Update

21st_century.md

@@ -12,11 +12,11 @@ This so called society has achieved for the "first world" (also western or "civi
 - People are miserable, unhappy, powerless, constantly unsatisfied, clinically depressed or clinically [optimistic](optimism.md), apathetic, paranoid, passive, hostile to others, without empathy, [love](love.md) and compassion, seeing only [money](money.md), [self interest](self_interest.md) and [competition](competition.md).
 - People [slave](work.md) for their whole lives, all year round, regardless of weather or health, even at home and on "holidays" ("thanks" to so called "[modern](modern.md) technology"), spending days performing [meaningless tasks](bullshit.md) just for the sake of staying busy, wasting their best years in dungeons, poisoned unnatural environment being yelled at by managers and bosses, under constant surveillance, [pressured to never stop](productivity_cult.md), left exhausted and depressed, broken.
 
-In 21st century there are already long established offices whose sole purpose is to ensure people cannot make use of useful ideas (see [patents](patent.md)). More and more so called "[rights](rights_culture.md)" are being invented, which ensure people have less and less [freedom](freedom.md). It is also possible -- and completely common -- to draw a rectangle on the ground and then buy a paper that makes it possible to bully anyone who should enter the rectangle, even kill him. Whole [Earth](earth.md) is now covered with such rectangles, it is impossible to set foot anywhere else -- in fact if you want to live, you have to buy a paper that gives you your own rectangle where you won't be bullied if you fall asleep, but you have to continuously pay for that paper, i.e. you are doomed to slavery just by existing. In 21 century it is forbidden to [shit](shit.md) or urinate if you have no money in your pocket, without money you are OFFICIALLY supposed and expected to hold it until your bladder explodes and you bleed out in the streets (and you'll be posthumously charged the cleaning costs) -- should you find yourself in a big city (which soon will be just everywhere) and in need of shitting, you can't do it, you may only pay someone to let you take a shit in his house. Also in 21st century you cannot eat food that is right next to you, that no one else is eating and that will be thrown away, and that even if you're starving -- it is called theft and you will be beaten for it, probably even killed. In this century you can also no longer drink from rivers or lakes, they have been poisoned so that you cannot drink at all if you don't have money in your pocket -- doing the same with air is already work in progress, major cities already have borderline unbreathable air. Never ending torture is part of everyday life: for example every day you are forced to stop sleeping very early and go perform obnoxious [slavery](work.md) that you hate deeply, the whole day you are continuously targeted with repeated brainwashing ([ads](marketing.md), news, social media, [fear culture](fear_culture.md), industrial noise, ...) that equate psychological torture. In 21st century every [joke](jokes.md) has to be preceded by at least 10 times its length of [disclaimers](disclaimer.md), apologies to anyone who might find the joke unfunny, to the corporations that hold ownership of the words that the joke borrows, warning that the font may cause epileptic seizure, waivers of any responsibility for anything the joke may cause, threat to anyone who would think of copying the joke, attribution of all people in history thanks to which the joke is possible, several ads for sponsors of the joke and warnings about the pure coincidental similarity between any real life concepts and the concepts used in the joke -- after reading this you don't even want to read the joke anymore. But people have conformed to it, it is now standard. There are many more things like this but trying to recount them all would result in many thousands of billions of volumes of books.
+In 21st century there are already long standing offices whose sole purpose is to ensure people cannot make use of useful ideas (see [patents](patent.md)). More and more so called "[rights](rights_culture.md)" are being invented, which ensure people have less and less [freedom](freedom.md). It is also possible -- and completely common -- to draw a rectangle on the ground and then buy a paper that makes it possible to bully anyone who should enter the rectangle, even kill him. Whole [Earth](earth.md) is now covered with such rectangles, it is impossible to set foot anywhere else -- in fact if you want to live, you have to buy a paper that gives you your own rectangle where you won't be bullied if you fall asleep, but you have to continuously pay for that paper, i.e. you are doomed to slavery just by existing. In 21 century it is forbidden to [shit](shit.md) or urinate if you have no money in your pocket, without money you are OFFICIALLY supposed and expected to hold it until your bladder explodes and you bleed out in the streets (and you'll be posthumously charged the cleaning costs) -- should you find yourself in a big city (which soon will be just everywhere) and in need of shitting, you can't do it, you may only pay someone to let you take a shit in his house. Also in 21st century you cannot eat food that is right next to you, that no one else is eating and that will be thrown away, and that even if you're starving -- it is called theft and you will be beaten for it, probably even killed. In this century you can also no longer drink from rivers or lakes, they have been poisoned so that you cannot drink at all if you don't have money in your pocket -- doing the same with air is already work in progress, major cities already have borderline unbreathable air. Never ending torture is part of everyday life: for example every day you are forced to stop sleeping very early and go perform obnoxious [slavery](work.md) that you hate deeply, the whole day you are continuously targeted with repeated brainwashing ([ads](marketing.md), news, social media, [fear culture](fear_culture.md), industrial noise, ...) that equate psychological torture. In 21st century every [joke](jokes.md) has to be preceded by at least 10 times its length of [disclaimers](disclaimer.md), apologies to anyone who might find the joke unfunny, to the corporations that hold ownership of the words that the joke borrows, warning that the font may cause epileptic seizure, waivers of any responsibility for anything the joke may cause, threat to anyone who would think of copying the joke, attribution of all people in history thanks to which the joke is possible, several ads for sponsors of the joke and warnings about the pure coincidental similarity between any real life concepts and the concepts used in the joke -- after reading this you don't even want to read the joke anymore. But people have conformed to it, it is now standard. There are many more things like this but trying to recount them all would result in many thousands of billions of volumes of books.
 
 Millions of animals are tortured and brutally murdered on a daily basis in city-sized concentration camps that make Auschwitz look like the garden of Eden. They pump living beings with growth hormones, keep them chained and pump food down their throats with pipes, not letting them see sunlight for their whole lives, they force them to sex and take babies away from mothers. This is a never ending, never stopping horror, done solely so that morbidly fat biotrash can fill their stomach with yet more hamburgers.
 
-The hardest thing to do among all this [evil](evil.md) is not becoming evil yourself, whole society is pressuring you to it every single day and that is why everyone has given in. Those resisting are swiftly removed, forbidden from reproducing and ensured to die -- that is why there are no more good people around.
+Presumably the most difficult challenge amidst all this [evil](evil.md) is not to become evil yourself, the whole society is pressuring you to do every single day and that is why practically everybody has given in. Those resisting are swiftly removed, forbidden from reproducing and ensured to die -- that is why there are no more good people around. This is nothing short of a genocide of the good people.
 
 Maybe most depressing of all is that a reader of this article, himself living in this hell, will think it's a [joke](jokes.md) or exaggeration while it's in fact just an exact, accurate description stripped of lies, propaganda and fake [optimism](optimism.md). People think this is a joke or sarcasm because it would be unbearable to accept the reality of living in such an absurd world, it's better for them to cover the fact with laughter as if it then made it not real.
 

3d_model.md

@@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ TODO: other types of models, texturing etcetc.
 
 **Do you want to start 3D modeling?** Or do you already know a bit about it and **just want some advice to get better?** Then let us share a few words of advice here.
 
-Let us preface by mentioning the **[hacker](hacking.md) chad way of making 3D models**, i.e. the [LRS](lrs.md) way 3D models should ideally be made. Remeber, **you don't need any program to create 3D models**, you don't have to be a Blender whore, you can make 3D models perfectly fine without Blender or any similar program, and even without computers. Sure, a certain kind of highly artistic, animated, very high poly models will be very hard or impossible to make without an interactive tool like Blender, but you can still make very complex 3D models, such as that of a whole city, without any fancy tools. Of course people were making statues and similar kinds of "physical 3D models" for thousands of years -- sometimes it's actually simpler to make the model by hand out of clay and later scan it into the computer, you can just make a physical wireframe model, measure the positions of vertices, hand type them into a file and you have a perfectly valid 3d model -- you may also easily make a polygonal model out of paper, BUT even virtual 3D models can simply be made with pen and paper, it's just numbers, vertices and [triangles](triangle.md), very manageable if you keep it simple and well organized. You can directly write the models in text formats like obj or collada. First computer 3D models were actually made by hand, just with pen and paper, because there were simply no computers fast enough to even allow real time manipulation of 3D models; back then the modelers simply measured positions of someone object's "key points" (vertices) in 3D space which can simply be done with tools like rulers and strings, no need for complex 3D scanners (but if you have a digital camera, you have a quite advanced 3D scanner already). They then fed the manually made models to the computer to visualize them, but again, you don't even need a computer to draw a 3D model, in fact there is a whole area called [descriptive geometry](descriptive_geometry.md) that's all about drawing 3D models on paper and which was used by engineers before computers came. Anyway, you don't have to go as far as avoiding computers of course -- if you have a programmable computer, you already have the luxury which the first 3D artists didn't have, a whole new world opens up to you, you can now make very complex 3D models just with your programming language of choice. Imagine you want to make the said 3D model of a city just using the [C](c.md) programming language. You can first define the terrain as [heightmap](heightmap.md) simply as a 2D array of numbers, then you write a simple code that will iterate over this array and converts it to the obj format (a very simple plain text 3D format, it will be like 20 lines of code) -- now you have the basic terrain, you can render it with any tool that can load 3D models in obj format (basically every 3D tool), AND you may of course write your own 3D visualizer, there is nothing difficult about it, you don't even have to use perspective, just draw it in orthographic projection (again, that will be probably like 20 lines of code). Now you may start adding houses to your terrain -- make a C array of vertices and another array of triangle indices, manually make a simple 3D model of a house (a basic shape will have fewer than 20 vertices, you can cut it out of paper to see what it will look like). That's your house geometry, now just keep making instances of this house and placing them on the terrain, i.e. you make some kind of struct that will keep the house transformation (its position, rotation and scale) and each such struct will represent one house having the geometry you created (if you later improve the house model, all houses will be updates like this). You don't have to worry about placing the houses vertically, their height will be computed automatically so they sit right on the terrain. Now you can update your model exporter to take into account the houses, it will output the obj model along with them and again, you can view this whole model in any 3D software or with your own tools. You can continue by adding trees, roads, simple materials (maybe just something like per triangle colors) and so on. This approach may actually even be superior for some projects just as scripting is superior to many GUI programs, you can collaborate on this model just like you can collaborate on any other text program, you can automatize things greatly, you'll be independent of proprietary formats and platforms etcetc. This is how 3D models would ideally be made.
+Let us preface by mentioning the **[hacker](hacking.md) chad way of making 3D models**, i.e. the [LRS](lrs.md) way 3D models should ideally be made. Remeber, **you don't need any program to create 3D models**, you don't have to be a Blender whore, you can make 3D models perfectly fine without Blender or any similar program, and even without computers. Sure, a certain kind of highly artistic, animated, very high poly models will be very hard or impossible to make without an interactive tool like Blender, but you can still make very complex 3D models, such as that of a whole city, without any fancy tools. Of course people were making statues and similar kinds of "physical 3D models" for thousands of years -- sometimes it's actually simpler to make the model by hand out of clay and later scan it into the computer, you can just make a physical wireframe model, measure the positions of vertices, hand type them into a file and you have a perfectly valid 3d model -- you may also easily make a polygonal model out of paper, BUT even virtual 3D models can simply be made with pen and paper, it's just numbers, vertices and [triangles](triangle.md), very manageable if you keep it simple and well organized. You can directly write the models in text formats like obj or collada. First computer 3D models were actually made by hand, just with pen and paper, because there were simply no computers fast enough to even allow real time manipulation of 3D models; back then the modelers simply measured positions of someone object's "key points" (vertices) in 3D space which can simply be done with tools like rulers and strings, no need for complex 3D scanners (but if you have a digital camera, you have a quite advanced 3D scanner already). They then fed the manually made models to the computer to visualize them, but again, you don't even need a computer to draw a 3D model, in fact there is a whole area called [descriptive geometry](descriptive_geometry.md) that's all about drawing 3D models on paper and which was used by engineers before computers came. Anyway, you don't have to go as far as avoiding computers of course -- if you have a programmable computer, you already have the luxury which the first 3D artists didn't have, a whole new world opens up to you, you can now make very complex 3D models just with your programming language of choice. Imagine you want to make the said 3D model of a city just using the [C](c.md) programming language. You can first define the terrain as [heightmap](heightmap.md) simply as a 2D array of numbers, then you write a simple code that will iterate over this array and converts it to the obj format (a very simple plain text 3D format, it will be like 20 lines of code) -- now you have the basic terrain, you can render it with any tool that can load 3D models in obj format (basically every 3D tool), AND you may of course write your own 3D visualizer, there is nothing difficult about it, you don't even have to use perspective, just draw it in orthographic projection (again, that will be probably like 20 lines of code). Now you may start adding houses to your terrain -- make a C array of vertices and another array of triangle indices, manually make a simple 3D model of a house (a basic shape will have fewer than 20 vertices, you can cut it out of paper to see what it will look like). That's your house geometry, now just keep making instances of this house and placing them on the terrain, i.e. you make some kind of struct that will keep the house transformation (its position, rotation and scale) and each such struct will represent one house having the geometry you created (if you later improve the house model, all houses will be updates like this). You don't have to worry about placing the houses vertically, their height will be computed automatically so they sit right on the terrain. Now you can update your model exporter to take into account the houses, it will output the obj model along with them and again, you can view this whole model in any 3D software or with your own tools. You can continue by adding trees, roads, simple materials (maybe just something like per triangle colors) and so on. This approach may actually even be superior for some projects just as scripting is superior to many GUI programs, you can collaborate on this model just like you can collaborate on any other text program, you can automate things greatly, you'll be independent of proprietary formats and platforms etcetc. This is how 3D models would ideally be made.
 
 OK, back to the mainstream now. Nowadays as a [FOSS](foss.md) user you will most likely do 3D modeling with [Blender](blender.md) -- we recommended it to start learning 3D modeling as it is powerful, [free](free_software.md), gratis, has many tutorials etc. Do NOT use anything [proprietary](proprietary.md) no matter what anyone tells you! Once you know a bit about the art, you may play around with alternative programs or approaches (such as writing programs that generate 3D models etc.). However **as a beginner just start with Blender**, which is from now on in this article the software we'll suppose you're using.
 

anorexia.md

@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ And to debunk another one: **increased mental effort doesn't burn more calories*
 
 And another one :) NO, **the body doesn't start storing more fat if you give it few calories**, that's bullshit. There seems to be circulating this hoax, perhaps propelled by its usability as a convenient excuse for not undertaking a diet, that a body deprived of food "gets scared" and "starts hoarding more fat". [LMAO](lmao.md), not true at all, it doesn't work like this, definitely not to any significant level. Do you think someone overeating will therefore start getting slimmer because the body sees there is enough food? Your body will eventually start hoarding more fat, but more due to aging and other factors. Stop looking for excuses.
 
-**[BMI](bmi.md)** (body mass index) is a measure often used to calculate how fat someone is depending on weight and height, you can use it to track where you stand.
+**[BMI](bmi.md)** (body mass index) is a measure often used to calculate how fat someone is depending on weight and height, you can use it to track where you stand. It's calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the squared height in meters. 18.5 to 25 is considered normal, healthy BMI, more than 40 is morbidly obese, less than 16.5 is morbidly anorexic, death is incoming.
 
 **Everybody can lose weight, no excuses exist**. Fatties frequently go on crying about how they just won't lose weight despite diets because of "bad genes" or whatever but this is disputed by [physics](physics.md) itself: if a man is able to not eat and keep his weight, he is literally breaking physics laws, creating [energy](energy.md) from nothing and should be awarded Nobel Prize for the greatest breakthrough in science. It's always only about having the will to not eat as much. This might come with a possible exception that will nonetheless be rare: even though literally everyone CAN lose weight, it's possible some might be cursed with such a bizarre condition that would cause them to die if they lost weight, for which they'd have to choose not to lose it. So if your excuse is to be "I cannot lose weight because of health problems", please be sure to prove that reaching healthy weight would kill you, otherwise please stop bullshitting everyone, admit you're lazy, stay fat and be happy, there is nothing wrong about making that decision.
 
@@ -62,8 +62,9 @@ And now to some general tips:
   - **coffee-like drinks**: Stuff used as substitutes to coffee, e.g. barley coffee (caffe d'orzo), cereal coffee etc.
   - **tea** (no sugar): Basically just hot water, absolutely guilt free, healthy drink, many different flavors.
   - **sparkling water**: Some people really love it. It's possible to get mildly flavored water too.
+  - **salt**: Licking salt can literally almost feel like eating something yummy and salty, it's a very cool trick, but mustn't be overdone, obviously.
   - **diet versions of drinks**: There exist zero calorie versions of coca cola, energy drinks etc., and they DO taste basically the same as the normal version, however these drinks are quite unhealthy so they shouldn't be consumed regularly. One can use them as a kind of "treat" for losing another kilogram for example ;)
-  - **wholegrain styrofoam bread**: That kind of small, dry biscuit-like bread that doesn't taste great on its own but is excellent to replace normal bread, very good to make nice small vegetable sandwiches.
+  - **stevia**: Natural sweetener, three times sweeter than sugar, with practically zero calories! Can be used instead of sugar. It can be licked like salt to satisfy the sweet tastes, but again must be done sparingly.
   - ...
 - **low(er) calorie food**: This is what you want your meals to consist of. In general you want stuff with a lot of water in it as water makes it bigger (makes you full) and has no calories.
   - **fruit/vegetable**: Obviously, very tasty, healthy and cool.
@@ -73,12 +74,12 @@ And now to some general tips:
   - **juices (watered down)**: Natural juices are tasty and only have few calories, which can further be reduced by adding water.
   - **almond milk**: Not zero but very low on calories, used as a substitute to normal milk.
   - **tofu**: Amazing, yummy, good low calorie replacement for meat.
+  - **wholegrain styrofoam bread**: That kind of small, dry biscuit-like bread that doesn't taste great on its own but is excellent to replace normal bread, very good to make nice small vegetable sandwiches.
   - **couscous**: Pretty tasty.
   - **soups**: Consist mostly of water and taste great.
   - **mozzarella and some processed cheese**: Cheese can have quite a lot of calories in general but it can be eaten e.g. instead of meat. Again, preferable are the "watery" kinds of cheese like mozzarella.
   - **salads**: Normally not many like salads, but wait when you're real hungry, everything's delicious.
-  - **stevia**: Natural sweetener, three times sweeter than sugar, with practically zero calories! Can be used instead of sugar.
-  - **honey**: It's not exactly low in calories but it's a good replacement for normal sugar and sweets in times of crisis. Firstly it has considerably less calories than normal sugar, but it's also healthier AND quite filling, so in a crisis instead of eating a whole chocolate it's often enough to take one spoon of honey.
+  - **honey**: It's not exactly low in calories but it's a good replacement for normal sugar and sweets in times of a crisis. Firstly it has considerably less calories than normal sugar, but it's also healthier AND quite filling, so in a crisis instead of eating a whole chocolate it's often enough to take one spoon of honey.
 - **[depression](depression.md)**: In depression one lose appetite and starts to lose weight like nothing. Depression sucks but this is a small advantage.
 - **when/how to weight oneself**: For accurate tracking one must always weight at the same time of the day, usually morning, and under the same conditions, i.e. without clothes, after peeing etc. The weight jumps up and down quite rapidly, for example we sweat out a lot of liquid during the night etc. It's also pointless to weight every day, weighting every friday for example is cool.
 - **[colors](color.md) affect appetite**: It's a psychological effect; red color makes people more hungry (that's why all fast foods use it), but colors such as blue, purple and black on the other hand suppress hunger. Painting one's room blue and spending time in blue environments can therefore lead to eating less.

autostereogram.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ TODO
 
 ## Random Dot Autostereograms
 
-The "random dot" technique gives rise to an especially [interesting](interesting.md) type of autostereogram -- one whose creation can easily be automatized with a program and which lets us embed any depth image (or *[heightmap](heightmap.md)*) into an image that consists of some repeating base pattern. And yes, it can even be animated! The pattern image may in theory be anything, even a photo, but it should have great variety, high frequencies and big contrast to work properly, so the typical pattern is just randomly generated color dots. This pattern is then horizontally deformed according to the embedded depth image. A disadvantage is, of course, that we can only embed the depth image, we cannot give it any texture.
+The "random dot" technique gives rise to an especially [interesting](interesting.md) type of autostereogram -- one whose creation can easily be automated with a program and which lets us embed any depth image (or *[heightmap](heightmap.md)*) into an image that consists of some repeating base pattern. And yes, it can even be animated! The pattern image may in theory be anything, even a photo, but it should have great variety, high frequencies and big contrast to work properly, so the typical pattern is just randomly generated color dots. This pattern is then horizontally deformed according to the embedded depth image. A disadvantage is, of course, that we can only embed the depth image, we cannot give it any texture.
 
 TODO: more detail
 

c_tutorial.md

@@ -1089,7 +1089,7 @@ Creature named Hid (430 kg, 3 legs)
 
 ## Macros/Preprocessor
 
-The C language comes with a feature called *preprocessor* which is necessary for some advanced things. It allows automatized modification of the source code before it is compiled.
+The C language comes with a feature called *preprocessor* which is necessary for some advanced things. It allows automated modification of the source code before it is compiled.
 
 Remember how we said that compiler compiles C programs in several steps such as generating object files and linking? There is one more step we didn't mention: **[preprocessing](preprocessing.md)**. It is the very first step -- the source code you give to the compiler first goes to the preprocessor which modifies it according to special commands in the source code called **preprocessor directives**. The result of preprocessing is a pure C code without any more preprocessing directives, and this is handed over to the actual compilation.
 

cheating.md

@@ -26,6 +26,18 @@ Back in the day of early Internet there were practically no anticheating measure
 
 { Because I advocate acceptance of cheating people may perhaps think I like to cheat myself and may be asking if I ever cheated in online games or similar competition. The answer is: 100% NO, I don't see a slightest point in cheating -- I would cheat if I enjoyed it but there is completely zero value in doing it for me personally, so I never did and never even thought about it, I never even helped myself with a little cheat in legit playthroughs of singleplayer games, I think that's only for pussies and women and it would absolutely kill my joy of finishing the game, I usually even refuse to play games on non-hard difficulty. If I ever played online games, I did it for enjoyment of the play itself and many times for testing how good I can get, cheating would help me with neither. I only ever used cheats in "sandbox" plays of offline games like GTA, when I simply want to become god and rain havoc on the world, but this is absolutely standard and accepted even by normies, so not much point in even mentioning this. Think about the motivation behind cheating: online cheating is NEVER done for satisfying a need of accomplishment, the cheater himself KNOWS he didn't legitimately achieve the victory, i.e. cheating is done for other reasons -- sometimes lighthearted trolling and fun (which actually is probably a cool reason), but most often the reason is following: ATTENTION. Online cheater cheats not to feel accomplishment but to gain attention, fame, followers, to masturbate his egoism and/or to mine some money, power and other advantages from the online attention capital. It's basically pure capitalism: he sees an opportunity for profit, it's like business, and so he simply grabs it -- it doesn't even matter what the business in question is, it's more of seeing a hole in the market, potential for abuse, a place to be filled, like seeing money on the ground: he simply can't leave it lying there, for him there is no ethics or shame, just a "stupidity of not taking an opportunity". Hopefully it's clear I'm not in a slightest interested in behaving like a cretin capitalist monkey, and that I find it quite filthy, retarded, unethical and good only for Americans maybe, hence it should be pretty clear why I am not interested in cheating. However I still think the option to cheat should be open, so that people can decide themselves whether to cheat or not. ~drummyfish }
 
+## Funny Instances Of Cheating
+
+As much as people claim to be absolutely disgusted by cheating, they actually love it and when it happens, it's always much more [entertaining](fun.md) than the sport itself -- spectators love it, media love it, Internet loves it, it makes for fun conversations, it's something exciting and fresh in otherwise boring sports. Here are some cases:
+
+- One of the funnies cases was the Spanish basketball team at the 2000 Paralympic games pretending to be "[retarded](retard.md)", i.e. to have an abnormally low [IQ](iq.md), solely so that they could partake in Paralympics, when in fact they were of normal intelligence (i.e. normal retards like most other people).
+- [Anal beads](anal_bead.md) in [chess](chess.md): there was a famous drama around the match between Carlsen and Niemann that was very suspiciously won by Niemann and many theorized he could have been using a remotely operated vibrating anal bead to receive external evaluate of the game by a chess engine.
+- So called "mechanical" and/or "technological" doping, most notably the use of hidden electromotors in cycling that started to appear recently -- yes, people have actually been caught using them, it is a thing. There are many controversies around specific running shoes, swimsuits, curling brooms etc., worth digging into.
+- Cycling is in fact a goldmine of hilarious cheating scandals, for example the runners paid some spectators to throw pins under the wheels of their opponents, or there was a guy who, at the top of a hill, was handed a "water" bottle by his team, which was in fact filled by lead that subsequently dragged him down the hill faster. Some cyclists just shamelessly let themselves be dragged by the team's support car when they're handing them the water bottle, regardless of several cameras filming them at any given moment.
+- Rosie Ruiz (a [woman](woman.md)) was a "marathon runner" who used to take rides during the run, during the Boston Marathon she simply took the subway :D
+- TV shows: In [1984](1984.md) Michael Larson, a kind of absolute autist, obsessively watched some sort of crappy quiz show that involved pressing buttons and he observed a pattern in what should have been a [random](randomness.md) blinking of lights or something, then he went on the show and with the knowledge absolutely destroyed it, won over $100K and created one of the biggest scandals in TV history. In 2001 Charles Ingram cheated his way to winning the *Who Wants to Be a Millionaire* by letting his wife in the audience cough on correct answers. Etcetc.
+- TODO: more more more
+
 ## How To Cheat
 
 WORK IN PROGRESS

check.sh

@@ -4,8 +4,9 @@
 echo "===== trailing spaces:"
 grep -rno "   \+$" *.md
 
-echo "===== links not ending in .md:"
-grep -rno "\[[^]]*\]([^)]*\([^.)][^)][^)]\|[^)][^m)][^)]\|[^)][^)][^d)]\))" *.md
+echo "===== weird links:"
+grep -rno "\[[^]]*\]([^)]*\([^.)][^)][^)]\|[^)][^m)][^)]\|[^)][^)][^d)]\))" *.md \
+  | grep -vi "\(\.htm\|.com\|.net\|.php\|\.org\|\.eu\|.cz\|.xyz\|.io\|\.top\)"
 
 typos="("
 typos="${typos}pubic|noticabl|occassion|ocassion|occure|occurres|adress"
@@ -16,7 +17,7 @@ typos="${typos}taht|lightening|milleni|milenni|miniscule|mispell|neccessar|"
 typos="${typos}necces|occasionaly|occurrance|occurence|passtime|posess|"
 typos="${typos}possese|preceed|priviledge|reccom|refered|succesful|sucessful|"
 typos="${typos}errorne|erorrne|superced|tommor|vaccu|wierd|wellfare|acknoleg"
-typos="${typos}aparrent|collegue|deppres"
+typos="${typos}aparrent|collegue|deppres|automatize"
 typos="${typos})"
 
 echo "===== common typos:"

data_hoarding.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ Here let be an advice to the good data hoarder.
 - **Use appropriate formats and quality**: if the value of the data is text, save it as txt (even if you found it in pdf), if it's a black and white scan, save it as black and white image (no need for RGB, sometimes not even shades of gray, 1bit is enough), if it's a diagram, find vector version of it and save that, if it's a meme whose entertaining value will be preserved even at half resolution, don't save it at 1080K, save it at lowest acceptable quality etc. Some types of images, such as big pixel art or bitmap diagrams, are best saved by converting them to indexed mode with let's say 32 colors and then saving then as PNG (it often beats even lossy JPEG). Use simple, common file formats that can be handled by free software or custom written tools, do NOT use proprietary formats or formats that are extremely complicated if you can at all avoid it. Go to great lengths to extract valuable data out of shitty formats: for example if you find a vlog video whose main value is in what's being said and not the video itself, rather find and store the video text transcript ([youtube](youtube.md) has automatic or even manual transcripts for almost all videos, they can be downloaded) than the video itself (it takes much less space, can be searched, indexed, printed and backed up on paper, ...), or, as the next best thing, extract only audio and compress that so that it's just barely understandable (convert to mono, 8bit 8 KHz, store as OGG with very low bitrate).
 - **Careful with that [compression](compression.md), Eugene**: compression can be good but again, only use it when appropriate, in most cases compression will be achieved just by saving the data in good format (and such compression will generally be even better than general purpose compression). General purpose compression (zip etc.) brings in trouble, for example it makes the data more prone to corruption (removes redundancy, increases entropy), it adds a dependency on the decompression program, it makes the files harder to inspect etc. Use it only on very large files that will get reduced a lot, for example some extremely huge dump of text data will likely benefit from being zipped.
 - **See how to do [backups](backup.md) well** and stick to that.
-- **Use and make tools, automatize**. For example if you're downloading a lot of Wikipedia articles, make a simple script that will extract just the article text, throwing away the unnecessary sidebar, script and styles. Minify all websites you download, remove image tags if you're not saving images etc. Make converting images quicker and simpler e.g. with some ImageMagick scripts. Similarly use ffmpeg to tame your videos. There already exist many web scrapers and format converters and a lot can be achieved with the basic Unix tools, just look stuff up.
+- **Use and make tools, automate**. For example if you're downloading a lot of Wikipedia articles, make a simple script that will extract just the article text, throwing away the unnecessary sidebar, script and styles. Minify all websites you download, remove image tags if you're not saving images etc. Make converting images quicker and simpler e.g. with some ImageMagick scripts. Similarly use ffmpeg to tame your videos. There already exist many web scrapers and format converters and a lot can be achieved with the basic Unix tools, just look stuff up.
 - **Organization may be good**: primarily try to name the files well, only use alphanumeric characters and underscore, limit the filename length and adopt some general naming rules (it may be cool if the filename contains some simple [hash](hash.md) of the file itself so that adding a file with an already existing name won't overwrite the previous file). This will help preserve correct names when copying between different systems, and it will make searching more comfortable too. Some general directory structure may be cool, for example separating free and proprietary data will allow you to easily upload the free part anywhere on the Internet and so partially back it up, whereas with proprietary data you might get in trouble. Do not overdo organization though, that may lead to huge mess (see Wikimedia Commons category hell), obsessions and wasting time, even complicating the search for something -- [keep it simple](kiss.md). Put some thought into WHY you're organizing the files that way, don't just do it because it "looks nice", just use your fucking brain.
 - **NEVER [ENCRYPT](encryption.md)** for fucks sake, encryption is [shit](shit.md), you might as well smear your smelly diarrhea over it.
 - ...

debugging.md

@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ The following are some of the most common methods used to debug software, roughl
 
 ### Testing
 
-[Testing](testing.md) is an area of itself, it's the main method of finding bugs. There are many kind of testing like manual testing (just playing around with the program), [automatic testing](automatic_testing.md) (automatized testing by a program), security/penetration testing, stress testing, whitebox/blackbox testing, unit testing, code reviews and whatnot. **[Formal verification](verification.md)** is similar to testing that can reveal further bugs, but it's more difficult to do.
+[Testing](testing.md) is an area of itself, it's the main method of finding bugs. There are many kind of testing like manual testing (just playing around with the program), [automatic testing](automatic_testing.md) (automated testing by a program), security/penetration testing, stress testing, whitebox/blackbox testing, unit testing, code reviews and whatnot. **[Formal verification](verification.md)** is similar to testing that can reveal further bugs, but it's more difficult to do.
 
 ### Eyeballing
 

egoism.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Egoism
 
-*Egoism*, *egocentrism*, *narcissism*, *self love*, *self centrism* and similar terms usually refer to a highly [harmful](harmful.md) [disease](disease.md) that makes one preoccupied with oneself, put himself before others, glorify himself and/or pursue purely his own personal [self interest](self_interest.md), i.e. more or less being a [fascist](fascism.md) with fascist radius encompassing only one's own body. This condition is extremely common e.g. in [Americans](usa.md), but lately -- under advancing [capitalism](capitalism.md) -- also in whole first world.
+*Egoism*, *egocentrism*, *narcissism*, *self love*, *self centrism* and similar terms usually refer to a highly [harmful](harmful.md) [disease](disease.md) that makes one preoccupied with oneself, put himself before others, glorify himself and/or pursue purely his own personal [self interest](self_interest.md), i.e. more or less being a [fascist](fascism.md) with fascist radius encompassing only one's own body. This condition is extremely common e.g. in [Americans](usa.md), but lately -- under advancing [capitalism](capitalism.md) -- also in whole first world. It's tragic but not surprising in the slightest, what else to expect under a system whose core principles are self interest, only caring about self and glorification of greed?
 
 Some signs of egoism include:
 

free_hardware.md

@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
 # Free/Freedom-Friendly Hardware
 
-Free (as in freedom) hardware is a form of ethical [hardware](hardware.md) aligned with the philosophy of [free (as in freedom) software](free_software.md), i.e. having a free [licensed](license.md) designed that allows anyone to study, use, modify and share such designs for any purpose and so prevent abuse of users by technology. Let us note the word *free* refers to user freedom, not price! Sometimes the term may be more broadly and not completely correctly used even for hardware that's just highly compatible with purely free software systems -- let us rather call these a **freedom friendly hardware** -- and sometimes people misunderstand the term *free* as meaning "gratis hardware"; to avoid misunderstandings [GNU](gnu.md) recommends using the term **free design hardware** or **libre hardware** for free hardware in the strict sense, i.e. hardware with free licensed design. Sometimes -- nowadays maybe even more often -- the term *"[open source](open_source.md)" hardware* or *open hardware* with very similar meaning is encountered, but that is of course a [harmful](harmful.md) terminology as open source is an inherently harmful [capitalist](capitalism.md) movement ignoring the ethical question of freedom -- hence it is recommended to prefer using the term free hardware. Sometimes the acronym FOSH (free and open source hardware) is used neutrally, similarly to [FOSS](foss.md). Indeed we will find many different definitions of *free hardware* and *free technology*, usually with same core ideas but sometimes in disagreement; for example the [Trash Magic](trash_magic.md) manifesto states that free hardware and technology is that which "gives more than it takes", that it's only that which can be made from the available waste stream of current society even by a non-expert (i.e. being free not just legally but also [practically](de_facto.md)), which is further not encumbered by any intellectual property etc.; for this it excludes "open source" hardware from inclusion under free hardware (as "open source" hardware may require factories, high expertise etc.).
+Free (as in freedom) hardware is a form of ethical [hardware](hardware.md) aligned with the philosophy of [free (as in freedom) software](free_software.md), i.e. built upon a free [licensed](license.md) designed that allows anyone to study, use, modify and share such designs for any purpose and so prevent abuse of users by technological means. Let us note the word *[free](libre.md)* refers to user freedom, not price! Occasionally the term may be more broadly and not completely accurately used even for hardware that's just highly compatible with purely free software systems -- let us rather call these a **freedom friendly hardware** -- and sometimes people misunderstand the term *free* as meaning "gratis hardware"; to avoid misunderstandings [GNU](gnu.md) recommends using the term **free design hardware** or **libre hardware** for free hardware in the strict sense, i.e. hardware with free licensed design. Sometimes -- nowadays maybe even more often -- the term *"[open source](open_source.md)" hardware* or *open hardware* with very similar meaning is encountered, but that is of course a [harmful](harmful.md) terminology as open source is an inherently harmful [capitalist](capitalism.md) movement ignoring the ethical question of freedom -- hence it is recommended to prefer using the term free hardware. Sometimes the acronym FOSH (free and open source hardware) is used neutrally, similarly to [FOSS](foss.md). Indeed we will find many different definitions of *free hardware* and *free technology*, usually with same core ideas but sometimes in disagreement; for example the [Trash Magic](trash_magic.md) manifesto states that free hardware and technology is that which "gives more than it takes", that it's only that which can be made from the available waste stream of current society even by a non-expert (i.e. being free not just legally but also [practically](de_facto.md)), which is further not encumbered by any intellectual property etc.; for this it excludes "open source" hardware from inclusion under free hardware (as "open source" hardware may require factories, high expertise etc.).
 
-[GNU](gnu.md), just like [us](lrs.md), highly advocates for free hardware, though, unlike with software, they don't completely reject using non-free hardware nowadays, not just for practical reasons (purely free hardware basically doesn't exist), but also because hardware is fundamentally different from software and it is possible to use *some* non-free hardware (usually the older one) relatively safely, without sacrificing freedom. The [FSF](fsf.md) issues so called **[Respects Your Freedom](ryf.md)** (RYF) certification for non-malicious hardware products, both free and non-free, that can be used with 100% free software (even though RYF has also been a target of some criticism of free software activists).
+[GNU](gnu.md), in agreement with [us](lrs.md), advocates for free hardware, though, unlike with software, they currently don't advocate for absolutely restraining from using non-free hardware, not just for practical reasons (purely free hardware practically doesn't exist), but also because hardware is fundamentally different from software and it is possible to use *some* non-free hardware (usually the older machines) relatively safely, without sacrificing freedom "too much". The [FSF](fsf.md) issues so called **[Respects Your Freedom](ryf.md)** (RYF) certification for non-malicious hardware products, both free and non-free, that can be used with 100% free software (even though RYF has also been a target of some criticism of free software activists).
 
-We, [LRS](lrs.md), advocate for more strict criteria than just a free-licensed hardware design, for example we prefer complete [public domain](public_domain.md) and advocate high [simplicity](kiss.md) which is a prerequisite of true freedom -- see [less retarded hardware](less_retarded_hardware.md) for more. We also stress that [freedom distance](freedom_distance.md) has to be minimized.
+We, [LRS](lrs.md), advocate for more strict criteria than just a free-licensed hardware design, for example we prefer unrestrained [public domain](public_domain.md) and stress high [simplicity](kiss.md) as a necessary prerequisite for [true freedom](freedom_distance.md) -- see [less retarded hardware](less_retarded_hardware.md) for more. We also stress that [freedom distance](freedom_distance.md) has to be minimized.
 
-The topic of free hardware is a bit messy, free hardware definition is not as straightforward as that of free software because hardware, a physical thing, has some inherently different properties than software and it is also not as easy to design and create so it evolves more slowly than software and it is much more difficult to create hardware completely from the ground up. Now consider the very question "what even is hardware"? There is a grey area between hardware and software, sometimes we see [firmware](firmware.md) as hardware, sometimes as software, sometimes pure software can be hardwired into a circuit so it basically behaves like hardware etc. Hardware design also has different levels, a higher level design may be free-licensed but its physical implementation may require existing lower level components that are non-free -- does such hardware count as free or not? How much down does free go -- do peripherals have to be free? Do the chips have to be free? Do the transistors themselves have to be free? We have to keep these things in mind. While in the software world it is usually quite easy to label a piece of software as free or not (at least legally), with hardware we rather tend to speak of different levels of freedom, at least for now.
+The subject of free hardware is a little messy, free hardware definition is not as straightforward as that of free software because hardware, a physical substance, is by many attributes essentially different from software and, unlike software, it is also not as easy to design and manufacture and thus it evolves more slowly than software, and it is generally much more challenging (difficult, costly, ...) to create hardware completely from the ground up. Now consider the very question "what even is hardware"? There is a gray area between hardware and software, sometimes we view [firmware](firmware.md) as hardware, sometimes as software, sometimes pure software can be hardwired into a circuit so it basically behaves like hardware etc. Hardware design also has different levels, a higher level design may be free-licensed but its physical implementation may require existing lower level components that are non-free -- does such hardware count as free or not? How much down does free go -- do peripherals have to be free? Do the chips have to be free? Do the transistors themselves have to be free? We have to keep these things in mind. While in the software world it is usually quite easy to label a piece of software as free or not (at least legally), with hardware we rather tend to speak of different levels of freedom, at least for now.
 
 ## Existing Free And Freedom-Friendly Hardware And Firmware
 

how_to.md

@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ Now you have to make the actual website in [HTML](html.md). For that create a ne
 
 This is really a bare-minimum testing website -- to expand it see the article on [HTML](html.md). Remember that if you want to make your site more complex, you can do 99% of everything only with basic Unix tools, HTML is just text and to generate HTML you do NOT need an HTML parser (and even for some basic analysis you still don't need a parses, [regex](regex.md) usually do the job).
 
-Now you have to upload this html file to the hosting server -- check out the details of your hosting server on how to do this (you may e.g. need to use [git](git.md) or [ftp](ftp.md) to upload the file). And that's basically it, the rest is just expanding your site, making scripts to automatize uploading etc.
+Now you have to upload this html file to the hosting server -- check out the details of your hosting server on how to do this (you may e.g. need to use [git](git.md) or [ftp](ftp.md) to upload the file). And that's basically it, the rest is just expanding your site, making scripts to automate uploading etc.
 
 ### How To Make A Wiki Like This One
 

human_language.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Human language is a social construct so according to [pseudoleftists](pseudoleft
 
 Languages are sadly often what easily divides people into groups and so fuels [fascism](fascism.md), specifically [nationalism](nationalism.md).
 
-Let's also add that human languages don't have to be just spoken ones -- in a wider sense we can also include sign languages, visual languages etc., but in this article we'll implicitly assume spoken ones. These languages are also often tightly connected to their writing systems and scripts, but we should be aware of the fact that a language and the way it is written are two separate things.
+It's worthy of reminding ourselves that human languages don't have to be limited to spoken ones, we mustn't forget sign languages, visual languages etc., but in this article we'll be predominantly concerned with the spoken ones and assume them implicitly. Spoken languages are also often tightly connected to their writing systems and scripts, but we should be aware of the fact that a language and the way it is written are also two separate things.
 
 **Why are human languages so hard for computers to handle?** Well, firstly there are minor annoyances like syntactic ambiguity, irregularities, redundancy, complex rules of grammar -- for example the sentence "I know Bob likes computers, and so does John." can either mean that John knows that Bob likes computers or that both Bob and John like computers. Things like this can be addressed by designing the [grammar](grammar.md) unambiguously, but analyzing already existing natural languages suffers by this. Furthermore in real life there are countless quirks of playing with language, things like sacrasm, parody, exaggerations, indirect hints, politeness, rhetorical questions, fau pax, memes and references. For example when we think of imperative, we imagine sentences such as "Close the window." -- in real life we'll rather say something like "I'm cold, it wouldn't hurt to close the window.", i.e. something that's semantically an imperative but not syntactically, a dumb computer would deduce here we are stating a fact that closing the window will not hurt anyone; it takes human-like intelligence AND experience in how the real life works and abilities like being able to guess feelings and plans of others to correctly conclude this sentence in fact means "Please close the window." Just try to talk to someone for a while and focus on what the sentences mean literally and what they actually imply. So things revolving around this are pose the first issue, but yet a greater issue dwells in how to actually define meanings of words -- human language is not just "text strings" as it might seem on the first glance, behind the text strings lies a deep understanding of the extremely complex [real world](irl.md). More details of the issues of semantic will be given below.
 
@@ -42,7 +42,9 @@ This issue is very hard to solve, maybe impossible. It seems that due to the ext
 
 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
 
-This section lists some of the most notable human languages. In the brackets there will be additional information about the language such as the number of native speakers, translation of the sentence "What's your name" (in *italics*) or three most common letters/sounds (between [ and ] brackets).
+Recommendation for a [fun](fun.md) activity: a cool hobby for long winter nights is to compare various passages of text in different languages, you get to discover hilarious words this way. A way to do this is to take a famous movie (Pulp Fiction for instance) and download subtitles in many different languages, or do the same with a famous book, or take a look at some translations of [libre](libre.md) games etc.
+
+This section will now list some of the most notable human languages. In the brackets there will be additional information about the language such as the number of native speakers, translation of the sentence "What's your name" (in *italics*) or three most common letters/sounds (between [ and ] brackets).
 
 - **Indo-European languages** (~3 B native speakers): Most common language family, originating in Eurasia.
   - **Germanic languages** (~500 M native speakers): Come from Scandinavia.
@@ -138,6 +140,7 @@ Here are some tips for learning foreign languages:
 - If you want to get super serious and git gud even at pronunciation, there are techniques such as shadowing (trying to speak over native speaker recordings, imitating them) etc. But this is not needed if you just want to communicate or if you don't even talk to people [in real life](irl.md), it's just for nerds who wanna flex probably.
 - **Necessity teaches best**. Literally needing the language, e.g. due to having moved to another country, reliably leads to learning it.
 - Especially if you're learning your first foreign language: be ready, make no assumptions about the new language based on your native language, different language may break all the rules of your language and importantly: different language is not just different words and grammar, it is also a **different [CULTURE](culture.md)**, reflecting the needs and necessities of the people using it. Forget EVERYTHING you think you know and that you assume should hold, many words and sentences will be UNTRANSLATABLE. There will be many rules that make ZERO logical sense, for example a word may have different spelling in different contexts just because, or there will be many words for something that in your language only has one name, just don't ask why, it simply is so. The new language may for example have various politeness levels -- different ways of says "you" for instance, depending on whom you are addressing -- which will have no counterpart in English; there may be completely different tenses and cases, grammatical concepts you never heard of, words may have unclear translations or unexpected connotations, it may be uncommon to make [jokes](jokes.md) you're used to make (for example in [Czech](czech.md) it's not common to make [puns](pun.md) as much as in English), certain phrases will be used much more or much less frequently (e.g. in English it's pretty common to hear family members say "I love you" to one another, but this isn't common in many other languages), in some languages it's very common to greet strangers with many different phrases etc. Don't try to understand these differences logically, these are historical and cultural features which are sometimes untraceable leftovers from something that's already gone, you just have to learn it all by listening and using the language, you can't memorize it.
+- **The difficulty of learning a language depends on how close it is to the closest language you already know**. This is just a fact that can help you decide what to learn or understand why a supposedly "easy" language is very difficult for you -- if you're Italian, you'll learn Spanish very easily, if you're German, you'll learn English very easily etc. This is also why polyglots learn languages with seemingly low effort: it becomes easier and easier to learn languages the more of them you know because they somewhat overlap.
 - ...
 
 ## See Also

less_retarded_society.md

@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ A paradise is achieved on [Earth](earth.md).
 - **How is this different from "communism", "socialism" and other movements/ideologies that brought so much suffering and eventually failed anyway?** We are very different especially by NOT advocating revolutions, violence and forceful application of our ideas, we simply educate, show what's wrong and what the solution is. Harm has only ever been done by forcing specific ideas, no matter whether rightist or leftist ones -- the key in preventing harm is to avoid the temptation of forcing ideas. We know that only a voluntary, non-violent change based on facts and rational thinking can succeed in long term. The mistake of every failed "utopian" ideology was that it was forced, oppressive and in the end served only a few as opposed to everyone, no matter what the initial idea was. These ideologies fought other ideologies, creates cults of personalities and propaganda to manipulate masses. We do not fight anyone, we simply show the truth and offer it to people and believe that this truth can't be unseen. Once enough people see the truth and know what the logical solution is, a change will happen naturally, peacefully and inevitably, without any force.
 - **How do you think it is realistic to achieve abundance of resources for all?** Nowadays it is easily possible to produce enough resources for everyone, i.e. food, electricity, clothing, buildings to live in etc. -- in fact this has been possible for many decades to centuries now, today all the technology for 99% automated production of most basic resources such as food and electricity is available and well tested, it is just kept in private hands for their sole profit. Nowadays our society is putting most of its effort to artificially made up "businesses" that keep the status quo, partly out of social inertia and partly by the (mostly decentralized and to a degree not even self admitted) conspiracy of the rich. Imagine people stop engaging in marketing, market speculation and investing, bureaucracy, public relations, law (copyrights, patents, property laws, taxes, ...), economics, military, meaningless technology (DRM, spyware, cryptocurrency, viruses and antiviruses, ...), artificial meaningless fashion, drug abuse business, organizing political parties, campaigns, unions, counter unions, cartels, strikes, and so on and so forth (this of course doesn't mean hobbies and art should disappear, just unnecessary industries). We will gain millions of people who can help achieve abundance, land that can be used to produce food and build houses to live in (as opposed to skyscrapers, unnecessary factories, parking lots etc.), and we will let go of the immense burden of bullshit business (millions of unnecessary workplaces having to be maintained, millions of people having to commute by car daily, communicate, organize, be watched by employers, ...). People will get healthier, more rested, cooperative and actually passionate about a common goal, as opposed to depressed (needing psychiatrists and antidepressants), lethargic and hostile to each other. Of course this can't happen over night, probably not even over a decade, but we can make the transition slowly, one step at a time and in the meanwhile use rules based e.g. on the following principle: that which is abundant is unlimited for everyone, that which is scarce is equally divided between all. The question is not whether it's possible, but whether we want to do it.
 - **Isn't your society unnatural?** In many way yes, it's unnatural just as clothes, medicine, [computers](computer.md) or humans living past 70 years are unnatural. Civilization by definition designates resistance to the cruelty of nature, however our proposed society is to live as much as possible in harmony with the nature and is much more natural than our current society which e.g. pushes sleep deprivation, high consumption of antidepressants, eating disorders, addiction to social networks and so on.
-- **Won't people get bored? What will motivate people? If they have everything why would they even get out of bed? Haven't you seen the mouse utopia experiments?** It is a mistake to think that competition and the necessity of making living is the only or even the main driving force of human behavior and creativity (on the contrary, it is usually what makes people commit suicides, i.e. lose the will to live). Human curiosity, playfulness, the joy of collaboration, boredom, sense of altruism, socialization, seeking of life meaning and recognition and many other forces drive our behavior. Ask yourself: why do people have hobbies when no one is forcing them to it? Why don't you bore yourself to death in your spare time? Why don't rich people who literally don't have to work bore themselves to death? Why doesn't your pet dog that's not forced to hunt for food bore himself to death? Instead of the rat utopia urban legend try the *cat utopia* project yourself: buy a cat, give it love, home, food, toys, leisure, freedom and healthcare for free, see if it gets depressed -- many people have performed this experiment over and over and it usually turns out the animal is the happiest being under the Sun. Maslow's hierarchy of needs tells us that once people fulfill basic needs such as that for obtaining food, they naturally start to pursue higher ones such as that for socializing or doing science or art. Unlike rats in small cages people show interests in seeking satisfaction of higher needs than just food and sex, even those that aren't scientist try to do things such as sports, photography, woodwork or gardening, just for the sake of it. It's not that there would be a lack challenges in our society, just that we wouldn't force arbitrary challenges on people.
+- **Won't people get bored? What will motivate people? If they have everything why would they even get out of bed? Haven't you seen the mouse utopia experiments?** It is a mistake to think that competition and the necessity of making living is the only or even the main driving force of human behavior and creativity (on the contrary, it is usually what makes people commit suicides, i.e. lose the will to live). Human curiosity, playfulness, the joy of collaboration, boredom, sense of altruism, socialization, seeking of life meaning and recognition and many other forces drive our behavior. Ask yourself: why do people have hobbies when no one is forcing them to it? Why don't you bore yourself to death in your spare time? Why don't rich people who literally don't have to work bore themselves to death? Why doesn't your pet dog that's not forced to hunt for food bore himself to death? Why is it considered a punishment to put a man in a small room where he can do nothing but lie in a bed? Instead of the rat utopia urban legend try the *cat utopia* project yourself: buy a cat, give it love, home, food, toys, leisure, freedom and healthcare for free, see if it gets depressed -- many people have performed this experiment over and over and it usually turns out the animal is the happiest being under the Sun. Maslow's hierarchy of needs tells us that once people fulfill basic needs such as that for obtaining food, they naturally start to pursue higher ones such as that for socializing or doing science or art. Unlike rats in small cages people show interests in seeking satisfaction of higher needs than just food and sex, even those that aren't scientist try to do things such as sports, photography, woodwork or gardening, just for the sake of it. It's not that there would be a lack challenges in our society, just that we wouldn't force arbitrary challenges on people.
 - **Why are you [defeatist](defeatism.md)? Don't you think it's just pointless trying to achieve something while believing you already failed?** Firstly being defeated doesn't mean disappearing completely, we know we will fail but we'll leave a seed of something that can't eventually be stopped from growing: LRS is extremely ahead of its time -- not by 50 years or 100 years, but more like several thousand years, maybe millions. Monkeys aim to prevail during their life time and by getting at the top of some kind of mountain or social pyramid, by hoarding X wealth, passing some law, creating some kind of country or whatever -- that's completely worthless animal behavior, we aim to achieve something truly significant and good instead which will take longer than our lifetime and will require behaving without self interest and [competition](competition.md). Just like abacus was the very first step towards inventing today's [computers](computer.md), LRS is in this sense the very first step to inventing a truly good society. It is first by completely letting go of all [bullshit](bullshit.md), every single one, including things like "winner mentality", which is why there are almost no supporters, everyone [fails](fail_ab.md) by keeping to the old ways at least in some points. We aim for truth and good, not for winning -- giving up the goal of winning makes us able to take the moral decision in situations when we have to choose between winning and behaving correctly.
 - **Without violence, how will you prevent capitalists from continuing capitalism?** As also stated e.g. in the [Trash Magic](trash_magic.md) manifesto, we can simply destroy the economy by refusing to participate in it -- a capitalist cannot sell a thing that's abundant, available everywhere for free, he can't sell services if those services are provided for free. Capitalism is depending on the fact that those who it abuses have nowhere to run away to, once enough of us start building such place and provide a bette place to live, suddenly more people will leave the capitalist system and even if some capitalists remain, they won't be able to do anything, economy won't work anymore.
 - **If you say it's possible, why wasn't it done before?** Firstly big and small scale communities working on [anarchist](anarchism.md), [communist](communism.md) and peaceful principles have existed for a long time in environments that allow it, e.g. those that have abundance of resources. Globally society couldn't reach this state because only until recently we lacked the technology to provide such an ideal environment globally or even on a scale of a whole country, i.e. only until recently we have been forced by the nature to compete for basic resources such as food and space to live. However with computers, factories, high level of automation and other technology and knowledge we posses, we now have, for the first time in history, the capability to establish an environment with abundance of resources for everyone on the planet. Nowadays only social inertia in the form of [capitalism](capitalism.md) is ARTIFICIALLY keeping scarcity and social competition in place -- getting rid of this obsolete system is now needed to allow establishment of our ideal society. Part of the answer to this question may also be that reaching such an advanced state of society requires long development, technological, cultural and intellectual, just as many other things (things like abolishment of death sentence or even accepting the existence of irrational numbers all required a long time of cultural development).

math.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Mathematics
 
-Mathematics (also math or maths, from Greek *mathematicos*, *learned*) is the best [science](science.md) (yes, it is a formal science), which deductively deals with [numbers](number.md) and other [abstract](abstraction.md) structures with the use of pure [logic](logic.md), in as rigorous and objective way as possible. In fact it's the only true science that can actually prove facts thanks to its tool of mathematical [proof](proof.md) (other sciences may only disprove or show something to be very [probable](probability.md)). It's an immensely important discipline for [programming](programming.md) and [computer science](compsci.md). Mathematics is possibly intellectually the most difficult field to study in depth, meant only for the smartest; the difficulty, as some mathematicians point out, comes especially from the exceptionally deep [abstraction](abstraction.md) (pure mathematics often examines subjects with no obvious connection to reality and only exist as a quirk of logic itself). It is said that mathematics is the only **universal [language](language.md)** in our [universe](universe.md) -- if we were ever to establish contact with an intelligent alien civilization, we'd likely use mathematics for communication. While most people only ever learn basic algebra and some other mechanical operations that are necessary for mathematics, true mathematics is not about blind calculation, it is a creative discipline and [art](art.md) of constructing [proofs](proof.md) from basic [axioms](axiom.md), sometimes so difficult that a solution demands many lifetimes of the brightest minds.
+Mathematics (also math or maths, from Greek *mathematicos*, *learned*) is the best [science](science.md) (yes, it is a formal science), which deductively deals with [numbers](number.md) and other [abstract](abstraction.md) structures with the use of pure [logic](logic.md), in as rigorous and objective way as possible. In fact it's the only true science that can actually prove facts thanks to its tool of mathematical [proof](proof.md) (other sciences may only disprove or show something to be very [probable](probability.md)). It's an immensely important discipline for [programming](programming.md) and [computer science](compsci.md). Mathematics is possibly intellectually the most difficult field to study in depth, it's the purest intellectual endeavor meant only for the smartest; the difficulty, as some mathematicians point out, comes especially from the exceptionally deep [abstraction](abstraction.md) (pure mathematics often examines subjects with no obvious connection to reality and only exist as a quirk of logic itself). It is said that mathematics is the only **universal [language](language.md)** in our [universe](universe.md) -- if we were ever to establish contact with an intelligent alien civilization, we'd likely use mathematics for communication. While most people only ever learn basic algebra and some other mechanical operations that are necessary for mathematics, true mathematics is not about blind calculation, it is a creative discipline and [art](art.md) of constructing [proofs](proof.md) from basic [axioms](axiom.md), sometimes so difficult that a solution demands many lifetimes of the brightest minds.
 
 Some (especially the [English](english.md) speaking world) perceive math not as a science but rather a discipline that develops formal tools for "true sciences". The reasoning is usually that a science has to use [scientific method](scientific_method.md), but that's a limited view as scientific method is not the only way of obtaining reliable knowledge. Besides that math can and does use the principles of scientific method -- mathematicians first perform "experiments" with numbers and generalize into [conjectures](conjecture.md) and later "strong beliefs", however this is not considered [good enough](good_enough.md) in math as it actually has the superior tool of [proof](proof.md) that is considered the ultimate goal of math. I.e. math relies on [deductive](deduction.md) reasoning (proof) rather than less reliable [inductive](induction.md) reasoning (scientific method) -- in this sense mathematics is more than a science.
 

minimalism.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 *No gain, no pain.*
 
-In context of [technology](tech.md) minimalism is a design philosophy which puts great emphasis on [simplicity](kiss.md), it says technology should be as simple as possible while still achieving given goal, possibly even a little bit simpler. Minimalism is one of the most (if not the most) important concepts in [programming](programming.md) and technology in general, it could almost be said that becoming a true expert in technology is strongly connected to realizing the importance of simplicity (see e.g. [Unix philosophy](unix_philosophy.md)). One of the first things to stress about minimalism is that it's firstly about **internal simplicity**, i.e. the simplicity of design/repairing/[hacking](hacking.md), and only secondly about the simplicity from the [user](user.md)'s point of view (otherwise we are only dealing with [pseudominimalism](pseudominimalism.md)). The opposite of minimalism is [maximalism](maximalism.md).
+In the context of [technology](tech.md) minimalism is a design philosophy which puts great emphasis on [simplicity](kiss.md), it says technology should be as simple as possible while still achieving given goal, possibly even a little bit simpler. Minimalism is one of the most (if not the most) important concepts in [programming](programming.md) and technology in general, it could almost be said that becoming a true expert in technology is strongly connected to realizing the importance of simplicity (see e.g. [Unix philosophy](unix_philosophy.md)). One of the first things to stress about minimalism is that it's firstly about **internal simplicity**, i.e. the simplicity of design/repairing/[hacking](hacking.md), and only secondly about the simplicity from the [user](user.md)'s point of view (otherwise we are only dealing with [pseudominimalism](pseudominimalism.md)). The opposite of minimalism is [maximalism](maximalism.md).
 
 Antoine de Saint-Exupery sums it up with a quote: *we achieve perfection not when there is nothing more to add but when there is nothing left to take away.*
 
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Minimalism is a sign of high [IQ](iq.md) and better developed, [more cultivated]
 
 There is a so called *[airplane rule](airplane_rule.md)* that states a plane with two engines has twice as many engine problems than a plane with a single engine.
 
-[Alan Kay](alan_kay.md), a famous [hacker](hacking.md), let himself be heard that he experienced a revelation upon reading manual to the [Lisp](lisp.md) programming language once he saw that the whole programming language's code was written on half a page in the manual itself. "These are Maxwell’s Equations of software!" he exclaimed -- this is the essence of true programming. Not huge codebases maintained by hundreds of programmers, but mathematics, seeking minimal equations and [beauty](beauty.md) are the interest of a true programmer.
+[Alan Kay](alan_kay.md), a famous [hacker](hacking.md), once said he experienced a revelation upon reading the manual to the [Lisp](lisp.md) programming language once he realized the whole programming language's code was written on half a page in the manual itself. "These are Maxwell’s Equations of software!" he exclaimed -- this is the essence of true programming. Not colossal codebases maintained by hundreds of programmers, but mathematics, seeking minimal equations and [beauty](beauty.md) are the interest of a true programmer.
 
 Up until recently in [history](history.md) it was evident to every engineer that *the better machine is that with fewer moving parts*. This still seems to hold for example in [mathematics](math.md), a field not yet so spoiled by crippling commercialization and mostly inhabited by the smartest people -- there is a tendency to look for the most minimal equations and such equations are considered [beautiful](beauty.md). To laymen it's not obvious and the concept definitely seems counterintuitive, but every programmer eventually learns that a "more sophisticated" solution will not only bring the cost of added overhead, but may oftentimes leads to simply giving worse overall results -- typical example are for example [pseudorandom](pseudorandomness.md) number generators in which adding more operators typically WORSENS the quality of the generated sequence. Science knows the rule of simplicity as the [Occam's razor](occams_razor.md): the simplest explanation should be preferred. In technology invaded by aggressive commercialization the situation is different, minimalism lives only in the underground and is ridiculed by the mainstream propaganda. Some of the minimalist movements, terms and concepts at least somewhat connected to minimalism include (watch out for [SJW](sjw.md)s, [pseudominimalism](pseudominimalism.md), Nazis etc., we don't automatically fully embrace all things on this list):
 

netstalking.md

@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ Techniques of netstalking include port scanning, randomly generating web domains
 - **Write own tools.** Today you no longer have to possess a [PhD](phd.md) (or even brain) to write a simple web scraping script. Custom tools can take you beyond what search engines can (and are willing to) do for you -- for example search engines typically can't search for [regular expressions](regexp.md), but your own crawler can. Your own tool is 100% tailored to your needs, it can behave in exact ways you want (ignore robots.txt, use your credentials to bypass login walls, follow very specific trails, you can even use [OCR](ocr.md) to extract text from images etc.). Like said above, a simple tool is for example one that randomly checks various combinations of words and TLDs to discover curious domain names. Writing a simple crawler is also pretty easy, provided you [keep it very simple](kiss.md) -- exploit existing tools like wget or curl to download pages and extract everything that looks like URL, no need to parse [HTML](html.md) or whatever, literally treat everything as plain text. Then you can extract only documents that are somehow "[interesting](interesting.md)", for example containing specific keywords, not containing JavaScript tags, only being hosted through plain [HTTP](http.md) etc.
 - **Find lists of obscure sites and other people who search for them.** A sizable number of small sites now like to post links to other interesting sites, it's enough to find one and then you just start following the links, you find more links etc. This can never end. Some communities like to share lulzy links, e.g. [4chan](4chan.md), kiwifarms, ... Don't forget to contribute back and publish the list of your findings too ;)
 - **Analyze data.** There are tons of publicly accessible, but yet undigested data about the web -- for example Internet Archive's crawl data, [WikiData](wikidata.md), the Yacy index and so on. You may try your luck sniffing here.
+- **Filtering**: today the issue of finding something of value has turned from discovering paths to rather filtering out all the countless surrounding [noise](noise.md). There is so much data we get lost in it, so the focus shifts to clever filtering. For example on YouTube all the weird, cool videos are accessible, they're just buried and the algorithm never recommends them, the search never finds them. A way to get to quality videos is for example searching older videos (`before:2015`) which also have subtitles (this is usually a sign of high quality videos, no one bothers with subtitles on crappy videos).
 - **Get creative.** You may want to try to search for transcripts, logs, weird combinations of phrases such as "[open source](open_source.md)" and "murder", viewing buried sites by skipping the first million search results, exact phrases such as "what's your emergency" can find emergency hotline transcripts, searching a number of lulzy 4chan thread or [hash](hash.md) of a famous shock image may reveal cool sites linking to fun stuff, searching for the name of a file that was part of some source code leak can find sites posting, archiving or analyzing such leaks, searching for sites that together contain the word "[nigger](nigger.md)" in 10 different languages could lead somewhere interesting too, and so on and so forth.
 - **Be reasonably careful.** Normies get scared shitless to even peek on the darkweb, which is completely ridiculous, just looking and searching publicly available data is practically always 100% legal and even if it wasn't, literally no one gives a single shit. However you might get into trouble if you'd for example reverse search literal child porn, as you're uploading the stuff to someone's server and thus technically distributing CP, putting the server owner in trouble. Still not much would happen probably, maybe you'd get blocked, but you're gonna get yourself on the FBI list. Just use your brain. As long as you're not stepping on someone's toe (doxxing, DDOSing, spamming, ...), no one cares what you're doing.
 - ...

often_confused.md

@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ There exist many terms that are highly similar and can legitimately be used inte
 - **[assembler](assembler.md)** vs **[assembly](assembly.md)** vs **[machine code](machine_code.md)** vs **[bytecode](bytecode.md)**
 - **[astrology](astrology.md)** vs **[astronomy](astronomy.md)**
 - **[attribution](attribution.md)** vs **[credit](credit.md)**
+- **automatization** vs **automation**
 - **binary** vs **[executable](executable.md)** vs **[program](program.md)**
 - **[binary](binary.md)** vs **[boolean](boolean.md)**
 - **[binary](binary.md)** vs **[digital](digital.md)** vs **[electronic](electronics.md)**

programming.md

@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ OK, now the key thing to becoming a programmer is learning a **[programming lang
 
 **[Games](game.md) are an ideal start [project](project.md)** because they're [fun](fun.md) (having fun makes learning much faster and enjoyable), there are many noob tutorials all over the Internet etc. However keep in mind to **start EXTREMELY simple.** -- this can't be stressed enough, most people are very impatient and eager and start making an RPG game or networking library without really knowing a programming language -- this is a GUARANTEED spectacular failure. At the beginning think in terms of "snake" and "minesweeper". Your very first project shouldn't even use any [GUI](gui.md), it should be purely [command-line](cli.md) text program, so a text-only tiny interactive story in [Python](python.md) is possibly the safest choice as a first project -- if you are feeling more ambitious, try to write the same thing but in [C](c.md). Once you're more comfortable you may consider to start using graphics, e.g. Python + [Pygame](pygame.md) (or, again, C + [SAF](saf.md) or [SDL](sdl.md) if you want a better language), but still [KEEP IT SIMPLE](kiss.md), make a flappy bird clone or something. As you progress, consider perhaps buying a simple toy computer such as an [open console](open_console.md) -- these toys are closer to old computers that had no operating systems etc., they e.g. let you interact directly with hardware and teach you a LOT about good programming by teaching you how computers actually work under the hood AND, by having weak hardware, not allowing you to write shitty code. Whatever language you start with, it is unavoidable that one day you will have to make the big step and **learn [C](c.md)**, the most important language as of yet, but if you see you're struggling with a simpler language, be sure to only start learning C when you're at least intermediate in your start language (see our [C tutorial](c_tutorial.md)). To learn C we recommend our [SAF](saf.md) library which will save you all headaches of complex APIs and your games will be nice and compatible with you small toy computers.
 
-As with everything, you learn by doing -- reading is extremely important and necessary, but to actually learn anything you have to spend thousands of hours practicing the art yourself. So **program, program and program**, live by programming, look for ways of using programming in what you're already doing, try to automatize anything you do, think about programming before sleep etc. If you can, **contribute to some project**, best if you can help your favorite [FOSS](foss.md) program -- try this at least once as being in the company of the experienced just teaches you like nothing else, a month spent contributing to a project may be worth two or three years of just reading books. If you're [extremely asocial](avpd.md), the alternative is to just [fork](fork.md) someone else's program and trying to modify it -- this way you'll at least learn to understand someone else's code and you'll see how someone experienced writes the code.
+As with all, you learn by doing -- reading is extremely important and necessary, but to actually learn anything well spending thousands of hours practicing the art is paramount. So **program, program and program**, live by programming, look for ways of using programming in what you're already doing, try to automate anything you do, think about programming before sleep etc. If you can, **contribute to some project**, best if you can help your favorite [FOSS](foss.md) program -- try this at least once as being in the company of the experienced just teaches you like nothing else, a month spent contributing to a project may be worth two or three years of just reading books. If you're [extremely asocial](avpd.md), the alternative is to just [fork](fork.md) someone else's program and trying to modify it -- this way you'll at least learn to understand someone else's code and you'll see how someone experienced writes the code.
 
 ### Programming Tips
 

programming_style.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 Probably in majority of cases a [programming language](programming_language.md) lets the programmer choose the aesthetic style in which to write the code (just like a writer may format his text in visually different ways without changing the meaning of it) -- one has a choice in naming variables, indentation and aligning commands, inserting [comments](comment.md) and so on. This gives rise to various styles -- typically a programmer will have his own preferred style, kind of like handwriting, but once he works in a team, some compromise has to be found to which everyone must conform so as to keep the code nice, consistent and [readable](readability.md) by everyone. Some project, e.g. [Linux](linux.md), have evolved quite good, tested and de facto standardized styles, so instead of inventing a custom style (which may not be as easy as it sounds) one may choose to adopt some of the existing styles. While this is more of a surface-level part of programming, it is still quite important and thinking about it may go very deep, it is not to be underestimated.
 
-There exist automatic code formatters, they are often called **code beautifiers**. But not everything can be automatized, for example a program will hardly comment your code, or inserting empty spaces to separate logically related parts of a sequential code is also something that human like intelligence is needed for.
+There exist automatic code formatters, they are often called **code beautifiers**. But not everything can be automated, for example a program will hardly comment your code, or inserting empty spaces to separate logically related parts of a sequential code is also something that human like intelligence is needed for.
 
 ## Recommended LRS C Programming Style/Formatting
 

python.md

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ What follows is a summary of the python language:
 - It is **[interpreted](interpreter.md) and highly dynamic**, i.e. data types of variables are dynamic, [lists](list.md), [strings](string.md) and [dictionaries](dict.md) are dynamic, since new versions there are even **arbitrary size integers** by default. There is automatic **[garbage collection](garbage_collection.md)**, code can be modified at run time and so on. All this of course makes the language **slow**, with big memory footprint.
 - There is **class-based [OOP](oop.md)** which can at least be avoided, it is not enforced.
 - Python **revolves around [dictionaries](dictionary.md)** (a [data type](data_type.md) capable of storing *key:value* pairs), i.e. most things are internally implemented with dictionaries.
-- It **doesn't keep backwards compatibility**, i.e. new versions of Python won't generally be able to run programs written in old versions of Python. This is so that the devs can eliminate things that turned out to be a bad idea (probably happens often), but of course on the other hand you have to [keep rewriting](maintenance.md) your programs to keep them working (python provides scripts that help automatize this).
+- It **doesn't keep backwards compatibility**, i.e. new versions of Python won't generally be able to run programs written in old versions of Python. This is so that the devs can eliminate things that turned out to be a bad idea (probably happens often), but of course on the other hand you have to [keep rewriting](maintenance.md) your programs to keep them working (python provides scripts that help automate this).
 - Quite retardedly **indentation is part of syntax**, that's a [shitty](shit.md) design choice that complicates programming (one liners, minification, compact code, [code golf](golf.md), temporary debugging indentation, ...).
 - There is **no specification** per se -- but at least there is online reference (*The Python Language Reference*) that kind of serves as one.
 - It has a **gigantic standard library** which handles things such as [Unicode](unicode.md), [GUI](gui.md), [databases](database.md), [regular expressions](regex.md), [email](email.md), [html](html.md), [compression](compression.md), communication with operating system, [networking](network.md), [multithreading](multithreading.md) and much, much more. This means it's almost impossible to implement Python in all its entirety without 100 programmers working full time for at least 10 years.

regex.md

@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ int main(void)
 
 Just compile this and pass a string to the standard input (e.g. `echo "<testing> string" | ./program`), it will write out if it matches or not.
 
-Maybe it seems a bit overcomplicated -- you could say you could program the above even without regular expressions and state machines. That's true, however imagine dealing with a more complex regex, one that matches a quite complex real world file format. Consider that in [HTML](html.md) for example there are pair tags, non-pair tags, attributes inside tags, entities, comments and many more things, so here you'd have great difficulties creating such parser intuitively -- the approach we have shown can be completely automatized and will work as long as you can describe the format with regular expression.
+Maybe it seems a bit overcomplicated -- you could say you could program the above even without regular expressions and state machines. That's true, however imagine dealing with a more complex regex, one that matches a quite complex real world file format. Consider that in [HTML](html.md) for example there are pair tags, non-pair tags, attributes inside tags, entities, comments and many more things, so here you'd have great difficulties creating such parser intuitively -- the approach we have shown can be completely automated and will work as long as you can describe the format with regular expression.
 
 TODO: regexes in some langs. like Python
 

stereotype.md

@@ -431,6 +431,7 @@ Some stereotypes are:
     - absentminded, have [autism](autism.md), asperger's or other kind of insanity
     - introverted and socially awkward to the max, don't know how to talk to people
     - weird as fuck, can be completely robotic or laugh uncontrollably at random occasions
+    - obsessed with chalk
     - can't understand anything that can't be described by equations, such as emotions
     - random hobbies such as juggling
   - **millennials**:
@@ -475,7 +476,7 @@ Some stereotypes are:
     - in general just most degenerated and doomed generation as of yet (of course, until the next one comes)
     - girls have gigantic asses and tits and wear outfit that highlights it even more
     - favorite video games include: Minecraft, Minecraft clones, Roblox, Roblox clones, DOTA, LOL, DOTA and LOL clones, Furry Rape Simulator (and its clones)
-    
+
 ## See Also
 
 - [race](race.md)

sudoku.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 *Not to be [confused](often_confused.md) with [seppuku](suicide.md).*
 
-Sudoku is a puzzle that's based on filling a grid with numbers that is hugely popular even among [normies](normie.md) such as grandmas and grandpas who find this stuff in magazines for elderly people. The goal is to fill in all squares of a 9x9 grid, prefilled with a few clue digits, with digits 1 to 9 so that no digit repeats in any column, row and 3x3 subgrid. It is like a crosswords puzzle for people who lack general knowledge, but it's also pretty [suckless](suckless.md), pure logic-based puzzle whose generation and solving can be relatively easily automatized (unlike generating crosswords which requires some big databases). The puzzle is a pretty [fun](fun.md) singleplayer [game](game.md), posing opportunities for nice [mathematical](math.md) research and analysis as well as a comfy [programming](programming.md) exercise. Sudokus are a bit similar to [magic squares](magic_square.md). There also exist many similar kinds of puzzles that work on the principle of filling a grid so as to satisfy certain rules given initial clues, many of these are implemented e.g. in [Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection](stppc.md).
+Sudoku is a puzzle that's based on filling a grid with numbers that is hugely popular even among [normies](normie.md) such as grandmas and grandpas who find this stuff in magazines for elderly people. The goal is to fill in all squares of a 9x9 grid, prefilled with a few clue digits, with digits 1 to 9 so that no digit repeats in any column, row and 3x3 subgrid. It is like a crosswords puzzle for people who lack general knowledge, but it's also pretty [suckless](suckless.md), pure logic-based puzzle whose generation and solving can be relatively easily automated (unlike generating crosswords which requires some big databases). The puzzle is a pretty [fun](fun.md) singleplayer [game](game.md), posing opportunities for nice [mathematical](math.md) research and analysis as well as a comfy [programming](programming.md) exercise. Sudokus are a bit similar to [magic squares](magic_square.md). There also exist many similar kinds of puzzles that work on the principle of filling a grid so as to satisfy certain rules given initial clues, many of these are implemented e.g. in [Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection](stppc.md).
 
 Curiously sudoku has its origins in agricultural designs in which people wanted to lay out fields of different plants in more or less uniform distributions (or something like that, there are some papers about this from 1950s). The puzzle itself became popular in Japan in about 1980s and experienced a boom of popularity in the western world some time after 2000 (similar Asian puzzle boom was historically seen e.g. with [tangram](tangram.md)).
 

suicide.md

@@ -19,23 +19,24 @@ For SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHERS: these are some highly scientifically researched meth
 - **legal [euthanasia](euthanasia.md)** = best if available. This is just a no brainer: if one has the option to leave peacefully under the assistance of a medical professional, why choose anything else?
 - **wrist cutting** (and heart stabbing etc.) = attention whoring, very low chance of success. It is known that cutting wrists rarely leads to death, it's nearly impossible to cut very deep even if you want to, the body is just programmed to not let itself do it and especially feminine [zoomers](zoomer.md) nowadays don't have any balls to do it, one will just create a bloody mess. Self stabbing oneself to death is seen sometimes but many times it's under the influence of drugs or extremely serious mental illness which just turns off all self preservation instincts. To bleed out it's not enough to cut a vein, one must hit the artery. The correct way to cut a wrist is in the direction ALONG the wrist, NOT in perpendicular direction -- the cuts must be extremely deep to be dangerous, however the best way is to target the artery on the neck or in groin. People often do it in hot bath as that increases blood flow and is also kind of less messy and possibly more comfortable (if that can even be said about the moment in which one is dying). Using ordinary knife won't work, it's never sharp enough, one has to use razor, but a small razor is hard to manipulate, so razor knife is ideal. Even so actually dying from cutting/stabbing oneself is very rare -- one paper gave a success rate of 4%.
 - **setting oneself on fire** = extremely painful, slow, potentially unreliable method with the only advantage being getting attention; hence it is often used for political protests (see e.g. [Palach](palach.md)). Not succeeding means spending the rest of one's life badly deformed, experiencing horrible pain every day.
-- **jumping from (VERY big) height** = reliable (if done well), quick and painless serious attempt accessible to everyone. If a man truly wishes to die reliably, he will jump from a very, VERY big height -- the biggest skyscraper or bridge he can find, at least 10 stories or so (4 stories has 50% survival rate, 7 stories only 10%). He will ideally jump head first without looking down and contemplating the choice for too long (being slightly drunk may prevent backing out, but it may also increase the chance of actually deciding against the idea, so who knows) AND, importantly, trying to minimize the chance of hurting someone else down below (e.g. by choosing an area where few people walk). People that survived such attempts said the few seconds of flight were the most frightening experience of their life, one immediately regrets the jump, therefore closing one's eyes may be good. Success rate given by sources wasn't so big numerically -- some 60% -- but it's likely driven down by people who choose small heights, which is probably the only way one can fuck this method up. Having great height basically guarantees quick death without anything that could go wrong.
+- **jumping from (VERY big) height** = reliable (if done well), quick and painless serious attempt accessible to everyone, not very popular in the US (2%) but very popular in Asia (50%). If a man truly wishes to die reliably, he will jump from a very, VERY big height -- the biggest skyscraper or bridge he can find, at least 10 stories or so (4 stories has 50% survival rate, 7 stories only 10%). He will ideally jump head first without looking down and contemplating the choice for too long (being slightly drunk may prevent backing out, but it may also increase the chance of actually deciding against the idea, so who knows) AND, importantly, trying to minimize the chance of hurting someone else down below (e.g. by choosing an area where few people walk). People that survived such attempts said the few seconds of flight were the most frightening experience of their life, one immediately regrets the jump, therefore closing one's eyes may be good. Success rate given by sources wasn't so big numerically -- some 60% -- but it's likely driven down by people who choose small heights, which is probably the only way one can fuck this method up. Having great height basically guarantees quick death without anything that could go wrong.
 - **jumping in front of a train** = good choice if done right and one's will is strong, but can be risky. Some say it's safer to put one's head on the rails and get decapitated. In any case doing so in or near the train station is a very bad idea: slow train is a bad guarantee of success. It's important to choose a very fast train and go all in, backing away in last second may result in horrible injury or extremely slow death (check out gore sites, people split in half can be seen to live excruciatingly long). One must not walk on the tracks for a long time, waiting for the train, because nowadays there are cameras everywhere and there's a chance (low but still) you'll get spotted, reported and the incoming train will start braking -- hence people usually do this at night, they hide in a bush near the track and only jump in at the last moment. The train operator will be scarred for life, there may be better ways to leave. Success rate is around 78%.
-- **shooting oneself with a gun** = serious attempt (biggest success rate), but must be done well, may not be so accessible, may fail with shaky hand. Outside of [USA](usa.md) it may be hard to get a gun, especially for people with mental illness, but people have found a way around: going to the shooting range and borrowing a gun for target practice, then quickly shooting oneself. Despite relative high success rate -- 90% according to some sources -- still a surprising number of people survive shooting themselves to the head with a pistol, and they often end up living with horrible consequence, blinding themselves etc. Shotgun is much, MUCH more reliable -- basically a guaranteed success. Some choose to combine this with a fail safe, e.g. poisoning oneself beforehand (e.g. [Hitler](hitler.md)) or standing on the edge of a high building.
-- **drug overdose/poisoning** = risky unreliable way, potentially painful, may be attention whoring. Success rate is similar to that of cutting -- very low, around 4% maybe. There is a high risk of being discovered because dying takes long. Results depends on the specific drug, dosage, luck and each individual, it may be very slow, completely ineffective, induce extreme pain AND/OR irreversible damage to liver etc. Poisoning may last for many DAYS before death comes, and it certainly isn't a pleasant time. The word goes that one must NOT swallow all pills at once (which will just result in a vomit), but slowly take them one by one over the course of some time. Mixing it with a bit of food (e.g. yogurt) can make it more bearable to eat so many pills (some taste very bad). Some also drink alcohol on top as that should increase the drug effect, but again, too much may increase probability of vomiting it all out. Some drugs commonly used or talked about (which doesn't mean they're a good choice) include paracetamol, aspirin, cyanide, sleeping pills, painkillers, rat poison, xanax, bleach, digitalis, colchicine, heroin, cocaine, paracetamol etc. Even plain water can cause poisoning and death, but one must drink A LOT of it.
-- **hanging** = quite reliable and accessible but slow and painful method, nevertheless very popular. This is often chosen by people who have their freedom restricted, such as prisoners (one doesn't actually have to hang from the ceiling, a door handle is enough). One paper gave success probability of 84% -- again, a risk of failure is considerable and failing will likely result in serious brain damage. Risks include rope snapping or discovery. Even professional executions by hanging are infamously messy -- very precise calculations have to be made to ensure that the rope doesn't snap and the neck breaks quickly to prevent slow suffocation, however suffocation is what usually happens in hanging suicides -- this is painful and scary.
+- **shooting oneself with a gun** = serious attempt (biggest success rate), but must be done well, may not be so accessible, may fail with shaky hand. Outside of the [US](usa.md) (where this method accounts for more than 50% of suicides) it may be hard to get a gun, especially for people with mental illness, but suiciders have found a way around: going to the shooting range and borrowing a gun for target practice, then quickly shooting oneself. Despite relative high success rate -- 90% according to some sources -- still a surprising number of people survive shooting themselves to the head with a pistol, and they often end up living with horrible consequence, blinding themselves etc. Shotgun is much, MUCH more reliable -- basically a guaranteed success. Some choose to combine this with a fail safe, e.g. poisoning oneself beforehand (e.g. [Hitler](hitler.md)) or standing on the edge of a high building. The gun must be aimed at the CENTER of the brain, which is the part sustaining basic life functions.
+- **drug overdose/poisoning** = risky unreliable way, potentially painful, may be attention whoring. Success rate is similar to that of cutting -- very low, probably less than 4%. There is a high risk of being discovered because dying takes long. Results depends on the specific drug, dosage, luck and each individual, it may be very slow, completely ineffective, induce extreme pain AND/OR irreversible damage to liver etc. Poisoning may last for many DAYS before death comes, and it certainly isn't a pleasant time. The word goes that one must NOT swallow all pills at once (which will just result in a vomit), but slowly take them one by one over the course of some time. Mixing it with a bit of food (e.g. yogurt) can make it more bearable to eat so many pills (some taste very bad). Some also drink alcohol on top as that should increase the drug effect, but again, too much may increase probability of vomiting it all out. Some drugs commonly used or talked about (which doesn't mean they're a good choice) include paracetamol, aspirin, cyanide, pesticides, sleeping pills (barbiturates, one sites recommended Seconal and Nembutal, which is used in medical assisted euthanasia), painkillers, rat poison, xanax, bleach (extremely painful), digitalis, colchicine, heroin, cocaine, paracetamol, toxic plants and mushrooms (belladonna, ...) etc. Even plain water can cause poisoning and death, but one must drink A LOT of it.
+- **hanging** = quite reliable and accessible but slow and painful method, nevertheless very popular. This is often chosen by people who have their freedom restricted, such as prisoners (one doesn't actually have to hang from the ceiling, a door handle is enough). One paper gave success probability of 84% (one website says 75%) -- again, a risk of failure is considerable and failing will likely result in serious brain damage. Risks include rope snapping or discovery. Even professional executions by hanging are infamously messy -- very precise calculations have to be made to ensure that the rope doesn't snap and the neck breaks quickly to prevent slow suffocation, however suffocation is what usually happens in hanging suicides -- this is painful and scary.
 - **drowning** = [WTF](wtf.md). Slow, scary, cold, hard to execute and excruciating painful death. Success probability is relatively high though: around 80%.
 - **starving to death** = very slow but apparently some do it, often as a protest.
-- **car exhaust/hypoxia** = hard to do nowadays (new cars have filters that prevent this). The same can potentially be achieved by letting a fire burn inside a sealed room (e.g. a stove), but this then also poses a big fire hazard etc. If unsuccessful one may end up being greatly retarded, blind and so on, and success is not nearly guaranteed -- one paper gave success rate at only 56%, i.e. a coin flip. The death with these methods happens due to carbon monoxide that deprives body of oxygen and leads to hypoxia -- hypoxia itself has often been described as one of the most pleasant ways of dying (one documentary even found it to be the ideal way of human execution) because it induces euphoria, i.e. one actually feels kind of joy and dizziness (which is part of why hypoxia is dangerous), HOWEVER it must be considered that the exhaust gas or stove smoke may actually be very unpleasant to breathe, so in the end it may turn out to go wrong. I.e. this is likely not a good idea either.
+- **car exhaust/hypoxia** = hard to do nowadays (new cars have filters that prevent this). The same can potentially be achieved by letting a fire burn inside a sealed room (e.g. a stove), but this then also poses a big fire hazard (there must be no exposed wires or flame anywhere near) etc. It's also possible to buy a CO tank and work with that. If unsuccessful one may end up being greatly retarded, blind and so on, and success is not nearly guaranteed -- one paper gave success rate at only 56%, i.e. a coin flip. The death with these methods happens due to carbon monoxide that deprives body of oxygen and leads to hypoxia -- hypoxia itself has often been described as one of the most pleasant ways of dying (one documentary even found it to be the ideal way of human execution) because it induces euphoria, i.e. one actually feels kind of joy and dizziness (which is part of why hypoxia is dangerous), HOWEVER it must be considered that the exhaust gas or stove smoke may actually be very unpleasant to breathe, so in the end it may turn out to go wrong. I.e. this is likely not a good idea either.
 - **seppuku** (also known as *harakiri*) = traditional Japanese ritual suicide, extremely hard to execute, slow and painful, unusable, good only for [memes](meme.md).
 - **guillotine** = the engineer's way, bonus points for style, may be very reliable but ONLY if done right, a nasty fuck up can easily happen. One must be super experienced with making machines and test his device very, VERY carefully. Unlike with executions there is no one to help in case something goes wrong, becoming a nearly headless Nick in the last moments of life wouldn't be a cool experience.
 - **suicide by cop** = Popular in the [USA](usa.md), may be unusable in other parts of the world where cops aren't used to casually shoot at people every day. Can also be tricky and risky, may give the cop a traumatic experience. They may just injure you and put you in jail where you'll end up being raped every day. All in all not such a good idea.
 - **[car](car.md) crash** = asshole method if kills someone else, may be fine when only safely killing self. A head-on crash into opposite traffic on a highway is quite likely to result in death, but it's also extremely evil as one takes other people with him, possibly a whole family, AND maybe even causing additional chain crash killing or injuring many, many more, that's just indescribably bad. Driving off of a VERY high cliff into a canyon or against a concrete wall somewhere where not many people walk would be much more ethical. There's always a chance of survival and experiencing the horror of staying trapped in a burning car. There have also been cases of pilots deliberately crashing planes as a method of suicide, sadly with many people on board. Some say it's safer to use seatbelt, otherwise there is a chance to just get ejected from the car, flying a long distance in air, losing kinetic energy, and then surviving the fall.
 - **freezing to death** = rare, not much data.
-- **electrocution** = rare besides movies, likely a bad idea. It's like setting oneself on fire but including paralyzing oneself and if done wrong (which is easy), one will end up just slowly roasting like a marshmallow. A fancy way for crazy people may be standing on top of a hill with metal rod during a storm, hoping for lightning to strike, but of course the chances are still slim of getting hit, yet lower to actually die.
+- **electrocution** = rare besides movies, likely a bad idea. It's like setting oneself on fire but including paralyzing oneself and if done wrong (which is easy), one will end up just slowly roasting like a marshmallow. Common portrayal is that of someone dropping a plugged-in high-voltage appliance in a bath tub, bug nowadays there are various safeguards and fuses that may cut the circuit, perhaps leaving the victim with mild burns. From many recordings on gore sites it looks like touching the wires above railroads is pretty deadly, but still probably very painful. A fancy way for crazy people may be standing on top of a hill with metal rod during a storm, hoping for lightning to strike, but of course the chances are still slim of getting hit, yet lower to actually die.
 - **explosion** = not very accessible but probably cool if you can pull it off somehow. Again, a huge explosion must be created else survival is possible. Then it's probably quick and painless.
 - **complex suicide** = potentially good way to increase chance of success. This means just combining several methods at once, e.g. taking poison, then setting oneself on fire and quickly shooting self in the brain.
 - **group suicide** = way to encourage oneself to do it if it's too hard to do alone. Many people want to die but are too scared to commit suicide. Finding a partner (or even a bigger group) to do it with can help find the courage.
+- **suffocation by plastic bag** = One puts a plastic bag (without any tears of course) over his head and uses a string to tie it, some also use gas such as helium to make it more bearable. A 2007 study found this the "least painful" method. The advantage (or perhaps a disadvantage) is also that changing one's mind at the last moment can revert the whole process without much damage.
 - **rare, unusual, bizarre, nontraditional ways** = depends. Some people may have access to methods that aren't commonly accessible to others but which may be the best choice in their situation: for example doctors or even just vets may simply use lethal injection. There were several cases of workers in factories jumping into pools of molten steel -- only God knows how fast and painful this is, but one thing is certain: this will probably stop the factory at least for the rest of the day and give coworkers a day off, so one will be remembered for this kind service to the fellow slaves. There were also cases of paraplegics taking advantage of the fact they can't feel pain in parts of their bodies, so they could easily stab themselves. Other ways of weird suicide may include e.g. zoo suicide (feeding the lions with oneself -- cruel and painful but entertaining to onlookers), jumping into plane engine, venomous snake bite, parachute jumping without the parachute, plane crash, sauna death, hydraulic press, jumping into boiling pools of water, eating glass, provoking mafia, insulting MMA fighter's mom, X ray overdose (for medical staff), triggering avalanche, running infinite marathon, jumping from waterfalls, swimming under ice, jumping overboard from a cruise ship, jumping into volcano, moving to Mexico, having sex over and over until heart attack (for old people), cooking oneself in the Sun (for albino people), crashing one's balls with a hammer, self cannibalism, listening to U2 for a whole day, nailgun, intentionally getting lost during caving, speeding on motorcycle with cheese cutter tied to a [tree](tree.md) and put over the neck, handcuffing oneself to a tree deep in a forest and throwing away the keys (this actually happened), trebuchet, explosive decompression, nuking the city you're in (if you're the president), catching a lightning, chasing a tornado, trespassing on someone's property in the [USA](usa.md), jumping in front of a rally car, opening one's suit in [space](space.md) (if you're an astronaut), Internet suicide (just start expressing controversial thoughts like we do [here](lrs_wiki.md)), using cheap submarine to dive to Mariana trench and be crushed (super quick and painless) etc. A particularly funny suicide is described in [Encyclopedia Dramatica](dramatica.md) (http://edramatica.com/Suicide#How_to_Off_Yourself) as "the awesome": one glues his hands to his head and jumps off of some height with cheese cutter over his neck; this results in someone finding a body of someone who looks as if he ripped his head off with his bare hands.
 - ...
 
@@ -46,4 +47,4 @@ For SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHERS: these are some highly scientifically researched meth
 - [ragequit](ragequit.md)
 - [selfharm](selfharm.md)
 - [depression](depression.md)
-- [cope](cope.md)
+- [cope](cope.md)

technology.md

@@ -2,8 +2,12 @@
 
 Technology (from Greek tekhnologia, "systematic treatment of [art](art.md)", also just "tech") encompasses tools and knowledge of making such tools invented and achieved mainly through [science](science.md) and by long systematic effort. This includes everything from [stone tools](rock.md) to space rockets and [artificial intelligence](ai.md). On the [Internet](internet.md), as well as on [this Wiki](lrs_wiki.md), this term is commonly used with an increased focus on [computer](computer.md) technology, i.e. [hardware](hardware.md) and [software](software.md), for this is the kind of technology that is being discussed and developed the most these days. Let it be said that technology, like [fire](fire.md), should serve us, but can also be dangerous and often gets misused and abused.
 
-**The primary purpose of technology is to make people not have to [work](work.md)** -- see also [progress](progress.md). Proponents of dystopian societies, such as [capitalists](capitalism.md), fear that technology will "take work away from the people" -- people who say this are certainly highly idiotic and commonly end up abusing technology in the completely opposite manner: for enslaving and oppressing people. Proponents of [good technology](lrs.md) on the other hand strive to make technology do work for humans so that people can actually live happy lives and do what they want. With this said we additionally have to establish that **one of the most important concepts in technology is [minimalism](minimalism.md)**, as that is a necessary prerequisite for technological [freedom](freedom.md).
+**The primary purpose of technology is to make people not have to [work](work.md)** -- see also [progress](progress.md). Proponents of dystopian societies, such as [capitalists](capitalism.md), fear that technology will "take work away from the people" -- those making such ridiculous claims have most definitely abnormally small dicks and are mental asylum grade idiots that commonly end up abusing technology in the completely opposite manner: for enslaving and oppressing people. Proponents of [good technology](lrs.md) on the other hand strive to make technology do work for humans so that people can actually live happy lives and do what they want. With this said we additionally have to establish that **one of the most important concepts in technology is [minimalism](minimalism.md)**, as that is a necessary prerequisite for technological [freedom](freedom.md).
 
 **Good technology absolutely and unconditionally serves its user in whatever it is he does**, it must never refuse to do what the user asks, it must never abuse the user, it must never hide anything from him. Even if what the user does would be considered dangerous and unethical, the technology may warn the user but if he wishes so, the tool must obey. This is a very basic principle of technology that simply states that a machine is another extension of human, like an extra limb, it should only do work, ethics is left completely to the human brain (the user of the machine, NOT the machine's manufacturer). For this reason technology must never contain any [proprietary](proprietary.md) parts, [censorship](censorship.md), [ads](marketing.md), [DRM](drm.md), [planned obsolescence](planned_obsolescence.md) and so on -- and for this reason good technology is incompatible with [capitalism](capitalism.md) (where technology serves its manufacturer).
 
-**Knowledge of [older](old.md) technology gets lost extremely quickly in society** -- this is a crucial realization that follows a naive idea of the young man who by his inexperience believes that we somehow pertain knowledge of all technology that's been invented from dawn of man until today. In [history](history.md) our society has always only held knowledge of technology it was CURRENTLY ACTIVELY USING; knowledge of decades old technology no longer in use only stays in hands and heads of extremely few individuals and perhaps in some obscure [books](book.md) that ARE UNREADABLE to most, sometimes to none; yet older technology oftentimes gets forgotten for good. For instance renaissance had to largely reinvent many arts and sciences of making building and statues of antiquity because middle ages have simply forgotten them. A more recent example can be found at [NASA](nasa.md) and their efforts to recreate THEIR OWN old rocket engines: you would think that since they literally have detailed documentation of those engines, they'd be able to simple make them again, but that's not the case because the small undocumented (yet crucial) [know-how](know_how.md) of the people who built the engines decades ago was lost with those individuals who died or retired in the meanwhile; NASA had to start a ginormous project to reinvent its own relatively recent technology. The same is happening in the field of [programming](programming.md): [modern](modern.md) [soydevs](soydev.md) just CANNOT create as efficient software as hackers back then as due to normalization of wasting computing resources they threw away the knowledge of [optimization](optimization.md) technique and [wisdom](unix_philosophy.md) in favor of bullshit such as "soft skills" and memorizing one billion genders and personal pronouns. One might naively think that e.g. since our agriculture is highly efficient and advanced due to all the immense complexity of our current machines, simple farming without machines would be a child's play for us, however the opposite is true: we no longer know how to farm without machines. If a [collapse](collpase.md) comes, we are quite simply fucked.
+**Knowledge of [older](old.md) technology gets lost extremely quickly in society** -- this is a crucial realization that follows a naive idea of the young man who by his inexperience believes that we somehow pertain knowledge of all technology that's been invented from dawn of man until today. In [history](history.md) our society has always only held knowledge of technology it was CURRENTLY ACTIVELY USING; knowledge of decades old technology no longer in use only stays in hands and heads of extremely few individuals and perhaps in some obscure [books](book.md) that ARE UNREADABLE to most, sometimes to none; yet older technology oftentimes gets forgotten for good. For instance renaissance had to largely reinvent many arts and sciences of making building and statues of antiquity because middle ages have simply forgotten them. A more recent, very absurd example is provided by [NASA](nasa.md)'s efforts to recreate THEIR OWN old rocket engines: you would think that since they literally have detailed documentation of those engines, they'd be able to simple make them again, but that's not the case because the small undocumented (yet crucial) [know-how](know_how.md) of the people who built the engines decades ago was lost with those individuals who in the meantime died or retired; NASA had to start a ginormous project to reinvent its own relatively recent technology. The same is happening in the field of [programming](programming.md): [modern](modern.md) [soydevs](soydev.md) just CANNOT create as efficient software as hackers back then as due to normalization of wasting computing resources they threw away the knowledge of [optimization](optimization.md) technique and [wisdom](unix_philosophy.md) in favor of bullshit such as "soft skills" and memorizing one billion genders and personal pronouns. One might naively think that e.g. since our agriculture is highly efficient and advanced due to all the immense complexity of our current machines, simple farming without machines would be a child's play for us, however the opposite is true: we no longer know how to farm without machines. If a [collapse](collpase.md) comes, we are quite simply fucked.
+
+## See Also
+
+- [science](science.md)

trolling.md

@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ Here are some potentially entertaining ways of trolling (they'll be written from
 - **Classic trollz** revolve around creating [drama](drama.md) on forums -- this is kind of an [art](art.md) as you have to keep the right balance of seriousness and stupidity; too much of the former and you're not trolling anyone, too much of the latter and you're just spotted as obvious troll. It's definitely not about logging on a starting to drop the [N-words](nigger.md) and insulting everyone, that's just an instant ban that ends the fun; you rather want to start slow, get many people seriously involved in the discussion, be polite and then slightly steer the talk towards something controversial (nice if you pretend to be part of some "oppressed minority"). Then you just make it look like you're just an uneducated simple minded individual who kind of happens to lean towards an opinion the others truly hate, but you have to keep their hope that they can convince you to change your opinion, so still try to be polite, just so you keep arguing with them and wasting more and more of their time until they start losing their shit and the thread explodes into [hitler](hitler.md) arguments etc., then just watch and enjoy.
 - **Having fun with the surveillance**: Our [modern](modern.md), bleeding edge technology combined with ultra modern [capitalism](capitalism.md) achieved the amount of [surveillance](surveillance.md) that cavemen could only dream of -- today we can enjoy being watched 24/7 everywhere and feel the warmth of sharing our private correspondence with some kind stranger so that we don't feel so alone. We can thank these good people and censors by hiding nice surprises in our correspondence just for their pleasure. The downside here is that we won't see his reaction, but just knowing about it can warm one's heart. For example when I'm sending something to another continent I know all packages come through border control to achieve great degree of PROTECTION^TM, those people just have to go looking through the things you're sending and spend lengthy days asking themselves questions such as "Why would he be sending this kind of item? Could it be suspicious that a 20 year old man is sending a dildo to a 60 year old woman? We have to think about this deeper to find reasons behind this." I know these people must be bored checking the same kind of items every day over and over, so I make unique, creative challenges for them. For example I create something that looks like drugs: I make a suspicious looking box with removable bottom and in there I put plastic bags with sugar, but that's not all of course -- this will just raise the possibility of them having to CAREFULLY check all the items I am sending, and that's where I hide all the surprises. I print out images such as goatse and photos of suicided children (in high resolution) and create a small novel sized book out of it captioned: top secret [steganography](steganography.md) information, knowing someone will have to go through it all and analyze every single picture to see if there is some kind of hidden list of drug business partners or something; then I add some weird machine, a bunch of randomly assembled gears and microchips and puzzle toys, that will make some highly paid engineer busy for several months, it'll make him scratch his head and try to figure out what the device is for (spoiler: it does nothing) -- sometimes for the border control you have to list all the items contained in the boxes, capitalists just assume that every item in the universe can be classified by their shitty tax categories, so I just create these weird unclassifiable things and invent names for them like "quazi orthosplitter gene rotator" or something (using random word generator on the Internet). A cheaper version of this act of kindness can be performed by embedding "interesting" links into one's unencrypted emails that contain "interesting" keywords such as "BOMB", "ALLAH" etc. For example I may drop in some gay porn so that the surveillance worker can literally watch porn on his shift: this will make him very happy.
 - **Satellite image vandalization**: In this [modern](modern.md) age we now have easily accessible to everyone satellite images of whole [Earth](earth.md) surface in fine resolution, isn't that awesome? I like to use this fact for the lulz. I set for a desolate place far away from civilization where no one ever walks, and there I create funny pictures and texts from logs and rocks that will be recognizable in satellite images. Even if Google spots them and applies its masterful art of censorship, there are still many other competing services and photo sets where it will be overlooked and my creations will plague the Internet for a very long time -- and as one of my creations is being censored and destroyed, I am already working on another one somewhere else. It's a relaxing activity in the wilderness and a great motivation to go outside, spend some time alone in beautiful nature. Similar effects can be achieved by planting trees (you can even mask this behind ecology activism) or even building houses in funny shapes, but obviously I'll have to wait very long to see the results here. If my artwork is big enough, people don't even notice it when walking by, it will only be visible from above. Now there are of course simple funny [words](nigger.md) that immediately come to mind that one can spam this way, but we mustn't limit our creativity so easily: we have a publicly accessible canvas onto which we can ANONYMOUSLY paint WHATEVER we want. Someone needs to be [doxxed](dox.md)? Revealed as [gay](gay.md)? Illegal information wants to be shared? What's a better place than this? Best of all if anyone gets in trouble for this, it may be the creator of the satellite image.
-- **Weird life goal troll**: This one requires extreme dedication and is a bit risky, but it might be one of the highest trolling peaks if performed successfully and well. So what's the troll here? We know that life goal cannot be objectively set, you can make your life goal whatever you want and no one can ever objectively refute it. So you can for example set your life goal to just walk forward -- you will dedicate everything to only walking forward as much as you can. You will stop going to work, you will only eat and drink if absolutely necessary, you'll just get up from the bed one day and start walking over the country in your pajamas -- if people ask you if you're alright you just say "yes, thank you". If you are starving, you just grab nearest food and eat it, if you need to sleep, you just lie down somewhere and sleep and then just walk again. Soon you'll probably be taken to mental asylum -- there you have to just prove you're completely normal, convince them you know what you're doing, that you're not feeling any anxiety or depression, that you hear no voices, you have only set walking as your life goal -- there is no objective way to refute this life goal. You will probably end up in asylum or jail anyway sooner or later, then just try to maximize walking, be nice and lie if you have to. If they lead you to the court, just turn around and start walking out of the building. If they put you in chains, just behave nicely and say you won't try to run away -- if they take the chains down, just start walking away. Whenever you get out of jail, just start walking again and so on. Now there is a risk that you may just waste your life without attracting any attention, but you may also become famous and then highlight the fact that current society is extremely retarded and is not ready for people who aren't conforming and just set their life goal arbitrarily.
+- **Weird life goal troll**: This one requires extreme dedication and is a bit risky, but it might be one of the highest trolling peaks if performed successfully and well. So what's the troll here? We know that life goal cannot be objectively set, you can make your life goal whatever you want and no one can ever objectively refute it. So you can for example set your life goal to just walk forward -- you will dedicate everything to only walking forward as much as you can. You will stop going to work, you will only eat and drink if absolutely necessary, you'll just get up from the bed one day and start walking over the country in your pajamas -- if people ask you if you're alright you just say "yes, thank you". If you are starving, you just grab nearest food and eat it, if you need to sleep, you just lie down somewhere and sleep and then just walk again. Presumably you are going to end up in mental asylum soon -- there you have to just prove you're completely normal, convince them you know what you're doing, that you're not feeling any anxiety or depression, that you hear no voices, you have only set walking as your life goal -- there is no objective way to refute this life goal. You will probably end up in asylum or jail anyway sooner or later, then just try to maximize walking, be nice and lie if you have to. If they lead you to the court, just turn around and start walking out of the building. If they put you in chains, just behave nicely and say you won't try to run away -- if they take the chains down, just start walking away. Whenever you get out of jail, just start walking again and so on. Now there is a risk that you may just waste your life without attracting any attention, but you may also become famous and then highlight the fact that current society is extremely retarded and is not ready for people who aren't conforming and just set their life goal arbitrarily.
 - Prank calls to businesses can be cool, a traditional troll is for example calling two restaurants and letting them talk to each other :D This can fuck up two businesses at the same time, so it's even good for society, and the women behind the phone will be happy because it brings a little fun to their otherwise boring and repetitive slavery.
 - ...
 

ubi.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Universal basic income (UBI) is the idea that all people should get regular pay
 
 UBI that itself covers all basic needs is called full, otherwise it is called partial. UBI subscribes to the idea that **the goal of [progress](progress.md) is to eliminate the need for work**, which is correct -- we should leave all work to machines eventually, that's why we started civilization. This doesn't mean we can't work, just that we aren't obliged.
 
-The first reaction of a noob hearing about UBI is "but everyone will just stop working!" Well no, for a number of reasons (which have been confirmed by real life experiments). For example most people don't want to just survive, they want to buy nice things and have something extra, so most people will want to get some additional income. Secondly people do want to work -- work in the sense of doing something meaningful. If they don't have to be wage slaves, most will decide to dedicate their free time to doing something useful. Thirdly people are already used to working, most will keep doing it just out of inertia, e.g. because they have friends at work or simply because they actually happen to like going there.
+The first reaction of a noob hearing about UBI is "but everyone will just stop working!" Well no, for a number of reasons (which have been confirmed by real life experiments). For example most people don't want to just survive, they want to buy nice things and have something extra, so most people will want to get some additional income. Secondly people do want to work -- work in the sense of doing something meaningful. If they don't have to be wage slaves, most will decide to dedicate their free time to doing something useful. Why do people have hobbies? Why did people work before money was invented? If everyone wanted to just stay in bed if not forced to do something, why do we punish criminals by locking them in a room with a bed with nothing to do? Lying in bed and doing nothing is literally a [disease](disease.md) called [depression](depression.md). Thirdly people are already used to working, it's one of the most deeply ingrained parts of our [culture](culture.md), most will keep doing it just out of [inertia](social_inertia.md), e.g. because they have friends at work or simply because they actually happen to like going there.
 
 { I personally know quite a lot of people with third degree disability, i.e. people who basically already DO have a basic income -- they get an equivalent of salary for free every month as well as full health and social insurance. Most of them voluntarily go to work even though they don't have to, despite the fact that it is NOT recommended for these people to do so and despite them actually risking their disability pension being taken away for this, which happens. AND these are people with the worst disabilities for whom it actually IS physically much more difficult to work, and they still do it. I have talked to the people, they simply say they are bored at home, they want to feel useful and also have something extra to buy nice things. I.e. it is literally confirmed in practice that people will not stop working with UBI. ~drummyfish }
 

unix_philosophy.md

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ What Is Less Retarded Software/Society/Wiki?
 
 In the command the pipes (`|`) chain multiple programs together so that the output of one becomes the input of the next. The first command, *[wget](wget.md)*, downloads the [HTML](html.md) content of the webpage and passes it to the second command, *[grep](grep.md)*, which [filters](filter.md) the text and only prints lines with headings (using so called [regular expressions](regex.md)), this is passed to *[sed](sed.md)* that removes the HTML code and the result is passed to *sort* that sorts the lines alphabetically -- as this is the last command, the result is then printed out, but we could also e.g. add ` > output.txt` at the end to save the result into a text file instead. We also use [flags](flag.md) to modify the behavior of the programs, for example `-i` tells *grep* to work in case-insensitive mode, `-q` tells *wget* to be silent and not print things such as download progress. [This whole wiki](lrs_wiki.md) is basically made on top of a few scripts like this (compare e.g. to [MediaWiki](mediawiki.md) software), so you literally see the manifestation of these presented concepts as you're reading this. This kind of "workflow" is a fast, powerful and very flexible way of processing data for anyone who knows the Unix tools. Notice the relative simplicity of each command and how each one works as a **[text](text.md) [filter](filter.md)**; text is a universal communication interface and behaving as a filter makes intercommunication easy and efficient, utilizing the principle of a [pipeline](pipeline.md). A filter simply takes an input stream of data and outputs another stream of data; it ideally works on-the-go (without having to load whole input in order to produce the output), which has numerous advantages, for example requiring only a small amount of memory (which may become significant when we are running many programs at once in the pipeline, imagine e.g. a server with 10000 users, each one running his own commands like this) and decreasing [latency](latency.md) (the next pipe stage may start processing the data before the previous stage finishes). When you're writing a program, such as for example a [compression](compression.md) tool, make it work like this.
 
-Compare this to the opposing [Windows philosophy](windows_philosophy.md) in which combining programs into collaborating units is not intended, is possibly even purposefully prevented and therefore very difficult, slow and impractical to do -- such programs are designed for manually performing some predefined actions, mostly using [GUI](gui.md), e.g. painting pictures with a mouse, but aren't designed to collaborate with each other or be automatized, they can rarely be used in unintended, inventive ways needed for powerful [hacking](hacking.md). Returning to the example of a compression tool, on Windows such a program would be a large GUI program that requires a user to open up a file dialog, manually select a file to compress, which then might even do nasty things like loading the whole file into memory (because anyone who can afford Windows can also afford a lot of [RAM](ram.md)), perform compression there, and then writing the data back to some other file. Need to use the program on a computer without graphical display? Automatize it to work with other programs? Run it from a script? Run it 10000 at the same time with 10000 other similar programs? Bad luck, Windows philosophy doesn't allow this.
+Compare this to the opposing [Windows philosophy](windows_philosophy.md) in which combining programs into collaborating units is not intended, is possibly even purposefully prevented and therefore very difficult, slow and impractical to do -- such programs are designed for manually performing some predefined actions, mostly using [GUI](gui.md), e.g. painting pictures with a mouse, but aren't designed to collaborate with each other or be automated, they can rarely be used in unintended, inventive ways needed for powerful [hacking](hacking.md). Returning to the example of a compression tool, on Windows such a program would be a large GUI program that requires a user to open up a file dialog, manually select a file to compress, which then might even do nasty things like loading the whole file into memory (because anyone who can afford Windows can also afford a lot of [RAM](ram.md)), perform compression there, and then writing the data back to some other file. Need to use the program on a computer without graphical display? Automatize it to work with other programs? Run it from a script? Run it 10000 at the same time with 10000 other similar programs? Bad luck, Windows philosophy doesn't allow this.
 
 **Watch out! Do not misunderstand Unix philosophy.** There are many extremely dangerous cases of misunderstanding Unix philosophy by [modern](modern.md) [wannabe programmers](soydev.md) who can't tell [pseudominimalism](pseudominimalism.md) apart from true [minimalism](minimalism.md). One example is the hilarious myth about "[React](react.md) following Unix philosophy" ([LMAO this](http://img.stanleylieber.com/src/20872/img/small.1527773532.png)), the devs just show so many misunderstandings here -- firstly of course [JavaScript](js.md) itself is extremely [bloated](bloat.md) as it's a language aiming for things like comfort, rapid development, "safety" and beginner friendliness to which it sacrifices performance and elegance, an expert hacker trying to write highly thought through, optimized program is not its target group, therefore nothing based on JavaScript can ever be compatible with the Unix way in the first place. Secondly they seem to imply that basically any system of modules follows Unix philosophy -- that's of course wrong, modularity far predates Unix philosophy, Unix philosophy is more than that, merely having a package system of libraries, each of which focuses on some thing (even very broad one like highly complex [GUI](gui.md)), doesn't mean those tools are simple (both internally and externally), efficient, communicating in good ways and so on.
 

update_culture.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Update culture is a highly harmful, generally established mindset emerging in a
 
 *"Your software is too old, please update to the latest version."*
 
-In software this process is a lot of times automatized and known as [autoupdates](autoupdate.md), but update culture encompasses more than this, it's the whole mentality of having to constantly keep up, update one's software, hardware and other products, it is part of [fear culture](fear_culture.md), [bullshit](bullshit.md) and [consumerism](consumerism.md). Normies get all neurotic when they haven't received their weekly updates that give them new content or fake sense of "[security](security.md)". The truth is updates break more things that they fix and make software progressively [shittier](modern.md). STOP FUCKING UPDATING EVERYTHING EVERY 3 SECONDS YOU IDIOTS. [Good software](lrs.md) is written once and works for hundreds of years without [maintenance](maintenance.md).
+In software this process is a lot of times automated and known as [autoupdates](autoupdate.md), but update culture encompasses more than this, it's the whole mentality of having to constantly keep up, update one's software, hardware and other products, it is part of [fear culture](fear_culture.md), [bullshit](bullshit.md) and [consumerism](consumerism.md). Normies get all neurotic when they haven't received their weekly updates that give them new content or fake sense of "[security](security.md)". The truth is updates break more things that they fix and make software progressively [shittier](modern.md). STOP FUCKING UPDATING EVERYTHING EVERY 3 SECONDS YOU IDIOTS. [Good software](lrs.md) is written once and works for hundreds of years without [maintenance](maintenance.md).
 
 A typical example falling under update culture are [web browsers](browser.md) or proprietary [operating systems](operating_system.md) that strive for [bloat monopoly](bloat_monopoly.md). Normalizing the practice of having to consume updates leads to the convenient opportunity for abuse of users: with the stuff you need you may be fed stuff you don't want.
 

wiki_stats.md

@@ -2,13 +2,13 @@
 
 This is an autogenerated article holding stats about this wiki.
 
-- number of articles: 638
-- number of commits: 1015
-- total size of all texts in bytes: 5441148
-- total number of lines of article texts: 39266
+- number of articles: 639
+- number of commits: 1017
+- total size of all texts in bytes: 5458790
+- total number of lines of article texts: 39453
 - number of script lines: 324
 - occurrences of the word "person": 10
-- occurrences of the word "nigger": 141
+- occurrences of the word "nigger": 143
 
 longest articles:
 
@@ -35,60 +35,85 @@ longest articles:
 
 top 50 5+ letter words:
 
-- which (2941)
-- there (2312)
-- people (2205)
-- example (1891)
-- other (1680)
-- about (1505)
-- number (1419)
+- which (2952)
+- there (2314)
+- people (2206)
+- example (1897)
+- other (1685)
+- about (1507)
+- number (1431)
 - software (1316)
-- because (1236)
-- their (1163)
-- would (1118)
+- because (1242)
+- their (1164)
+- would (1120)
 - something (1116)
-- being (1094)
+- being (1096)
 - program (1080)
-- language (1021)
+- language (1023)
 - called (993)
 - things (948)
-- without (915)
-- simple (894)
+- without (919)
+- simple (896)
 - function (882)
-- computer (865)
-- numbers (860)
-- different (836)
-- these (806)
+- computer (868)
+- numbers (867)
+- different (838)
+- these (807)
 - programming (803)
+- world (800)
 - however (800)
-- world (799)
-- should (778)
+- should (779)
 - system (771)
-- still (758)
-- doesn (746)
+- still (759)
+- doesn (748)
 - games (729)
 - possible (715)
-- drummyfish (703)
-- point (698)
-- always (694)
+- drummyfish (709)
+- point (704)
+- always (695)
 - while (692)
 - society (691)
-- probably (683)
-- simply (675)
-- using (660)
-- https (649)
-- course (635)
+- probably (685)
+- simply (677)
+- using (661)
+- https (650)
+- course (637)
+- actually (626)
 - similar (625)
-- actually (624)
-- someone (616)
-- value (606)
-- first (602)
+- someone (620)
+- value (610)
+- first (604)
 - though (595)
 - really (583)
 
 latest changes:
 
 ```
+Date:   Wed May 7 21:16:44 2025 +0200
+  3d_model.md
+  90s.md
+  anorexia.md
+  bloat.md
+  comun.md
+  conum.md
+  czechia.md
+  drummyfish.md
+  float.md
+  javascript.md
+  lmao.md
+  low_poly.md
+  lrs_dictionary.md
+  main.md
+  netstalking.md
+  number.md
+  often_confused.md
+  rock.md
+  twos_complement.md
+  youtube.md
+Date:   Sat May 3 17:42:44 2025 +0200
+  random_page.md
+  wiki_pages.md
+  wiki_stats.md
 Date:   Sat May 3 16:21:08 2025 +0200
   color.md
   float.md
@@ -97,39 +122,13 @@ Date:   Sat May 3 16:21:08 2025 +0200
   kiss.md
   lrs_dictionary.md
   mandelbrot_set.md
-  minimalism.md
-  netstalking.md
-  number.md
-  pi.md
-  prime.md
-  programming_language.md
-  random_page.md
-  sin.md
-  wiki_pages.md
-  wiki_stats.md
-  work.md
-Date:   Wed Apr 30 23:50:45 2025 +0200
-  beauty.md
-  chess.md
-  low_poly.md
-  lrs_dictionary.md
-  main.md
-  netstalking.md
-  number.md
-  prime.md
-  random_page.md
-  smol_internet.md
-  wiki_pages.md
-  wiki_stats.md
-  www.md
-Date:   Wed Apr 30 00:58:00 2025 +0200
 ```
 
 most wanted pages:
 
 - [data_type](data_type.md) (16)
+- [irl](irl.md) (15)
 - [retard](retard.md) (14)
-- [irl](irl.md) (14)
 - [meme](meme.md) (13)
 - [embedded](embedded.md) (13)
 - [cli](cli.md) (12)
@@ -151,29 +150,29 @@ most wanted pages:
 most popular and lonely pages:
 
 - [lrs](lrs.md) (349) 
-- [capitalism](capitalism.md) (320) 
+- [capitalism](capitalism.md) (321) 
 - [c](c.md) (248) 
-- [bloat](bloat.md) (247) 
+- [bloat](bloat.md) (248) 
 - [free_software](free_software.md) (207) 
 - [game](game.md) (164) 
 - [suckless](suckless.md) (152) 
 - [proprietary](proprietary.md) (141) 
-- [modern](modern.md) (132) 
-- [computer](computer.md) (130) 
-- [minimalism](minimalism.md) (129) 
+- [modern](modern.md) (133) 
+- [computer](computer.md) (131) 
+- [minimalism](minimalism.md) (130) 
 - [censorship](censorship.md) (126) 
 - [kiss](kiss.md) (123) 
+- [fun](fun.md) (119) 
+- [shit](shit.md) (118) 
 - [programming](programming.md) (118) 
 - [math](math.md) (118) 
-- [shit](shit.md) (117) 
-- [fun](fun.md) (117) 
 - [woman](woman.md) (113) 
 - [gnu](gnu.md) (108) 
 - [linux](linux.md) (106) 
 - [history](history.md) (106) 
 - [art](art.md) (105) 
+- [bullshit](bullshit.md) (104) 
 - [corporation](corporation.md) (103) 
-- [bullshit](bullshit.md) (103) 
 - [fight_culture](fight_culture.md) (100) 
 - [hacking](hacking.md) (97) 
 - [internet](internet.md) (95) 

woman.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ The symbol for woman is a circle with cross at its bottom ([Unicode](unicode.md)
 
 [Fun](fun.md) fact: in [Czechia](czechia.md) it is literally a folk tradition to beat women on Easter, for which the woman must give the man who beat her a treat, it's called Pomlazka, or Easter whip in [English](english.md), look it up :D
 
-Women also can't drive, operate machines, they can't compare even to the worst men in sports, both physical and mental such as [chess](chess.md). Women have to have separate leagues and more relaxed rules, e.g. the title Woman Grand Master (WGM) in chess has far lower requirements to obtain than regular Grand Master (GM). (According to [Elo](elo.md) rating the best woman chess player in history would have only 8% chance of winning against current best male who would have 48% chance of winning). On the International Mathematical Olympiad only 43 out of 1338 medals were obtained by females. There are too many funny cases and video compilations of women facing men in sports (watch them before they're censored lol), e.g. the infamous Vaevictis female "progaming" team or the [football](football.md) match between the US national women team (probably the best women team in the world) vs some random under 15 years old boy's team which of course the women team lost. LMAO there is even a video of 1 skinny boy beating 9 women in boxing. Of course there are arguments that worse performance of women in mental sports is caused culturally; women aren't led so much to playing chess, therefore there are fewer women in chess and so the probability of a good woman player appearing is lower. There may be a small part of truth to this but in the end it's most definitely just an excuse to cover up the fact that women don't play chess (and aren't encouraged to do so) simply because they're not naturally good at it. Do chimpanzees lack the ability to read because we "oppress" them by not installing bookshelves into their zoo exhibits? Take a look at [Jews](jew.md): they are a minority, one that's been under extremely heavy oppression, even that of genocide, and they still managed to grab the highest ranks in society and basically win the capitalist game. Nowadays, in [21st century](21st_century.md), women are no longer oppressed, on the contrary they now get social privileges, encouragement, all the handholding and support -- where are the female chess geniuses then? Where are the female Einsteins? Not even with all the support in the world can they get to the level of men (note that [eventually](future.md), out of necessity, feminism WILL resort to crippling men and forging data to make it look like females beat men, but that will indeed be just pure lies). And still, no matter the cause, the fact simply stands that women are generally worse than men at mental activities -- a randomly picked man will most likely be better at chess than a randomly picked woman, and that's what matters in the end. Also if women are displaced from chess by culture, then what is the area they are displaced to? If women are as capable as men, then for any area dominated by men there should be an area equally dominated by women, however we see that anywhere men face women men win big time, even in the woman activities such as cooking and fashion design. Feminists will say that men simply oppress women everywhere, but this just means that women are dominated by men everywhere, which means they are more skilled and capable at everything, there is no way out -- yes, antelope are oppressed by lions, but it's because lions are stronger than antelopes. Here we simply argue that women are weaker than men, not that oppressing women is okay -- it isn't. "It's cultural" is the absolute top argument of feminists, they say women are just as smart and capable as men and that men, since we lived in caves, somehow plotted to oppress women and keep it a secret from them that they're so smart -- if it's "cultural", then also ask why is the culture like this? Culture is shaped by needs, necessities, by reality; if we know one thing about evolution then it's that it OPTIMIZES everything to maximum -- if women give birth to children and then feed them, they won't go hunting with men, and if they don't go hunting, it's unnecessary to give them big brains capable of quick, precise decisions which require more nutrition, just as it's inefficient to give them big, strong bodies that need more food -- this is evolution, that's the reality and that's what formed the culture. Furthermore if women were weaker but not by that much, we should statistically see at least occasional dominance by a woman, but we practically don't, it's really almost impossible to find a single such case in history, which indicates women are VERY SIGNIFICANTLY weaker, i.e. not something negligible we could just ignore. Being a woman correlates to losing to a man almost perfectly, it is a great predictor, basically as strong as can appear in science.
+Women also can't drive, operate machines, they can't compare even to the worst men in sports, both physical and mental such as [chess](chess.md). Women have to have separate leagues and more relaxed rules, e.g. the title Woman Grand Master (WGM) in chess has far lower requirements to obtain than regular Grand Master (GM). (According to [Elo](elo.md) rating the best woman chess player in history would have only 8% chance of winning against current best male who would have 48% chance of winning). On the International Mathematical Olympiad only 43 out of 1338 medals were obtained by females. There are too many funny cases and video compilations of women facing men in sports (watch them before they're censored lol), e.g. the infamous Vaevictis female "progaming" team or the [football](football.md) match between the US national women team (presumably the best women team in the world) vs some random under 15 years old boy's team which of course the women team lost. LMAO there is even a video of 1 skinny boy beating 9 women in boxing. Of course there are arguments that worse performance of women in mental sports is caused culturally; women aren't led so much to playing chess, therefore there are fewer women in chess and so the probability of a good woman player appearing is lower. There may be a small part of truth to this but in the end it's most definitely just an excuse to cover up the fact that women don't play chess (and aren't encouraged to do so) simply because they're not naturally good at it. Do chimpanzees lack the ability to read because we "oppress" them by not installing bookshelves into their zoo exhibits? Take a look at [Jews](jew.md): they are a minority, one that's been under extremely heavy oppression, even that of genocide, and they still managed to grab the highest ranks in society and basically win the capitalist game. Nowadays, in [21st century](21st_century.md), women are no longer oppressed, on the contrary they now get social privileges, encouragement, all the handholding and support -- where are the female chess geniuses then? Where are the female Einsteins? Not even with all the support in the world can they get to the level of men (note that [eventually](future.md), out of necessity, feminism WILL resort to crippling men and forging data to make it look like females beat men, but that will indeed be just pure lies). And still, no matter the cause, the fact simply stands that women are generally worse than men at mental activities -- a randomly picked man will most likely be better at chess than a randomly picked woman, and that's what matters in the end. Also if women are displaced from chess by culture, then what is the area they are displaced to? If women are as capable as men, then for any area dominated by men there should be an area equally dominated by women, however we see that anywhere men face women men win big time, even in the woman activities such as cooking and fashion design. Feminists will say that men simply oppress women everywhere, but this just means that women are dominated by men everywhere, which means they are more skilled and capable at everything, there is no way out -- yes, antelope are oppressed by lions, but it's because lions are stronger than antelopes. Here we simply argue that women are weaker than men, not that oppressing women is okay -- it isn't. "It's cultural" is the absolute top argument of feminists, they say women are just as smart and capable as men and that men, since we lived in caves, somehow plotted to oppress women and keep it a secret from them that they're so smart -- if it's "cultural", then also ask why is the culture like this? Culture is shaped by needs, necessities, by reality; if we know one thing about evolution then it's that it OPTIMIZES everything to maximum -- if women give birth to children and then feed them, they won't go hunting with men, and if they don't go hunting, it's unnecessary to give them big brains capable of quick, precise decisions which require more nutrition, just as it's inefficient to give them big, strong bodies that need more food -- this is evolution, that's the reality and that's what formed the culture. Furthermore if women were weaker but not by that much, we should statistically see at least occasional dominance by a woman, but we practically don't, it's really almost impossible to find a single such case in history, which indicates women are VERY SIGNIFICANTLY weaker, i.e. not something negligible we could just ignore. Being a woman correlates to losing to a man almost perfectly, it is a great predictor, basically as strong as can appear in science.
 
 { I actually enjoy women football, mostly for its comedic value. ~drummyfish }