Encyclopedia (also encyclopaedia, cyclopedia or cyclopaedia, from Greek *enkyklios paideia*, roughly "general education") is a large [book](book.md) (or a series of books) providing structured summary of wide knowledge in one or many fields of knowledge (such as [mathematics](math.md), [history](history.md), engineering, general knowledge etc.), usually structured as a collection of alphabetically ordered articles on terms used in the field. Paper encyclopedias are oftentimes printed in several volumes as the amount of contained information is too great for a single book. The largest and most famous encyclopedia to date is the online [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) created by volunteers in [free culture](free_culture.md) spirit, however Wikipedia suffers from significant issues such as [censorship](censorship.md), high political propaganda and low quality of writing, therefore it is important to also stay interested in other encyclopedias such as Britannica or [LRS wiki](lrs_wiki.md).
**Encyclopedias are awesome**, get as many of them as you can, especially the printed ones -- they are usually relatively cheap (especially second hand books) and provide an ENORMOUS amount of information, FOREVER (no one can cancel your physically owned paper book, you will retain it even after the [collapse](collapse.md) when such books will become practically your only source of human knowledge). Also remember, paper books are still of much higher quality than online resources such as [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) -- even if they lose in terms of shear volume, they make up in quality of writing and still many times contain information that's not available online, and the older ones are more objective and trustworthy, considering the decline of [free speech](free_speech.md) online. Even if such a book isn't [free as in freedom](free_culture.md), the knowledge, information and data contained in it is in the [public domain](public_domain.md) as such things cannot (yet) be owned, therefore it is possible to legally paraphrase the information into a new source which we may make public domain itself (however watch out to not merely copy-paste texts from encyclopedias as text CAN be [copyrighted](copyright.md), as well as e.g. the mere selection of which facts to include; always be very careful).
**Similar terms:** encyclopedias, which also used to be called **cyclopedias** in the past, are similar to **dictionaries** and these works often overlap (many encyclopedias call themselves dictionaries); the main difference is that a dictionary focuses on providing linguistic information about the terms and has shorter term definitions, while encyclopedias have longer articles (which however limits the total number of terms it may contain). Encyclopedias are also a subset of so called **reference works**, i.e. works that serve to provide [information](information.md) and reference to it (other kinds of reference works being e.g. world maps or [API](api.md) references). A **universal/general** encyclopedia is one that focuses on human knowledge at wide, as opposed to an encyclopedia that focuses on one specific field of knowledge. **Compendium** can be seen almost as a synonym to encyclopedia, with encyclopedias perhaps usually being more general and extensive.
Entropy is a quite cryptic, often misunderstood scientific term that may have different definitions depending on specific field and context, which can intuitively be interpreted as an amount of disorder, uncertainty or [randomness](randomness.md). There are two main kinds of entropy: information entropy (information theory) and thermodynamic entropy (physics).
Entropy is a quite cryptic, often misunderstood [scientific](science.md) term that may have different definitions depending on specific field and context, which can intuitively be interpreted as an amount of disorder, uncertainty or [randomness](randomness.md). There are two main kinds of entropy: information entropy (information theory) and thermodynamic entropy (physics).
Morality is the sense of greater values of an individual and society from which it follows what's ultimately right, wrong, [good](good.md) and [bad](bad.md)/[evil](evil.md) on a greater level, for a "greater good", without succumbing to low instincts such as [self interest](self_interest.md), self preservation, immediate pleasure etc. Morality is what greatly distinguishes man from animal and allows him to act not on mere instincts and reactions to immediate stimuli, it is driven by the higher forces such as beliefs, [logic](logic.md), [empathy](empathy.md), [love](love.md), conscience, [religion](religion.md) and [science](science.md). Examples of moral (good) behavior include [altruism](altruism.md), [selflessness](selflessness.md), [communism](communism.md) in general sense, [less retarded society](less_retarded_society.md) and [non violence](non_violence.md), while examples of IMMORALITY (evil) might be [capitalism](capitalism.md), [fascism](fascism.md), [rape](rape.md), [pedophobia](pedophobia.md), [genocide](genocide.md), [marketing](marketing.md), [proprietary software](proprietary.md), [nationalism](nationalism.md) and [LGBT](lgbt.md).
Morality is very similar to **[ethics](ethics.md)**, to the point of often being used interchangeably, however we may still find slight differences. While morality is seen as something personal and intuitive, greatly driven by conscience and judged on a case-by-case basis, ethics is perceived more as a set of informal, often unwritten shared rules to assure morality in a larger group of individuals, i.e. ethics is an agreement on a way of behavior between individuals, each of which may have slightly different personal morals. Ethics is also sometimes defined as the branch of [philosophy](philosophy.md) concerned with examining morality.
There are many terms that are very similar and are sometimes used interchangeably. This isn't wrong per se, a slight difference may be insignificant in certain contexts. However it's good to know the differences for those cases when they matter. The following list tries to document some of the often confused terms.
There are many terms that are very similar and can many times be used interchangeably. This isn't wrong per se, a slight difference may be insignificant in certain contexts. However it's good to know the differences for the sake of those cases where they matter. The following list tries to document some of the often confused/similar terms.
- **[AI](ai.md)** vs **[machine learning](machine_learning.md)** vs **[neural networks](neural_net.md)**
- **[algebra](algebra.md)** vs **[arithmetic](arithmetic.md)**
@ -8,8 +8,9 @@ There are many terms that are very similar and are sometimes used interchangeabl
- **[analog](analog.md)** vs **[mechanical](mechanical.md)**
- **[anarchy](anarchism.md)** vs **[chaos](chaos.md)**
- **[argument](argument.md)** vs **[parameter](parameter.md)**
- **[array](array.md)** vs **[list](list.md)**
- **[ASCII art](ascii_art.md)** vs **[ANSI art](ansi_art.md)**
- **[array](array.md)** vs **[list](list.md)** vs **[tuple](tuple.md)** vs **[set](set.md)** vs **[multiset](multiset.md)**
- **[ASCII](ascii.md)** vs **[plain text](plain_text.md)** vs **[Unicode](unicode.md)**
- **[ASCII art](ascii_art.md)** vs **[ANSI art](ansi_art.md)** vs **[Unicode](unicode.md) art**
- **[assembler](assembler.md)** vs **[assembly](assembly.md)** vs **[machine code](machine_code.md)**
- **binary** vs **[executable](executable.md)**
- **[bug](bug.md)** vs **[error](error.md)** vs **[exception](exception.md)** vs **[fault](fault.md)** vs **[failure](fail.md)** vs **[defect](defect.md)**
@ -20,8 +21,9 @@ There are many terms that are very similar and are sometimes used interchangeabl
- **[closed source](closed_source.md)** vs **[proprietary](proprietary.md)**
- **[CLI](cli.md)** vs **[TUI](tui.md)** vs **[terminal](terminal_emulator.md)** vs **[console](console.md)**
- **[color model](color_model.md)** vs **[color space](color_space.md)**
- **[communism](communism.md)** vs **[Marxism](marxism.md)**
- **[complex](complexity.md)** vs **complicated**
- **[communism](communism.md)** vs **[Marxism](marxism.md)** vs **[socialism](socialism.md)**
- **[complex](complexity.md)** vs **[complicated](complicated.md)**
- **[complex number](complex_number.md)** vs **[imaginary number](imaginary_number.md)**
- **[computer language](computer_language.md)** vs **[programming language](programming_language.md)**
- **[computer science](compsci.md)** vs **[information technology](it.md)** vs **[informatics](informatics.md)** vs **[cybernetics](cybernetics.md)** vs **[computer engineering](computer_engineering.md)** vs **[software engineering](software_engineering.md)**
- **[concurrency](concurrency.md)** vs **[parallelism](parallelism.md)** vs **[quasiparallelism](quasiparallelism.md)** vs **[distribution](distributed.md)**
@ -47,8 +49,10 @@ There are many terms that are very similar and are sometimes used interchangeabl
- **[discrete Fourier transform](dft.md)** vs **[discrete time Fourier transform](dtft.md)**
- **[emoticon](emoticon.md)** vs **[emoji](emoji.md)** vs **[smiley](smiley.md)**
- **[emulation](emulation.md)** vs **[simulation](simulation.md)**
- **[entity](entity.md)** vs **[object](object.md)**
- **[equation](equation.md)** vs **[expression](expression.md)** vs **[inequality](inequality.md)**
- **[equivalence](equivalence.md)** vs **[implication](implication.md)**
- **[ethics](ethics.md)** vs **[morality](morality.md)**
- **[Euler's number](e.md)** vs **[Euler number](euler_number.md)**
- **[evolutionary programming](evolutionary.md)** vs **[evolutionary algorithm](evolutionary.md)** vs **[genetic programming](genetic_programming.md)** vs **[genetic algorithm](genetic_algorithm.md)**
- **[equality](equality.md)** vs **[identity](identity.md)** (in programming languages)
@ -69,7 +73,8 @@ There are many terms that are very similar and are sometimes used interchangeabl
- **[leftism](left_right.md)** vs **[pseudoleftism](pseudoleft.md)**
- **[license](license.md)** vs **[waiver](waiver.md)**
- **[method](method.md)** vs **[methodology](methodology.md)**
- **[modem](modem.md)** vs **[router](router.md)**
- **[modem](modem.md)** vs **[router](router.md)** vs **[switch](switch.md)**
- **[nationalism](nationalism.md)** vs **[patriotism](patriotism.md)**
- **[NP](p_vs_np.md)** vs **[NP-hard](np_hard.md)** vs **[NP-complete](np_complete.md)**
- **[paging](paging.md)** vs **[virtual memory](virtual_memory.md)**
- **[path tracing](path_tracing.md)** vs **[ray tracing](ray_tracing.md)** vs **[ray casting](ray_casting.md)**
@ -77,6 +82,8 @@ There are many terms that are very similar and are sometimes used interchangeabl
- **[principal square root](principal_sqrt.md)** vs **[square root](sqrt.md)** (especially when defining [i](i.md))
- **[probability](probability.md)** vs **[probability density](probability_density.md)**
- **[pseudo](pseudo.md)** vs **[quasi](quasi.md)**
- **[pseudoleft](pseudoleft.md)** vs **[left](left.md)**
- **[pseudoskeptic](pseudosceptic.md)** vs **[skeptic](skeptic.md)**
- **[shading](shading.md)** vs **[shadows](shadow.md)**
- **[science](science.md)** vs **[soyence](soyence.md)**
@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Instead of the word *race* the politically correct camp uses words such as *ethn
**Race can be told from the shape of the skull and one's [DNA](dna.md)**, which finds use e.g. in forensics to help solve crimes. It is officially called the *ancestry estimation*. Some idiots say this should be forbidden to do because it's "racist" lmao. Besides the obvious visual difference such as skin color **races also have completely measurable differences acknowledged even by modern "science"**, for example unlike other races about 90% of Asians have dry earwax. Similar absolutely measurable differences exist in height, body odor, alcohol and lactose tolerance, high altitude tolerance, vulnerability to specific diseases, hair structure, cold tolerance, risk of obesity, behavior (see e.g. the infamous *[chimp out](chimp_out.md)* behavior of black people) and others. While dryness of earwax is really a minor curiosity, it is completely unreasonable to believe that race differences stop at traits we humans find unimportant and that genetics somehow magically avoids affecting traits that are harder to measure and which our current society deems politically incorrect to exist. In fact differences in important areas such as intelligence were measured very well -- these are however either censored or declared incorrect and "debunked" by unquestionable "science" authorities, because politics.
Pseudoleft uses cheap, logically faulty arguments, to deny the existence of race; for example that there are no clear objective boundaries between races -- of course there are not, but how does that imply nonexistence of race? That's like saying that color doesn't exist because given any two distinct colors there exists a gradual transition.
Pseudoleft uses cheap, logically faulty arguments to deny the existence of race; for example that there are no clear objective boundaries between races -- of course there are not, but how does that imply nonexistence of race? That's like saying that color doesn't exist because given any two distinct colors there exists a gradual transition, or that [music](music.md) and noise are the same thing because objectively no clear line can be drawn between them.
The politically correct camp further argues that there wasn't enough time for human races to develop significant differences as evolution operates on scales of millions of years while the evolution of modern humans was taking part about in an order of magnitude smaller time scale. However it has been shown that evolution can be much faster under specific conditions, e.g. those of rapid environment change (shown e.g. in a documentary *Laws of the Lizard* on anoles that show signs of evolutionary change only after 14 years, also see e.g. the book *The 10,000 Year Explosion* talking about actual acceleration of human evolution) and interbreeding with other species (e.g. Neanderthals, which European population bred with but African population didn't), which did occur when humans spread around the world and had to live in vastly different conditions -- successful civilizations themselves actually furthermore started to rapidly change their environment to something that favors very different traits. We can take a look at the enormous differences between dog breeds which have been bred mostly during only the last 200 years and whose differences are enormous and not only physical, but also that of intelligence and temperament -- yes, the breeding of dogs has been selective, but a rapid change in environment may have a similar accelerating effect, and the process in humans still took many tens of thousands of years. For example races of slaves were probably selectively bred, even if unintentionally, as physically fit slaves were more likely to survive than those who were smart; similarly in prospering civilizations, e.g. that of Europe, where trade, business and development of technology (e.g. military) became more crucial for survival than in primitive desert or jungle civilizations, different traits such as intelligence became preferred by evolution.
@ -16,12 +16,14 @@ Another pseudoleftist argument is that "the DNA of any two individuals is 99.6 %
Denying the facts regarding human race is called **[race denialism](race_denialism.md)**, the acceptance of these facts is called [race realism](race_realism.md). Race denialism is part of the basis of today's [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) political ideology, theories such as polygenism (multiregional hypothesis) are forbidden to be supported and they're ridiculed and demonized by mainstream information sources like [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) who only promote the [politically correct](political_correctness.md) "out of Africa" theory. [SJWs](sjw.md) reject any idea of a race with the same religious fanaticism with which Christian fanatics opposed Darwin's evolution theory.
**What races are there?** That depends on definitions, the boundaries between races are [fuzzy](fuzzy.md) and the lines can be drawn differently. Most generally races are called by the color of their skin, the most apparent attribute, i.e. White (Caucasian), Black (African, so called [negro](negro.md) and [negroid](negroid.md)), Yellow (Asian) and Brown (Indian). Some go as far as calling different nations separate races (e.g. the Norwegian race, Russian race etc.). One of the first scientific divisions of people into races was done by Francois Bernier in *New Division of the Earth by the Different Species or "Races" of Man that Inhabit It* into Europeans, Asians, Africans and Sami (north Europe), based on skin color, hair color, height and shape of face, nose and eyes. A common, very general division is also that into three big groups: white, black and yellow.
**What races are there?** That depends on definitions, the boundaries between races are [fuzzy](fuzzy.md) and the lines can be drawn differently. Most generally races are called by the color of their skin, the most apparent attribute, i.e. White (Caucasian), Black (African, so called [negro](negro.md) and [negroid](negroid.md)), Yellow (Asian) and Brown (Indian). Some go as far as calling different nations separate races (e.g. the Norwegian race, Russian race etc.). One of the first scientific divisions of people into races was done by Francois Bernier in *New Division of the Earth by the Different Species or "Races" of Man that Inhabit It* into Europeans, Asians, Africans and Sami (north Europe), based on skin color, hair color, height and shape of face, nose and eyes. The Nuttall [Encyclopedia](encyclopedia.md) lists five main races: Caucasian (Indo-European), Mongolian (Yellow), Negro (Black), Malayan (Tawny), India (Copper-colored). A common, very general division is also that into three big groups: white, black and yellow.
There is a controversial 1994 book called *The Bell Curve* that deals with differences in intelligence between races. [SJWs](sjw.md) indeed tried to attack it, however international experts on intelligence agree the book is correct in saying average intelligence between races differs (see e.g. [The Wall Street Journal's Mainstream Science on Intelligence](https://web.archive.org/web/20120716184838/http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html)). An online resource with a lot of information on racial differences is e.g. http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/. See also e.g. https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_and_morphology. Note that even though the mentioned sites may be fascist, biased and contain propaganda of their own, they provide links to resources which the pseudoleftist mainstream such as [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) and [Google](google.md) simply censor -- while we may not promote the politics and opinions of mentioned sites, we link to them to provide access to censored information so that one can seek truth and form his own opinions.
**If you want a relatively objective view on races, read old (pre 1950) books.** See for example the article on *NEGRO* in 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (1911), which clearly states on page 344 of the 19th volume that "Mentally the negro is inferior to the white" and continues to cite thorough study of this, finding that black children were quite intelligent but with adulthood the intellect always went down, however it states that negro has e.g. better sense of vision and hearing. Even in the 90s still the uncensored information on race was still available in the mainstream sources, e.g. the 1995 *Desk Reference Encyclopedia* still has an article on races and their differences.
{ Lol, the 1917 book *The Circle of Knowledge* has a detailed table comparing various races physically and mentally, stating things like "negro: slight mental development after puberty" etc. ~drummyfish }
In relation to [technology](tech.md)/[math](math.md)/[science](science.md) it is useful to know the differences in intellect between different races, though cultural and other traits linked to races may also play a big role. It is important to keep in mind intelligence isn't one dimensional, it's one of the most complex and complicated concepts we can be dealing with (remember the famous test that revealed that chimpanzees greatly outperform humans at certain intellectual tasks such as remembering the order of numbers seen for a very short period of time). We can't simplify to a single measure such as [IQ](iq.md) score. Let intelligence here mean simply the ability to perform well in the area of our art. And of course, there are smart and stupid people in any race, the general statements we make are just about statistics and probabilities.
The smartest races in this regard seem to be [Jews](jew.md) and [Asians](asian.md) (also found so by the book *Bell Curve*), closely followed by the general white race. There is no question about the intelligence of Jews, the greatest thinkers of all times were Jewish ([Richard Stallman](rms.md), [Einstein](einstein.md), [Marx](marx.md), [Chomsky](chomsky.md), even [Jesus](jesus.md) and others). Jews seem to have a very creative intelligence while Asians are more mechanically inclined, they can learn a skill and bring it to perfection with an extremely deep study and dedication. The African black race (in older literature known as the *negro*) is decisively the least intelligent -- this makes a lot of sense, the race has been oppressed and living in harsh conditions for centuries and didn't get much chance to evolve towards good performance in intellectual tasks, quite the opposite, those who were physically fit rather than smart were probably more likely to survive and reproduce as slaves or jungle people (even if white people split from the blacks relatively recently, a rapid change in environment also leads to a rapid change in evolution, even that of intelligence). 1892 book *Hereditary Genius* says that the black race is *about two grades* below the white race (nowadays the gap will most likely be lower). Hispanics were found to perform in between the white and black people. There isn't so much info about other races such as the red race or Eskimos, but they're probably similarly intelligent to the black race (The above mentioned book *Hereditary Genius* gives an intelligence of the Australian race *at least one grade below that of the negro*). The brown races are kind of complicated, the Indian people showed a great intellectual potential, e.g. in [chess](chess.md), [math](math.md), philosophy (nonviolence inherently connected to India is the most intellectually advanced philosophy), and lately also [computer science](compsci.md) (even though many would argue that "[pajeets](pajeet.md)" are just trained coding monkeys).
