To those that acknowledge the reality of the fact that adapting proprietary information can lead to being bullied by the state we give a guarantee this won't happen, and others simply don't have to care.
 
+A simple analogy is this: a law is so fucked up nowadays that it forces us to point a gun at anyone by default when we create something. It's as if they literally put a gun in our hand and force point it at someone. We decide to drop that weapon, not merely promise to not shoot.
+
 ### What software does this wiki use?
 
 [Git](git.md), the articles are written in [markdown](md.md) and converted to [HTML](html.md) with a simple script.
@@ -127,4 +133,4 @@ Depending on exact definition the answer is either "no" or "yes and it's a good
 
 ### Are you retarded?
 
-:( Maybe, but even a stupid person can sometimes have smart ideas.
+:( Maybe, but even stupid people can sometimes have smart ideas.

fight_culture.md

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 # Fight Culture
 
-Fight culture is the [modern](modern.md) western mindset of seeing any endeavor as a fight against something. Even such causes as aiming for establishment of [peace](peace.md) is seen as fighting people who are against peace, which is [funny](fun.md) but also sad. Fight culture keeps, just by the constant repetition of the word *fight*, a subconscious validation of violence as justified and necessary means for achieving any goal. Fight culture is to a great degree the culture of [capitalist](capitalism.md) society (of course not exclusively), the environment of extreme competition and hostility.
+Fight culture is the [harmful](harmful.md) mindset of seeing any endeavor as a fight against something. Even such causes as aiming for establishment of [peace](peace.md) is seen as fighting people who are against peace, which is [funny](fun.md) but also sad. Fight culture keeps, just by the constant repetition of the word *fight*, a subconscious validation of violence as justified and necessary means for achieving any goal. Fight culture is to a great degree the culture of [capitalist](capitalism.md) society (of course not exclusively), the environment of extreme competition and hostility.
 
 [We](lrs.md), of course, see fight culture as inherently undesirable for a good society as that needs to be based on peace, love and [collaboration](collaboration.md), not [competition](competition.md). For this reasons we never say we "fight" anything, we rather aim for goals, look for solutions, educate and sometimes reject, refuse and oppose bad concepts (e.g. fight culture itself).

main.md

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ This is a Wiki for [less retarded software](lrs.md), [less retarded society](les
 
 This wiki is **NOT** a satire.
 
-Are you failure? Learn [which type](fail_ab.md) you are.
+Are you a failure? Learn [which type](fail_ab.md) you are.
 
 **Before contributing please read the [rules & style](wiki_style.md)! By contributing you agree to release your contribution under our [waiver](wiki_rights.md).** {But contributions aren't really accepted RN :) ~drummyfish }
 

newspeak.md

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 # Newspeak
 
-Newspeak is a modified form of natural language (e.g. [English](english.md)) twisted for the purpose of thought control of mass population, with [propaganda](propaganda.md) and ideology built in so as to affect thinking of people in a way desired by the rulers of society. It first appeared in George Orwell's 1949 book called [Nineteen Eighty Four](1984.md) and started to become implemented in [real world](irl.md) society since about the year 2000 by the [pseudoleft](pseudoleft.md) and capitalists (i.e. [liberals](liberal.md)). Refusing to use newspeak is labeled [thought crime](thought_crime.md) and punished either officially by government or unofficially by society-approved and state-tolerated lynching (so called [cancelling](cancel_culture.md)).
+Newspeak is a modified form of natural language (e.g. [English](english.md)) twisted for the purpose of thought control of mass population, with [propaganda](propaganda.md) and ideology built in so as to affect thinking of people in a way desired by the rulers of society. It first appeared in George Orwell's 1949 book called [Nineteen Eighty Four](1984.md) and started to become significantly implemented in [real world](irl.md) since about the end of 20th century by the [pseudoleft](pseudoleft.md) and capitalists (i.e. [liberals](liberal.md)). Refusing to use newspeak is labeled [thought crime](thought_crime.md), [hate speech](hate_speech.md) or psychological disorder and punished either officially by government or unofficially by society-approved and state-tolerated lynching (so called [cancelling](cancel_culture.md)).
 
 Real world newspeak is characterized by banning certain keywords, for example so called [slurs](slur.md) such as [nigger](nigger.md), [faggot](faggot.md) or [retard](retard.md), as well as inventing [euphemisms](euphemism.md) for [harmful](harmful.md) and oppressive concepts ([copyright](copyright.md) instead of copyrestriction, [moderation](moderation.md) instead of [censorship](censorship.md) etc.), redefining the meanings of existing terms such as [racism](racism.md) (originally hating people of certain race, now anyone who disagrees with mainstream pseudoleft ideology), [homophobia](homophobia.md) (originally hating gay people, now anyone who disagrees with pseudoleft ideology regarding [LGBT](lgbt.md)), [rape](rape.md) (originally sexual violence, now any action taken by man towards a woman) and inventing completely new terms such as [hate speech](hate_speech.md) and [sanism](sanism.md) serving for eliminating ideological opposition and suppression of [free speech](free_speech.md).

public_domain.md

@@ -36,11 +36,11 @@ There are a number of places on the internet to look for public domain works, fo
 
 If you want to create a PD work (which you should), then generally in that work **you must not use any non-public domain work**. So, for example, you can NOT create a public domain fan fiction story about Harry Potter because Harry Potter and his universe is copyrighted. Similarly you can't just use randomly googled images in a game you created because the images are most likely copyrighted. Small and obscure exceptions (fonts, freedom of panorama, ...) to this may exist in laws but it's never good to rely on them, it's best to keep it safe and simply avoid utilizing anything non-PD within your works.
 
-Also you can NOT rely on [fair use](fair_use.md)! Even though you could lawfully use someone else's copyrighted work under fair use, inclusion of such material would, by the fair use rules, limit what other would be able to do with your work, making it restricted and therefore not public domain.
+Also **you can NOT use anything under [fair use](fair_use.md)**! Even though you could lawfully use someone else's copyrighted work under fair use, inclusion of such material would, by the fair use rules, limit what other would be able to do with your work, making it restricted and therefore not public domain. Example: you can probably write a noncommercial Harry Potter fan fiction and share it with friends on the internet because that's fair use, however this fan fiction can never be public domain because it can't e.g. be used commercially, that would no longer fall under fair use, i.e. there is a non-commercial-use-only restriction burdening your work. It doesn't even help if you get an explicit permission to use a copyrighted work in your work unless such permission grants all the right to everyone (not just your work). { I got a mascot removed from [SuperTuxKart](supertuxkart.md) by this argument, mere author's permission to use his work isn't enough to make it free as in freedom. ~drummyfish }
 
 So you can only use your own original creations and other public domain works within your PD work. Here you should highly prefer your own creations because that is legally the safest, no one can ever challenge your right to reuse your own creation, but there is a low but considerable chance that someone else's PD work isn't actually PD or will seize to be PD by some retroactive law change. So when it only takes a small effort to e.g. photograph your own textures for a game instead of using someone else's PD textures, choose to use your own.
 
-{ NOTE: The above is kind of arguing for reinventing wheels which goes a little bit against our philosophy or remixing and information sharing, but we are forced to do this by the system. We are forced to reinvent wheel to ensure that users of our works can't be legally bullied. ~drummyfish }
+{ NOTE: The above is kind of arguing for reinventing wheels which goes a little bit against our philosophy of remixing and information sharing, but we are forced to do this by the system. We are forced to reinvent wheels to ensure that users of our works can't be legally bullied. ~drummyfish }
 
 In cases where you DO reuse other PD works, try to minimize their number and try to make sure they belong to the actual **safe** public domain (see above). This again minimizes legal risk and additionally makes it easy to document and prove the sources.
 

selflessness.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 # Selflessness
 
-Selflessness means acting with the intent of helping others without harming them, gaining edge over them or taking advantage of them in any way. It is the opposite of [self interest](self_interest.md). Selflessness is the basis of an [ideal society](ideal_society.md) and [good technology](lrs.md) (while sadly self interest is the basis of our current dystopian [capitalist](capitalism.md) society).
+Selflessness means acting with the intent of helping others without harming them, gaining edge over them or taking advantage of them in any way. It is the opposite of [self interest](self_interest.md). Selflessness is the basis of an [ideal society](less_retarded_society.md) and [good technology](lrs.md) (while sadly self interest is the basis of our current dystopian [capitalist](capitalism.md) society).
 
-Selflessness is about the **intent** behind behavior rather than about the behavior itself; for example being a [vegetarian](vegetarian.md) (or even [vegan](vegan.md)) for ethical reasons (to spare animals of suffering) is selfless while being a vegetarian only because of one's health concerns is not selfless. Similarly if a selfless behavior unpredictably results in harming someone, it is still a selfless behavior as long as the intent behind it was pure. (Note that this does **NOT** at all advocate the "[ends justify the means](ends_justify_the_means.md)" philosophy.)
+Selflessness is about the **intent** behind behavior rather than about the result of the behavior; for example being a [vegetarian](vegetarian.md) (or even [vegan](vegan.md)) for ethical reasons (to spare animals of suffering) is selfless while being a vegetarian only because of one's health concerns is not selfless. Similarly if a selfless behavior unpredictably results in harming someone, it is still a selfless behavior as long as the intent behind it was pure. (Note that this does **NOT** at all advocate the "[ends justify the means](ends_justify_the_means.md)" philosophy.)
 
 In the real world absolutely pure selflessness may be very hard to find, partly because such behavior by definition seeks no recognition. Acts of sacrificing one's life for another may a lot of times be seen as selfless, but not always (saving one's child in such way may just serve perpetuating own genes, it can also be done to posthumously increase one's fame etc.). An example of high selflessness may perhaps be so called [Langar](langar.md), a big community kitchen run by [Sikhs](sikhism.md) that prepare and serve free [vegetarian](vegetarian.md) food to anyone who comes without differentiating between religious beliefs, skin color, social status, gender etc. Sikhs sometimes also similarly offer a place to stay etc. The mentioned ethical vegetarianism and veganism is another example of selflessness, as well as [LRS](lrs.md) itself, of course.
 

trom.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+# TROM
+
+{ WIP, still being researched. ~drummyfish }
+
+TROM (The Reality Of Me) is a project running since 2011 that's educating mainly about the [harmfulness](harmful.md) of trade-based society and tries to show a better way: that of establishing so called [trade-free](trade_free.md) (in the sense of WITHOUT trade) society. It is similar to e.g. [Venus Project](venus_project.md) (with which TROM collaborated for a while), the [Zeitgeist Movement](zeigeist_movement.md) and our own [LRS](less_retaded_society.md) -- it shares the common core of opposing money and trade as a basis of society (which they correctly identify as the core issue), even though it differs in some details that we (LRS) don't see as wholly insignificant. The project website is at https://www.tromsite.com/.
+
+TROM was started and is run by a Romanian guy called Tio, he has a personal blog at https://www.tiotrom.com and now lives mostly in Spain. The project seems more or less run just by him.
+
+The project is funded through [Patereon](patreon.md) and has created a very impressive volume of very good quality educational materials including books, documentaries, memes, even its own [GNU](gnu.md)/[Linux](linux.md) [distro](distro.md) ([Tromjaro](tromjaro.md)). The materials TROM creates sometimes educate about general topics (e.g. language), not just those directly related to trade-free society -- Tio says that he simply likes to learn all about the world and then share his knowledge.
+
+## Summary
+
+{ WATCH OUT, this is a work in progress sum up based only on my at the moment a rather brief research of the project, I don't yet guarantee this sum up is absolutely correct, that will require me to put in much more time. Read at own risk. ~drummyfish }
+
+**good things about TROM**:
+
+- It identifies trade/money/[capitalism](capitalism.md) as the root cause of most problems in society -- this we basically agree with (we officially consider [competition](competition.md) to be the root cause).
+- It has TONS of very good quality educational materials exposing the truth, breaking corporate propaganda, even showing such things as corruption in [soyence](soyence.md) and [open source](open_source.md) etc. -- that's extremely great.
+
+**bad things about TROM**: 
+
+- It is based on [fight culture](fight_culture.md) and [hero culture](hero_culture.md) (judging by the content of the book *the origin of most problems*, creating superheroes and stating such things as "the world needs an enemy"), which we greatly oppose, we (LRS) don't believe a good and peaceful society can worship heroes and wars. Hopefully this is something the project may realize along the way, however at this point there is a great danger of falling into the trap of turning into a violent revolutionary [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) movement.
+- TROM refuses to use [free (as in freedom) licenses](free_culture.md)! Huge letdown. Tio gives some attempt at explanation at https://www.tiotrom.com/2022/08/free-software-nonsense/, but he doesn't seem to understand the concept of free culture/software very well, he's the "it don't need no license I say do whatever you want" guy.
+- [Bloat](bloat.md), a lot of bloat everywhere, Javascript sites discriminating against non-consumerist computers. Tio isn't a programmer and seems to not be very aware of the issues regarding software, he uses the [Wordpress](wordpress.md) abomination with plugins he BUYS etc.
+- There seems to be signs of [atheist](atheism.md)/iamverysmart/neil de grass overrationalism, see the following point.
+- From Tio's blog TROM seems to be just his one-man project, even though he may employ a few helpers -- not that there's anything wrong about one man projects [:)](lrs.md) -- Tio is very determined, talented in certain areas such as "content creation" etc., however he dropped out of school, he's pretty young and lacks a lot of knowledge and insight into important areas such as technology and free culture while talking about them as if he knew them very well, this is not too good and even poses some dangers. Hell, at times he seems straight from /r/iamverysmart, e.g. with this real cringe at his own theory of black holes https://www.tiotrom.com/2021/11/my-theory-about-black-holes/. Of course it's alright to speculate and talk about anything, but sometimes it seems he thinks he's a genius at everything { Not wanting to make fun of anyone though, been there myself. :) ~drummyfish }. His eagerness is both his great strength and weakness, and as TROM is HIS project, it's the strength and weakness of it as well.

venus_project.md

@@ -36,13 +36,13 @@ The transition towards this society should be **peaceful and evolutionary, NOT r
 
 ## Comparison With LRS
 
-We, [LRS](lrs.md), highly support and agree with the Venus Project, in its analysis of current society, goals and means of achieving it. At least as of 2022, we can't know if any single project will become corrupt in the future (e.g. with [SJWs](sjw.md)). We may still disagree on some details, focus a bit more on different areas etc. Here are a few points about that.
+We, [LRS](lrs.md), highly support and agree with the Venus Project as an idea, in its analysis of current society, goals and means of achieving it. At least as of 2022, we can't know if any single project will become corrupt in the future (e.g. with [SJWs](sjw.md)). We may still disagree on some details, focus a bit more on different areas etc. Here are a few points about that.
 
 Venus Project seems to only focus on humans, unlike LRS which is based on the love of all life, i.e. also animals, possibly even alien life etc. Venus Project mentions that in the future there would possibly be fish farms -- for us this seems unacceptable as we advocate [vegetarianism](vegetarianism.md), even the lives of fish are precious to us. In a highly advanced society artificial meat (which we accept) would probably be available and replace meat from any living animals so we would eventually align with Venus Project, but the human-centeredness of Venus Project is still there.
 
 It may seem we also focus on simplicity of technology (e.g. [sucklessness](suckless.md)) while Venus Project seems to advocate [bloat](bloat.md) and overapplication of technology. This may not be such an issue because a truly good technology that Venus Project advocates should converge towards simplicity naturally thanks to minimizing maintenance, maximizing safety (minimizing dependencies), removal of bullshit features etc. In other word even hi-tech advocated by Venus Project can be done in a suckless way, for example the automation would work on top of [Unix](unix_philosophy.md) operating systems. Still the future from LRS point of view may look less hi-tech, we might prefer simple buttons to voice recognition and so on :-)
 
-Also the project doesn't seem to practice [free culture](free_culture.md) and [free software](free_software.md), even though of course it would implement them in their society -- it kind of makes sense as they seem to be trying to be above current movements, they simply think we should focus beyond them. We might disagree and say that even looking into the far future we should still keep an eye on the now, education about free culture can greatly contribute to education about the advantages of information freedom etc. Furthermore they are selling some videos on their site, which we don't really like but the project justifies it as raising funds for their operation. To their credit they have many gratis videos and educational material, even the books can be found as "free download". Another criticism comes towards the materials themselves which are sometimes a bit unprofessional which is a shame (e.g. the book has many typos and is not so readable). Also there seems to be a bit of personality cult around Jacque and Roxanne, their faces are all over the place and even though they seem like really great people and even though it may simply be due to the lack of other "strong personalities", this makes the movement look like a religious cult to some critics. Nevertheless this changes nothing about the ideas the project presents, which we support.
+And a bit more criticism: the project doesn't seem to practice [free culture](free_culture.md) and [free software](free_software.md), even though of course it would implement them in their society -- it kind of makes sense as they seem to be trying to be above current movements, they simply think we should focus beyond them. We might disagree and say that even looking into the far future we should still keep an eye on the now, education about free culture can greatly contribute to education about the advantages of information freedom etc. Furthermore they are selling some videos on their site, which we don't really like but the project justifies it as raising funds for their operation. To their credit they have many gratis videos and educational material, even the books can be found as "free download". Another criticism comes towards the materials themselves which are sometimes a bit unprofessional which is a shame (e.g. the book has many typos and is not so readable). Also there seems to be a bit of personality cult around Jacque and Roxanne, their faces are all over the place and even though they seem like really great people and even though it may simply be due to the lack of other "strong personalities", this makes the movement look like a religious cult to some critics. Tio, the guy behind [TROM](trom.md) who collaborated with Venus Project also expressed slight criticism of organization of the project, that they were too concerned about control over their materials and that he even met a few toxic people there, though he says the experience was till mostly positive. We have to keep in mind that people, teams and projects are imperfect, they can become spoiled and fail, however this changes nothing about the ideas the project presents, which we support. As always, we have to separate ideas and people -- the situation here is perhaps similar to [free software](free_software.md) as an idea, which we fully support, vs [free software foundation](fsf.md) as a project and team of people, which has a few issues.
 
 ## History
 
@@ -51,4 +51,6 @@ TODO
 ## See Also
 
 - [less retarded society](less_retarded_society.md)
-- [Zeitgeist Movement](zeitgeist_movement.md)
+- [trade-free](trade_free.md)
+- [Zeitgeist Movement](zeitgeist_movement.md)
+- [TROM](trom.md)