Update

4chan.md

@@ -2,15 +2,17 @@
 
 { haha https://lolwut.info/comp/4chan/4chan-g.html ~drummyfish }
 
-4chan (https://4chan.org/, also 4cuck) is the most famous [image board](image_board.md), a website causing controversies in normieland by its low [censorship](censorship.md) and a place with unique [Internet](internet.md) [culture](culture.md), a great deal of [fun](fun.md), [trolling](troll.md), [toxicity](toxic.md) and [memes](meme.md). Posters on the site are anonymous and call each other "Anons". It was started in 2003 by [moot](moot.md) (Christopher Poole, born 1988, according to Time most influential man of the year 2009, even before Obama), then in 2015 bought by a guy named Hiroshima or something. As most image boards, 4chan has a nice, oldschool minimalist look, even though it contains shitty [captchas](captcha.md) for posting and the site's code is [proprietary](proprietary.md) (2024 update: [JavaScript](javascript.md) is needed for non-crippled experience). The site tolerates a great amount of [free speech](free_speech.md) up to the point of being regularly labeled "right-wing extremist site", though it actually censors a lot of stuff and bans for stupid reasons such as harmless [pedo](pedophilia.md) [jokes](jokes.md) are very common (speaking from experience) -- 4chan global rules for example PROHIBIT CRITICISING 4chan (LMAO, rule no. 8), [doxxing](dox.md) and calls for raids. Being a "rightist paradise" it is commonly seen as a rival to [reddit](reddit.md), aka the [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) paradise -- both forums hate each other to death. The discussion style is pretty nice, there are many nice stories and memes (e.g. the famous [greentexts](greentext.md)) coming from 4chan but it can also be a hugely depressing place just due to the shear number of retards with incorrect opinions.
+4chan (https://4chan.org/, also 4cuck) is the most famous [image board](image_board.md), a website causing controversies in normieland by its low [censorship](censorship.md) and a place with unique [Internet](internet.md) [culture](culture.md), a great deal of [fun](fun.md), [trolling](troll.md), [toxicity](toxic.md) and [memes](meme.md). Posters on the site are anonymous and call each other "Anons". It was started in 2003 by [moot](moot.md) (Christopher Poole, born 1988, according to Time most influential man of the year 2009, even before Obama), then in 2015 bought by a guy named Hiroshima or something. As most image boards, 4chan has a nice, oldschool minimalist look, even though it contains shitty [captchas](captcha.md) for posting and the site's code is [proprietary](proprietary.md) (2024 update: [JavaScript](javascript.md) is needed for non-crippled experience). The site tolerates a great amount of [free speech](free_speech.md) up to the point of being regularly labeled "right-wing extremist site", though it actually censors a lot of stuff and bans for stupid reasons such as harmless [pedo](pedophilia.md) [jokes](jokes.md) are very common (speaking from experience) -- 4chan global rules for example PROHIBIT CRITICISING 4chan (LMAO, rule no. 8), [doxxing](dox.md) and calls for raids. Being a "rightist paradise" it is commonly seen as a rival to [reddit](reddit.md), aka the [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) paradise -- both forums hate each other to death. In reality 4chan isn't really a radical extremist site, at least most boards are not, it's just that the site did not adopt [SJW](sjw.md) extremism and so most right leaning people but also centrists sick of pseudoleftist fascism gather round the fire to simply talk freely -- the point of 4chan has always been mainly [fun](fun.md); the genuine, "real" violent extremists and psychos who intend to harm and push political ideologies seems to rather spend time on 8kun. The discussion style on 4chan is pretty nice and relaxed, you will encounter quite entertaining stories and memes (e.g. the famous [greentexts](greentext.md)) coming from 4chan but it can also be a hugely depressing place just due to the shear number of retards with incorrect opinions.
 
 { Pre 2010 there used to be a cool 4chan wiki called Wikichan, now can be read at the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20070218235405/http://wikichan.org/wiki/Main_Page. ~drummyfish }
 
 Just as reddit consists of subcommunities known as subreddits, 4chan consists of different boards (just as other image boards), each with given discussion topic and rules. The most (in)famous boards are likely *politically incorrect* AKA /pol/, where most of the american school shooters hang around, and *random* AKA /b/, the most active board, which is just a shitton of [meme](meme.md) shitposting, [porn](porn.md), [toxicity](toxic.md), [fun](fun.md), [trolling](troll.md) and retardedness (lately it turned to almost 100% porn).
 
-For us the most important part of 4chan is the technology board known as /g/ (for technoloGEE). Browsing /g/ can bring all kinds of emotion, it's a place of relative freedom and somewhat beautiful chaos where all people from absolute retards to geniuses argue about important and unimportant things, brands, tech news and memes, and constantly advise each other to kill themselves. Sometimes the place is pretty toxic and not good for mental health, actually it is more of a rule than an exception.
+For us the most relevant part of 4chan is probably the technology board known as /g/ (for technoloGEE). Browsing /g/ can bring all kinds of emotion, it's a place of relative freedom and somewhat beautiful chaos where all people from absolute retards to geniuses argue about important and unimportant things, brands, tech news and memes, and constantly advise each other to kill themselves for liking the wrong text editor or something. Sometimes the place is pretty toxic and not good for mental health, actually it is more of a rule than an exception.
 
-UPDATE: As of 2022 /g/ became literally unreadable, ABANDON SHIP. The board became flooded with [capitalists](capitalism.md), cryptofascists, proprietary [shills](shill.md), [productivity](productivity_cult.md) freaks and other uber retards, it's really not worth reading anymore, it is pure, distilled consumerism, religious flame wars and diseases. You can still read good old threads on archives such as https://desuarchive.org/g/page/280004/. ALSO 2024 update: 4chan is also completely unusable now because it's [cuckflared](cloudflare.md) and posting requires unsolvable captchas (they are actually unsolvable, you must have PAID account to bypass it, so to post you now de facto have to pay). Lurking on some other more relaxed boards such as /x, /an or /vr may still be cool, but in general accept that the site is dead, find something else.
+UPDATE: As of 2022 /g/ became literally unreadable, ABANDON SHIP. The board became flooded with [capitalists](capitalism.md), cryptofascists, proprietary [shills](shill.md), [productivity](productivity_cult.md) freaks and other uber retards, it's really not worth reading anymore, it is pure, distilled consumerism, religious flame wars and diseases. You can still read good old threads on archives such as https://desuarchive.org/g/page/280004/. ALSO 2024 update: 4chan is also completely unusable now because it's [cuckflared](cloudflare.md) and posting requires unsolvable captchas (they are actually unsolvable, you must have PAID account to bypass it, so to post you now de facto have to pay). Lurking on some other more relaxed boards such as /x/, /an/ or /vr/ may still be cool, but in general accept that the site is dead, find something else.
+
+However there are still other, quite nice boards for a more comfy, usually a very fun and politics-free experience, such as /an/ (animals), /out/ (outside), /vr/ (retro video games), /wg/ (wallpapers) and many others. A mistake most newcomers make is to just check out /b/ and /pol/ and swiftly quit in disgust. 4chan is actually designed this way on purpose, these so called "[cancer](cancer.md)" boards exist to filter out noobs. Only a few will proceed to explore other boards and indeed, there is a reward for doing so. One usually finds a nice niche board where people are quite mature and you no longer want to kill yourself when reading the threads.
 
 Despite dwelling slightly [underground](underground.md) -- maybe better said being isolated from the normie "safespace" [censornet](censorship.md) -- 4chan has really been very notably significant for the whole Internet [culture](culture.md), long [books](book.md) could be written about its [history](history.md), culture, unique, intricate social mechanism of its ways of communication and impact on the rest of the cyberspace; the "4chan experience" is one of the things that can't faithfully be described by words, it has to be lived. Just like reddit mixed some interesting concepts into a unique, yet more powerful combination that's more than a sum of its ingredients, so did 4chan -- yes, other boards are to be credited for this too, but 4chan is the flagship, the center of it all. Especially important seems to be the anonymity aspect, you never know who you are talking to, it's never clear if someone is [trolling](troll.md), serious, shilling, extremely dumb or something in between. There is no karma, no handles, no profile pictures, no upvotes (at best there are numbers of replies), no post history, no account age, you have to rely on judging people by unusual attributes, for example by the style of their talk, their knowledge of the [lore](lore.md) and latest [memes](meme.md), by how they format their posts (e.g. the infamously hated empty lines), what images they attach, as these are the only clues. A thread on 4chan isn't something with a clear goal, you don't know if someone is asking a question because he wants a genuine answer or because he's just bored and wants to see funny answers, or if he's posting a bait and is trying to trigger others, so each discussion is a bit of a game, you're trying to guess what's going on. A famous post, for example, had itself heard that the poster despises translations of books and always reads any book in its original language despite not understanding a word of it, and that he already read works such as Don Quixote and Les Miserables in their respective languages without knowing what they were about -- this stupidity combined with extreme determination and dedication (usually known as [autism](autism.md)) captures part of what makes 4chan what it is. Also everything is temporary, every thread and image is deleted in a short time, which is an important factor too, everything is constantly in motion, people have to react quickly, there is no turning back, reactions are quick and genuine, if you miss something it's gone. Also the image memes themselves show how [art](art.md) (who cares if low) evolves if completely unrestrained, anyone can try to spawn a new meme or download anyone else's posted meme, repost it or [modify](remix_culture.md) it, copyright mostly [de facto](de_facto.md) won't apply as the authors are unknown; bad works are filtered out while good ones remain simply by making others save them and keep reposting them, it's art without authors, separated from the people, evolving completely on its own, purely by its intrinsic attributes, unconstrained evolution at work right before our eyes -- this is a seriously scientifically [interesting](interesting.md) stuff.
 

90s.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 It is now confirmed that 1990s (or just 90s) were almost definitely the best decade in recent written [history](history.md), at least in [Europe](europe.md) (the main continent of [Earth](earth.md)) but to a degree probably also in other, less significant parts of the world ([USA](usa.md) etc.). They were the peak of civilization before the [collapse](collapse.md) quickly brought by the [21st century](21st_century.md). 90s still left behind some echoes during the years 2000-2010 -- according to some still a bearable decade -- however it was already going downhill at the time. 90s followed the [80](80s)s (quite logically, at least to those of above Trump intellect), a decade that was itself also pretty good, and so in a similar fashion some good old 80s vibes carried on to the 90s.
 
-During the 90s [millennials](millennial.md) (also called gen Y) were born. The decade was characterized for example by sagging trousers, loose and torn clothes in general, jeans and hoodies, baseball caps turned backwards, vibrant colors, optimistic and cheerful mood, [real life](irl.md) friends and sleepovers, [Tamagotchi](tamagotchi.md) and [Pokemon](pokemon.md), [GameBoy](gameboy.md), [CRT](crt.md) monitors, [floppy](floppy.md) disks, ball [mice](mouse.md), archaic Internet and [web](www.md) 1.0 through slow dial-up, cassette tapes and walkmans { is it walkmans or walkmen lol? ~drummyfish }, bizarre button cellphones, phone boots in streets, boybands, MTV music, movies on [VHS](vhs.md) (and VHS rental stores), soulful non-[furry](furry.md) cartoons aired only early on Saturday mornings and many other wonderful things.
+During the 90s [millennials](millennial.md) (also called gen Y) were born. The decade was characterized for example by sagging trousers, loose and torn clothes in general, jeans and hoodies, baseball caps turned backwards, vibrant colors, optimistic and cheerful mood, [real life](irl.md) friends and sleepovers, [Tamagotchi](tamagotchi.md) and [Pokemon](pokemon.md), cool [digital](digital.md) watches (non-smart), [GameBoy](gameboy.md), [CRT](crt.md) monitors, [floppy](floppy.md) disks, ball [mice](mouse.md), archaic Internet and [web](www.md) 1.0 through slow dial-up, cassette tapes and walkmans { is it walkmans or walkmen lol? ~drummyfish }, bizarre button cellphones, phone boots in streets, boybands, MTV music, movies on [VHS](vhs.md) (and VHS rental stores), soulful non-[furry](furry.md) cartoons aired only early on Saturday mornings and many other wonderful things.
 
 So, from the European point of view, here is a short summary of why 90s were so good:
 

c_pitfalls.md

@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ int main(void)
 }
 ```
 
-**Order of evaluation of operands and function arguments is not specified**. I.e. in an expression or function call it is not defined which operands or arguments will be evaluated first, the order may be completely random and the order may differ even when evaluating the same expression at another time. This is demonstrated by the following code:
+**Order of evaluation of operands and function arguments is generally not specified**. I.e. in an expression or function call it is not defined which operands or arguments will be evaluated first, the order may be completely random and the order may differ even when evaluating the same expression at another time. Some operators, like `&&` and `||`, may be exception to this, but these are few. This is demonstrated by the following code:
 
 ```
 #include <stdio.h>
@@ -50,6 +50,8 @@ int main(void)
 }
 ```
 
+Watch out especially for cases e.g. with [pseudorandom](pseudorandomness.md) generators, i.e. things like: `if ((randomNum() % 2) & (randomNum() < x)) ...` -- this may introduce undesired [nondeterminism](determinism.md), i.e. the code may give different results on different computers, compilers or just between different runs. Using `&&` here would probably help as that is a short circuit operator that has defined order of evaluation from left to right. You may always enforce specific order of evaluation by just sequentially computing it in several steps, like for example: `int cond = randomNum() % 2; cond &= randomNum() < x; if (cond) ...`.
+
 **Overflow behavior of signed type operations is not specified.** Sometimes we suppose that e.g. addition of two signed integers that are past the data type's limit will produce two's complement overflow (wrap around), but in fact this operation's behavior is undefined, C99 doesn't say what representation should be used for numbers. For [portability](portability.md), predictability and preventing bugs **it is safer to use unsigned types** (but safety may come at the cost of performance, i.e. you prevent compiler from performing some optimizations based on undefined behavior).
 
 **Bit shifts by type width or more are undefined.** Also bit shifts by negative values are undefined. So e.g. `x >> 8` is undefined if width of the data type of `x` is 8 bits or fewer.
@@ -144,6 +146,8 @@ Beginners similarly often forget breaks in switch statement, which works but usu
 
 Also `putchar('a')` versus `putchar("a")` ;) Only the first one is correct of course.
 
+Another possible gotcha: `const char *myStrings[] = {"abc", "def", "ghi"};` vs `const char *myStrings[] = {"abc", "def" "ghi"};`. In the latter we forgot a comma, but it's still a valid code, in the array there are now only two strings, the latter being "defghi". Writing the expected array size would help spot this as it wouldn't match.
+
 **Stdlib API can be [trollish](trolling.md)**, for example the file printing functions: *fprintf* expects the file pointer as first argument while *fputs* expects it as last, so to print hello you can do either `fprintf(file,"hello")` or `fputs("hello",file)` -- naturally this leads to fucking up the order sometimes and doing so even compiles (both arguments are pointers), the running code then crashes.
 
 Watch out for **operator precedence**! C infamously has weird precedence with some special operators, bracket expressions if unsure, or just to increase readability for others. Also nested ifs with elses can get tricky -- again, use curly brackets for clarity in your spaghetti code.

chess.md

@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ Currently the best player in the world -- and probably best player of all time -
 
 During [covid](covid.md) chess has experienced a small boom among normies and [YouTube](youtube.md) chess channels have gained considerable popularity. This gave rise to [memes](meme.md) such as the bong cloud opening popularized by a top player and streamer Hikaru Nakamura; the bong cloud is an intentionally shitty opening that's supposed to taunt the opponent (it's been even played in serious tournaments lol).
 
-**White is generally seen as having a slight advantage over black** (just like in [real life](irl.md) lol). It is because he always has the first move -- statistics also seems to support this as white on average wins a little more often. This doesn't play such as big role in beginner and intermediate games but starts to become apparent in master games. How big the advantages is is a matter of ongoing debate, most people are of the opinion there exists a slight advantage for the white (with imperfect play, i.e. that white plays easier, tolerates slightly less accurate play), though most experts think chess is a draw with perfect play (pro players can usually quite safely play for a draw and secure it if they don't intend to win; world championships mostly consist of drawn games as really one player has to make a mistake to allow the other one to win). Minority of experts think white has theoretical forced win. Probably only very tiny minority of people think white doesn't have any advantage. Some people argue black has some advantages over white, as it's true that sometimes the obligation to make a move may be a disadvantage. Probably no one thinks black has a forced win, though that's not disproved yet so maybe someone actually believes it.
+**White is generally seen as having a slight advantage over black** (just like in [real life](irl.md) lol). It is because he always has the first move -- statistics confirm this as white on average wins a little more often (even in the world of computers where psychology plays no role). The advantage is very small, estimated by engines to be around a very small fraction of a pawn, and this slight imbalance doesn't play such as big role in beginner and intermediate games but starts to become apparent in master games where the play can be very equal. How big the advantages is exactly is a matter of ongoing debate, most people are of the opinion there exists a small advantage for the white (with imperfect, human play, i.e. that white plays easier, has more choices, tolerates slightly less accurate play), though most experts think chess is a draw with perfect play (pro players can usually quite safely play for a draw and secure it if they don't intend to win; world championships mostly consist of drawn games as really one player has to make a mistake to allow the other one to win). Minority of experts think white has theoretical forced win. Probably only very tiny minority of people think white doesn't have any advantage or even that black is in a better overall position. Some argue that even if black doesn't have an overall advantage, he still has a number of smaller advantages over white, as it's true that sometimes the obligation to make a move may be a disadvantage (this is called [zugzwang](zugzwang.md)). It's for example true that the theoretical fastest possible checkmate is delivered by black, not white. Probably no one thinks black has a forced win though, but as that's not disproved yet so maybe someone actually believes it.
 
 **Blindfold play**: it's quite impressive that very good players can play completely blindfold, without any actual chessboard, and some can even play many games simultaneously this way. This is indeed not easy to do and playing blindfold naturally decreases one's strength a bit (it seems this is more of a case on lower level of play though). It is however not the case that only an exceptional genius could play this way, probably anyone can learn it, it's just a matter of training (it's a matter of developing an efficient mental representation of the board rather than actually exactly remembering the whole board -- in psychology called *chunking*). Probably all masters (above FIDE ELO 2000) can play blindfold. They say the ability comes naturally just by playing countless games. How to learn playing blindfold then? Just play a lot of chess, it will come naturally -- this is the advice probably most often given. However if you specifically wish to learn blindfold play, you may focus on it, e.g. by training blindfold against very weak computer. Some software chess boards offer a mode in which one can see the position and color of all men but not which type they are -- this may perhaps be a good start. It may possibly also be done very gradually -- for example start by covering just part of the board and every week cover yet more squares; eventually you'll have them all covered.
 
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ Programming chess is a [fun](fun.md) and enriching experience and is therefore r
 
 The core of chess programming is writing the [AI](ai.md). Everything else, i.e. implementing the rules, communication protocols etc., is usually pretty straightforward (but still a good programming exercise). Nevertheless, as the chess programming wiki stresses, one has to pay a great attention to eliminating as many [bugs](bug.md) as possible; really, the importance of writing automatic tests can't be stressed enough as debugging the AI will be hard enough and can become unmanageable with small bugs creeping in. However to make the AI good it's important to [optimize](optimization.md) the functions that work with the board, i.e. it's important to be able to generate moves quickly, quickly detect checks/mates and so on (because the AI will be checking billions of positions, any optimization will allow to search many more positions). Thought has to go into choosing right [data structures](data_structure.md) so as to allow nice [optimizations](optimization.md), for example board representation plays an important role -- main approaches here are for example having a 8x8 2D array holding each square's man, keeping a list of men (each explicitly recording its coordinates) or bitboards (8x8 times bit arrays, one for each piece type, recording where each man is placed).
 
-The AI itself works traditionally on the following principle: firstly we implement so called static **evaluation function** -- a function that takes a chess position and outputs its evaluation number which says how good the position is for white vs black (positive number favoring white, negative black, zero meaning equal, units usually being in pawns, i.e. for example -3.5 means black has an advantage equivalent to having extra 3 and a half pawns; to avoid fractions we sometimes use centipawns, i.e. rather -350). This function considers a number of factors such as total material of both players, pawn structure, king safety, men mobility and so on. Traditionally this function has been hand-written (also called HCE, hand crafted evaluation), nowadays it is being replaced by a learned [neural network](neural_network.md) ([NNUE](nnue.md)) which showed to give superior results (e.g. Stockfish still offers both options, however the neural net seems to save about half of the computation time); for starters you probably want to write a simple evaluation function manually.
+The AI itself works traditionally on the following principle: firstly we implement so called static **evaluation function** -- a function that takes a chess position and outputs its evaluation number which says how good the position is for white vs black (positive number favoring white, negative black, zero meaning equal, units usually being in pawns, i.e. for example -3.5 means black has an advantage equivalent to having extra 3 and a half pawns; to avoid fractions we sometimes use centipawns, i.e. rather -350). This function considers a number of factors such as total material of both players, pawn structure, king safety, men mobility and so on. Traditionally this function has been hand-written (also called HCE, hand crafted evaluation), nowadays it is being replaced by a learned [neural network](neural_network.md) ([NNUE](nnue.md)) which showed to give superior results (e.g. Stockfish still offers both options, however the neural net seems to save about half of the computation time); for starters you probably want to write a simple evaluation function manually. However even a manually crafted evaluation function may later on be fine tuned by some kind of machine learning -- the algorithm stays the same but the parameters, such as exact values of chessmen or bonus points for certain patterns on the board (connected rooks, good pawn structure etc.), may be determined e.g. by brute force trial and error or with smarter techniques like evolutionary programming, to maximize the playing strength of the engine.
 
 Note: if you could make a perfect evaluation function that would completely accurately state given position's true evaluation (considering all possible combinations of moves until the end of game), you'd basically be done right there as your AI could just always make a move that would take it to the position which your evaluation function rated best, which would lead to perfect play by searching just to depth 1. Though neural networks got a lot closer to this ideal than we once were, as far as we can foresee ANY evaluation function will always be just an [approximation](approximation.md), an estimation, [heuristic](heuristic.md), many times far from perfect evaluation, so we cannot stop at this. We have to program yet something more. However some more relaxed engines that don't aim to be among the best can already work in the lazy way and be pretty good opponents -- see for example the Maia engine.
 
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ Similarly the **number of possibly reachable positions** (position for which so
 
 **Shortest possible checkmate** is by black on ply number 4 (so called *fool's mate*); in fact there are 8 different games that can end like this. As of 2022 the **longest known forced checkmate** is in 549 moves -- it has been discovered when computing the Lomonosov Tablebases. EDIT: now it seems there is one in 584 moves. Please note this: there most likely exist much longer forced mates, these are just the KNOWN ones. Consider e.g. that if black blunders a queen in the opening, the game is very likely a theoretical win for white since then, i.e. a forced mate, and with perfect play black can probably resist for very long. However such situations are too complex to explore fully.
 
-Average game of chess lasts 40 (full) moves (80 plies). **Average [branching factor](branching_factor.md)** (number of possible moves at a time) is around 33. **Maximum number of possible moves in a position** seems to be 218 (FEN: `R6R/3Q4/1Q4Q1/4Q3/2Q4Q/Q4Q2/pp1Q4/kBNN1KB1 w - - 0 1`).
+Average game of chess lasts 40 (full) moves (80 plies). **Average [branching factor](branching_factor.md)** (number of possible moves at a time) is around 33. **Maximum number of possible moves in a position** seems to be 218 (FEN: `R6R/3Q4/1Q4Q1/4Q3/2Q4Q/Q4Q2/pp1Q4/kBNN1KB1 w - - 0 1`). As for **total number of legal moves**, if we consider only *squareFrom-squareTo* notation (such as *e3e5*, without recording chessmen, promotions etc.), there are 1792 different moves that can ever legally be performed.
 
 White wins about 38% of games, black wins about 34%, the remaining 28% are draws (38.7%, 31.1%, 30.3% respectively on Computer Chess Rating Lists).
 

democracy.md

@@ -15,4 +15,8 @@ Small brain simplification of democracy to mere "voting" may be highly ineffecti
 - **On simple issues wisdom of the crowd work very well**, as demonstrated by the famous experiment in which averaging guesses of many people on a number of beans in a jar resulted in an extremely precise estimate, a much more precise than any man alone could give. This is an example of when voting is the superior solution to making a decision.
 - **Non-experts voting on complex issues and voting on issues requiring large vision is a disaster** (which is why we mostly don't have direct democracy but rather representative one). Many retarded rightists believe direct democracy would somehow be "better" -- no, it would indeed be infinitely worse to let braindead rednecks vote on complex issues. When a [chess](chess.md) grandmaster plays against thousands of people who make moves by voting, the master easily wins, as demonstrated e.g. by the Karpov vs the World (or Twitch plays Pokémon lol) experiment (later projects such as Kasparov vs the World had to somehow moderate and filter the move votes to give the world a chance). The reason is that the majority of weak moves voted by non-experts outweight the few good votes of experts, but also ADDITIONALLY even if only expert votes are takes, the result may be inferior because different long-term plans and visions will collide with the long term plans of others, which is probably the reason why e.g. Romans used to elect a single dictator in times of a crisis rather than relying on a council of experts. In such cases democracy may be similar to wanting to create a nice picture by averaging all pictures ever made by all people, the result will probably be just an ugly gray noisy blob (imagine e.g. creating a picture by having many pictures "vote" on color of every pixel simply by voting for the color they have on the same pixel position { Actually I've tried this now and yes, it looks just like a noisy gray blob. ~drummyfish } ). This is why it's a very bad idea to have people vote directly e.g. on complex economic or diplomatic issues. We have to say [we](we.md) do NOT advocate for dictators (we are anarchists) -- we rather believe in implementing a [decentralized](decentralization.md), self-regulating society in which we avoid the need for any dictators or governments.
 
-The democracy **[paradox](paradox.md)**: what happens when it is democratically decided that democracy is not a good tool for decision making? I.e. what if democracy denies its own validity? If we believe democracy is valid, then we have to accept its decision and stop believing in democracy, but then if we stop believing in democracy we can just reject the original decision because it was made by something that's not to be trusted, but then...
+The democracy **[paradox](paradox.md)**: what happens when it is democratically decided that democracy is not a good tool for decision making? I.e. what if democracy denies its own validity? If we believe democracy is valid, then we have to accept its decision and stop believing in democracy, but then if we stop believing in democracy we can just reject the original decision because it was made by something that's not to be trusted, but then...
+
+## See Also
+
+- [buzzword](buzzword.md)

digital.md

@@ -8,7 +8,9 @@ Normies confuse digital with [electronic](electronic.md) or think that digital c
 
 The advantage of digital technology is its **resilience to [noise](noise.md)** which prevents degradation of data and accumulation of error -- if a digital picture is copied a billion times, it will very likely remain unchanged, whereas performing the same operation with analog picture would probably erase most of the information it bears due to loss of quality in each copy. Digital technology also makes it easy and practically possible to create fully programmable general purpose [computers](computer.md) of great complexity.
 
-**Digital vs analog, simple example:** imagine you draw two pictures with a pencil: one in a normal fashion on a normal paper, the other one on a grid paper, by filling specific squares black (making kind of manual [pixelart](pixelart.md)). The first picture is analog, i.e. it records continuous curves and position of each point of these curves can be measured down to extremely small fractions of millimeters -- the advantage is that you are not limited by any grid and can draw any shape at any position on the paper, make any wild curves with very fine details, theoretically even microscopic ones, you have [infinite](infinity.md) space of possibilities at your disposal. The other picture (on a square grid) is digital, it is composed of separate points whose position is described only by whole numbers (*x* and *y* coordinates of the filled grid squares), the disadvantage is that you are limited by only being able to fill squares on predefined positions so your picture will look blocky and limited in amount of detail it can capture (anything smaller than a single grid square can't be captured properly), the [resolution](resolution.md) of the grid is limited as well as the number of possible pictures you can draw this way, but as we'll see, imposing this limitations has advantages. Consider e.g. the advantage of the grid paper image with regards to copying: if someone wants to copy your grid paper image, it will be relatively easy and he can copy it exactly, simply by filling the exact same squares you have filled -- small errors and noise such as imperfectly filled squares can be detected and corrected thanks to the fact that we have limited ourselves with the grid, we know that even if some square is not filled perfectly, it was probably meant to be filled and we can eliminate this kind of noise in the copy. This way we can copy the grid paper image a million times and it won't change. On the other hand the normal, non-grid image will become distorted with every copy and in fact even the original image will become distorted by aging; even if that who is copying the image tries to trace it extremely precisely, small errors will appear and these errors will accumulate in further copies, and any noise that appears in the image or in the copies is a problem because we don't know if it really is a noise or something that was meant to be in the image.
+A **typical example** of analog versus digital technology is wrist watches: analog ones have rotating hands to show time, digital ones use digits -- note that it doesn't matter if is the watch is electronic or not, the distinction is in how time is shown. A hand rotates continuously, it may be positioned at any arbitrary angle, basically with "infinite resolution", whereas digits are discrete, non-continuous -- a digit will instantly switch to being a different digit. This is the distinction between analog and digital.
+
+**Another simple example:** imagine you draw two pictures with a pencil: one in a normal fashion on a normal paper, the other one on a grid paper, by filling specific squares black (making kind of manual [pixelart](pixelart.md)). The first picture is analog, i.e. it records continuous curves and position of each point of these curves can be measured down to extremely small fractions of millimeters -- the advantage is that you are not limited by any grid and can draw any shape at any position on the paper, make any wild curves with very fine details, theoretically even microscopic ones, you have [infinite](infinity.md) space of possibilities at your disposal. The other picture (on a square grid) is digital, it is composed of separate points whose position is described only by whole numbers (*x* and *y* coordinates of the filled grid squares), the disadvantage is that you are limited by only being able to fill squares on predefined positions so your picture will look blocky and limited in amount of detail it can capture (anything smaller than a single grid square can't be captured properly), the [resolution](resolution.md) of the grid is limited as well as the number of possible pictures you can draw this way, but as we'll see, imposing this limitations has advantages. Consider e.g. the advantage of the grid paper image with regards to copying: if someone wants to copy your grid paper image, it will be relatively easy and he can copy it exactly, simply by filling the exact same squares you have filled -- small errors and noise such as imperfectly filled squares can be detected and corrected thanks to the fact that we have limited ourselves with the grid, we know that even if some square is not filled perfectly, it was probably meant to be filled and we can eliminate this kind of noise in the copy. This way we can copy the grid paper image a million times and it won't change. On the other hand the normal, non-grid image will become distorted with every copy and in fact even the original image will become distorted by aging; even if that who is copying the image tries to trace it extremely precisely, small errors will appear and these errors will accumulate in further copies, and any noise that appears in the image or in the copies is a problem because we don't know if it really is a noise or something that was meant to be in the image.
 
 But this is not to say digital data can't become distorted too -- it can. It is just less likely and it's easier to deal with this. It for example happens that space particles (and similar physics phenomena, e.g. electronic interference) flip bits in computer memory, i.e. there is always a probability of some [bit](bit.md) flipping from 0 to 1 or vice versa. We call this **data [corruption](corruption.md)**. This may also happen due to physical damage to digital media (e.g. scratches on the surface of CDs), imperfections in computer network transmissions (e.g. packet loss over [wifi](wifi.md)) etc. However we can introduce further measures to prevent, detect and correct data corruption, e.g. by keeping [redundant](redundancy.md) copies (2 copies of data allow detecting corruption, 3 copies allow even its correction), keeping [checksums](checksum.md) or [hashes](hash.md) (which allow only detection of corruption but don't take much extra space), employing error correcting codes etc. We have to keep in mind that data corruption is very dangerous because a small local damage may destroy the whole data (owing partially to our wrong assumption that digital data data won't be damaged), while local damage to analog data will typically only destroys that one small affected part, keeping the rest intact. So let's be aware of this.
 

egoism.md

@@ -10,13 +10,14 @@ Some signs of egoism include:
 - **Egoism masked as [joking](jokes.md)** (see also [doing it with a smile](doing_it_with_a_smile.md)), i.e. doing something egoistic and then pretending to do it for the sake of a joke; for example in the book *World of Warcraft Diary* the author *X* puts a huge quote of himself on one page and jokingly writes under it *"X quoting X in his own book"* -- hahaha we laughed ok? It's not egoism, it's done for a joke, BTW the quote will stay there. The author here thinks he is smart as he thinks this achieves two things: promoting himself while also making him look like someone with a sense of humor. In fact it just makes him look like the most egocentric bastard.
 - **[Assertiveness](assertiveness.md)**.
 - **Giving oneself special names**. Making a quick Internet handle is cool for practical purposes, inventing an artistic name or even changing it legally is just an inflated ego.
-- **Talking about oneself too much**.
+- **Talking about oneself too much**, turning any conversation into a conversation about himself, signs of this include for example starting sentences with "As an X, I think ..."; as in "As a professional game designer I think ...".
 - **Being a [capitalist](capitalism.md)**; by definition a capitalist only cares about himself, capitalist is incapable of love or wanting any benefit for anyone else than himself, he only benefits others if he sees it will somehow lead to his own benefit in the future (this applies even to for example to caring about his own family etc.).
 - **Using licenses that require giving credit**, such as [CC-BY-SA](cc_by_sa.md).
 - **Arriving late (bad timekeeping)**: by arriving late you're wasting the time of others and saving your own time, implying you think your time is more important, it's basically the same as physically beating someone. A good man will plan to arrive at least half an hour earlier so that even if he gets late, he'll still be on time, and if by some extreme miracle he still arrives late, he must pay the other one money or give him some other gift, for example free sex in case of woman.
 - **"Personal pronouns".** Also inventing weird sexes and identities for oneself.
 - **Making (or allowing others to make) art that glorifies you**, e.g. documentaries, books etc. You always have to oppose making any documentary, movie, statue and other kinds of works that would glorify you, even just slightly.
 - **Being a [celebrity](hero_culture.md)**: this one without any exceptions. A well known man may not necessarily be a celebrity, but it is almost always the case, it would have to be someone who became famous while trying as hard as possible to not become famous. No, that one favorite celebrity of yours is not an exception to this. No, not even when he looks like a good man and when you've seen documentaries in which everyone said he's a humble man and when you've read he gives money to charity and hugs trees and saves puppies and feeds children in Africa.
+- **[Virtue signaling](virtue_signaling.md)**.
 - ...
 
 Remember, **to love others you mustn't love yourself too much**, it helps if you hate yourself. Ideally you should love everyone equally, yourself and others too, but by loving yourself more you are hurting others while loving yourself less you only hurt yourself -- a truly [selfless](selflessness.md) man will rather choose to hurt himself than others, so it's always better to try to love yourself less.

exercises.md

@@ -219,7 +219,8 @@ Bear in mind the main purpose of this quiz is for you to test your understanding
 112. What's the difference between [lazy](lazy.md) and strict evaluation? Show simple example.
 113. Write code in [Brainfuck](brainfuck.md) that copies the value in current cell to the cell on to the right, while KEEPING the value in current cell. Of course you may use another temporary cell to do this.
 114. What's the first sentence of the lyrics of the [Free Software](free_software.md) Song by [Richard Stallman](rms.md)?
-115. Did you enjoy this quiz?
+115. Consider we record moves in [chess](chess.md) with a simple notation as *<SQUARE_FROM><SQUARE_TO>*, for example *e3e5* or *g1f3* (i.e. we don't care about which chessman moves, if check or promotion happens etc., only start and end square are recorded). How many such moves exist if we only consider those that can ever legally happen (i.e. don't count moves such as *a2g1*, *b3b3* and so on)? Castling just means moving the king to his castled position.
+116. Did you enjoy this quiz?
 
 ### Answers
 
@@ -338,7 +339,8 @@ sin(x) / cos(x) - log2(2) = tg(x) - 1*, so we get *tg(x) >= 1*. So that will hol
 112. They're both strategies for evaluating [expressions](expression.md): lazy (also *by need*) evaluates an argument ONLY once it's actually needed, while strict evaluation evaluates all arguments, even if some might not be needed. Example: let's have a function `or3(a,b,c)` which performs logical OR of three values; under strict evaluation all *a*, *b* and *c* will be evaluated and then logical OR will be performed; under lazy evaluation the function may first evaluate one argument, let's say *a*, and if it ends up being TRUE, there is no need to further evaluate *b* and *c* (the result is already known to be TRUE), so they won't be evaluated.
 113. For example `[->+>+<<]>>[-<<+>>]<<`: first we copy the current cell into TWO cells to the right -- one of them is used as a temporary cell; after this we use another loop to copy the value from the temporary cell back to the original location that we zeroes during the first copying.
 114. "Join us now and share the software."
-115. yes
+115. Should be 1792 { Unless I counted it wrong lol. ~drummyfish }. We can count this by just considering each square on the board and summing all possible queen and knight moves from that square (queen and knight together cover all possible moves). Queen can obviously end up on any square and from knight's walk we know we can place a knight anywhere as well. This can probably be computed even manually but writing a quick program does the job quicker.
+116. yes
 
 ## Other
 

fail_ab.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 
 Type A and type B fails are two very common cases of failing to adhere to the [LRS](lrs.md) politics/philosophy by only a small margin. Most people don't come even close to LRS politically or by their life philosophy -- these are simply general failures. Then there a few who ALMOST adhere to LRS politics and philosophy but fail in an important point, either by being/supporting [pseudoleft](pseudoleft.md) (type A fail) or being/supporting [right](left_right.md) (type B fail). The typical cases are following (specific cases may not fully fit these, of course):
 
-- **type A fail**: Is anticapitalist, anticonsumerist, may incline towards minimalism, supports [free software](free_software.md) and [free culture](free_culture.md), may even be a vegan, [anarchist](anarchism.md), [C](c.md) programmer etc., however falls into the trap of supporting [pseudoleft](pseudoleft.md), e.g. [LGBT](lgbt.md) or [feminism](feminism.md) and things such as censorship ("[moderation](moderation.md)", [COCs](coc.md)), "just violence and bullying" (violence against fascists, e.g. [antifa](antifa.md)), falls for memes such as "[Rust](rust.md) is the new [C](c.md)".
-- **type B fail**: Is against [pseudoleft](pseudoleft.md) bullshit and propaganda such as political correctness, is a [racial realist](racial_realism.md), highly supports [suckless](suckless.md) software, hacking and minimalism to achieve high freedom, usually also opposes [corporations](corporation.md) and state, however falls into the trap of being a [fascist](fascism.md), easily accepts violence, believes in "natural selection/wild west as a basis of society", supports and engages in [cryptocurrencies](crypto.md), believes in some form of [capitalism](capitalism.md) and that the current form of it can be "fixed" (["anarcho" capitalism](ancap.md) etc.)
+- **type A fail** (the [liberal](liberalism.md) type): Is anticapitalist, anticonsumerist, may incline towards minimalism, supports [free software](free_software.md) and [free culture](free_culture.md), may even be a vegan, [anarchist](anarchism.md), [C](c.md) programmer etc., however falls into the trap of supporting [pseudoleft](pseudoleft.md), e.g. [LGBT](lgbt.md) or [feminism](feminism.md) and things such as censorship ("[moderation](moderation.md)", [COCs](coc.md)), "just violence and bullying" (violence against fascists, e.g. [antifa](antifa.md)), falls for memes such as "[Rust](rust.md) is the new [C](c.md)".
+- **type B fail** (the [libertarian](libertarianism.md) type): Is against [pseudoleft](pseudoleft.md) bullshit and propaganda such as [political correctness](political_correctness.md), is a [racial realist](racial_realism.md), highly supports [suckless](suckless.md) software, hacking and minimalism to achieve high freedom, usually also opposes [corporations](corporation.md) and state, however falls into the trap of being a [fascist](fascism.md), easily accepts violence, believes in "natural selection/wild west as a basis of society", supports and engages in [cryptocurrencies](crypto.md), believes in some form of [capitalism](capitalism.md) and that the current form of it can be "fixed" (["anarcho" capitalism](ancap.md) etc.)
 
 Both types are furthermore prone to falling a victim to [privacy](privacy.md) obsession, [productivity](productivity_cult.md) obsession, [hero worshipping](hero_culture.md), use of violence, [diseases](disease.md) such as [distro hopping](distrohopping.md), tech [consumerism](consumerism.md) and similar defects.
 

faq.md

@@ -182,7 +182,11 @@ And yeah, of course sometimes we make [jokes](jokes.md) and sarcastic comments,
 
 ### B... b... but u cant write a big work it like this.
 
-Bitch I can, I have no boss, no publisher, no sponsors, no collaborators, no paying customers, no TOS, no COC, I don't have to suck any dicks, I can write literally what I want here in any way I want -- this means the work is TRULY free, it has practically no barriers and censoring mechanisms. Why don't you do it too?
+Bitch I can, I have no boss, no publisher, no sponsors, no collaborators, no paying customers, no TOS, no COC or EULA or WTF, I don't have to suck any dicks, I can write literally what I want here in any way I want -- this means the work is TRULY free, it has practically no barriers and censoring mechanisms. Why don't you do it too?
+
+### U say X is bad but you did X.
+
+Yeah I'm shit, OK? Is that what you wanted to hear? I'm a shitty idiot retard, I constantly change and what I did in the past may have been bad, maybe I'll even do bad shit in the future. I just give you information and it's up to you what you do with it OK?
 
 ### Why are you insulting some people very much?
 

lrs_dictionary.md

@@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ WORK IN PROGRESS
 | proprietary service                        | disservice                                                  |
 | school                                     | indoctrination center                                       |
 | "science"                                  | [soyence](soyence.md)                                       |
+| soccer                                     | [football](football.md)                                     |
 | software as a service ([SAAS](saas.md))    | service as a software substitute (SAASS)                    |
 | [Steve Jobs](steve_jobs.md)                | Steve Jewbs                                                 |
 | subscription                               | [microrape](microrape.md)                                   |

often_confused.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ There are many terms that are very similar and can many times be used interchang
 - **[1D](1d.md)** vs **[2D](2d.md)** vs **[2.5D](pseudo3d.md)** vs **[3D](3d.md)** (e.g. 2D function vs 3D function, 1D raycasting vs 2D raycasting, ...)
 - **[address](address.md)** vs **[pointer](pointer.md)** vs **[reference](reference.md)** vs **[index](index.md)**
 - **[AI](ai.md)** vs **[machine learning](machine_learning.md)** vs **[neural networks](neural_net.md)**
-- **[algebra](algebra.md)** vs **[arithmetic](arithmetic.md)** vs **[math](math.md)**
+- **[algebra](algebra.md)** vs **[arithmetic](arithmetic.md)** vs **[math](math.md)** vs **[logic](logic.md)**
 - **[algorithm](algorithm.md)** vs **[program](program.md)** vs **[process](process.md)** vs **[heuristic](heuristic.md)** vs **[source code](source_code.md)**
 - **America** vs **[USA](usa.md)**
 - **[analog](analog.md)** vs **[mechanical](mechanical.md)** vs **non-electronic**

science.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ TODO: some noice tree of sciences or smth
 
 **Science is not almighty** as brainwashed internet [euphoric](atheism.md) kids like to think, that's a completely false idea fed to them by the overlords who abuse "science" ([soyence](soyence.md)) for control of the masses, as religion was and is still used -- soyence is the new religion [nowadays](21st_century.md). Yes, (true) science is great, it is an awesome tool, but it is just that -- a tool, usable for SOME tasks, not a [silver bullet](silver_bullet.md) that could be used for everything. What can be discovered by science is in fact quite limited, exactly because it purposefully LIMITS itself only to accept what CAN be proven and so remains silent about everything else (which however doesn't mean there lies no knowledge or value in the everything else or in other approaches to learning) -- see e.g. Godel's incompleteness theorems that state it is mathematically impossible to really prove validity of mathematics, or the nice compendium of all knowability limitations at http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html. For many (if not most) things we deal in life science is either highly impractical (do you need to fund a peer reviewed research to decide what movie you'll watch today?) or absolutely useless (setting one's meaning of life, establishing one's basic moral values, placing completely random bets, deciding to trust or distrust someone while lacking scientifically relevant indicators for either, answering metaphysical questions such as "Why is there ultimately something rather than nothing?", anything that cannot be falsified, if only for practical reasons etc.). So don't be Neil de Grass puppet and stop treating science as your omnipotent pimplord, it's just a hammer useful for bashing some specific nails.
 
-**Science is but one of many tools, a helper, NOT a replacement for everything.** Big science propaganda nowadays tries to push the idea that unless something is proven by science (or what they themselves call "science"), it is invalid; that we should not assume anything unless science proves it. That's not only very stupid but mainly dangerous, it invalidates any and all knowledge not officially approved by the big science police -- in other words it leads to establishing a [totalitarian](totality.md) regime giving a monopoly over truth to the big science. Not even talking about corruption and potential of abuse that we WILL pay for in such case, by relying exclusively on science in everything we immensely cripple our ability to make decisions and throw away all other methods of gaining knowledge. Let us repeat again that not everything can be proven by science and not everything is easy or practically possible to be proven by it. Probably in most situations it is either much more efficient or even the only possible option to rely on knowledge gained in other ways, for example by intuition, educated guess or experience. Most decisions in life are done this way and even if we may get false knowledge this way (just like with science), we can mostly afford the risk and take its consequences, it's usually a good price to pay for being able to make decisions without having to perform rigorous research that will pass the immensely complex big science approval process. It's great if something is (legitimately) proven by science, but until that happens we may, and mostly SHOULD, rely on the next best thing, i.e. knowledge obtained by less reliable methods, e.g. observations of our ancestors regarding [stereotypes](stereotype.md), lore, advice of craftsmen and so on.
+**Science is but one of many tools, a helper, NOT a replacement for everything.** Big science propaganda nowadays tries to push the idea that unless something is proven by science (or what they themselves call "science"), it is invalid; that we should not assume anything unless science proves it. That's not only very stupid but mainly dangerous, it invalidates any and all knowledge not officially approved by the big science police -- in other words it leads to establishing a [totalitarian](totality.md) regime giving a monopoly over truth to the big science. Not even talking about corruption and potential of abuse that we WILL pay for in such case, by relying exclusively on science in everything we immensely cripple our ability to make decisions and throw away all other methods of gaining knowledge. Let us repeat again that not everything can be proven by science and not everything is easy or practically possible to be proven by it. Probably in most situations it is either much more efficient or even the only possible option to rely on knowledge gained in other ways, for example by intuition, educated guess or experience. Most decisions in life are done this way and even if we may get false knowledge this way (just like with science), we can mostly afford the risk and take its consequences, it's usually a good price to pay for being able to make decisions without having to perform rigorous research that will pass the immensely complex big science approval process. It's great if something is (legitimately) proven by science, but until that happens we may, and mostly SHOULD, rely on the next best thing, i.e. knowledge obtained by less reliable methods, e.g. observations of our ancestors regarding [stereotypes](stereotype.md), lore, advice of craftsmen and so on. If there is no scientific proof neither for nor against something, believing what's obvious is probably the best we can do. Science means questioning even common sense, but when science is powerless (or obscured, too expensive or unusable for any other reason), common sense is still superior.
 
 **What should we accept as "legit" science?** [We](lrs.md), in the context of our [ideal society](less_retarded_society.md), argue for NOT creating a strict, black and white definition of science, just as we are for example against "formalizing [morality](morality.md)" with [laws](law.md) etc. There are no hard lines between good and evil, fun and boring, useful and useless, bloated and minimal, and so also there is no strict line between science and non-science. What is and is not science is to be judged on a case-by-case basis and can be disagreed on without any issue, science cannot be a mass produced stream of papers that can automatically be marked OK or NOT OK. We might define the term **[less retarded science](less_retarded_science.md)** so as to distinguish today's many times twisted and corrupted "science/[soyence](soyence.md)" from the real, good and truly useful rational conduct and way of thought. Less retarded science should follow similar principles as [our technology](lrs.md), it should be completely free as in freedom, without any business and self interest, i.e. [selfless](selflessness.md), also [suckless](suckless.md) as much as possible, clear and unobscured etc. -- especially stressed should be the idea of many people being able to reproduce, test and verify less retarded science (see also [freedom distance](freedom_distance.md)); e.g. Newton's law of gravitation is less retarded because it can easily be verified by anyone, while the existence of Higgs boson is not. Similarly the line between scientists and non-scientists shouldn't be strict, common people should be able to do basic science, reasoning, experiments, calculations and research of literature, but indeed to arrive at such highly advanced stage would require a very long time, to get very close to [less retarded society](less_retarded_society.md).
 

smart.md

@@ -8,4 +8,5 @@ The adjective "smart", as in e.g. *smartphone*, is in the context of [modern](mo
 
 ## See Also
 
-- [dumb](dumb.md)
+- [dumb](dumb.md)
+- [buzzword](buzzword.md)

soydev.md

@@ -39,4 +39,5 @@ Here is a quick rough comparison of seydevs and actual good programmers (nowaday
 - [snowflake](snowflake.md)
 - [zoomer](zoomer.md)
 - [NPC](npc.md)
-- [nu-male](nu_male.md)
+- [nu-male](nu_male.md)
+- [mouthbreather](mouthbreather.md)

thrembo.md

@@ -13,4 +13,5 @@ Some pressing questions about thrembo remaining to be researched are following.
 - [illegal number](illegal_number.md)
 - [asankhyeya](asankhyeya.md)
 - [42](42.md)
-- [pi](pi.md)
+- [pi](pi.md)
+- [Listenbourg](listenbourg.md)

unary.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 
 Unary generally refers to having "one of a thing". In different contexts it may specifically signify e.g.:
 
-- **unary numeral system**: A [base](base.md) for writing numbers (just as [binary](binary.md), [decimal](decimal.md), [hexadecimal](hex.md) etc.). This base is kind of an extreme, using only one symbol (0) and has at least two possible versions:
+- **unary numeral system**: A [base](base.md) for writing [numbers](number.md) (just as [binary](binary.md), [decimal](decimal.md), [hexadecimal](hex.md) etc.). This base is kind of an extreme, using only one symbol (0) and has at least two possible versions:
   - The most primitive "caveman" system of recording numbers with a single symbol, recording a number simply by writing "that many symbols", e.g. using the symbol 0, one is written as 0, two as 00, three as 000 etc. Zero itself is represented by an empty string (writing nothing). Though primitive, this system is actually usable.
-  - The system following rules of computers, i.e. having a fixed space, i.e. number of places, for storing a number (just as in binary we have may have e.g. 8 bits for storing a number). However since each of those places can only hold one value (the single symbol of the unary system, usually set to be 0), the system **is a [joke](jokes.md)**, because no matter how many places, we can only ever record one number -- zero. The advantage is that we can store zero even with zero places, i.e. we don't even need any memory to store the number.
+  - A regular computer system that has some fixed number of unary places for storing each number (just as in binary we may have e.g. 8 bits for storing a number). However since each of those places can only hold one value (the single symbol of the unary system, usually set to be 0), the system **is a [joke](jokes.md)**, because no matter how many places, we can only ever record one number -- [zero](zero.md). The advantage is that we can store zero even with zero places, i.e. we don't even need any memory or computer at all to store the number, so such system is equivalent to just nothings.
 - **unary function, operator etc.**: [function](function.md), [operator](operator.md) etc. that only has one parameter (e.g. [square root](sqrt.md), ...).
 - ...

wiki_stats.md

@@ -3,19 +3,19 @@
 This is an autogenerated article holding stats about this wiki.
 
 - number of articles: 602
-- number of commits: 912
-- total size of all texts in bytes: 4518162
-- total number of lines of article texts: 34080
+- number of commits: 913
+- total size of all texts in bytes: 4523742
+- total number of lines of article texts: 34087
 - number of script lines: 294
 - occurrences of the word "person": 9
 - occurrences of the word "nigger": 98
 
 longest articles:
 
-- [c_tutorial](c_tutorial.md): 124K
+- [c_tutorial](c_tutorial.md): 128K
 - [exercises](exercises.md): 112K
-- [capitalism](capitalism.md): 76K
 - [chess](chess.md): 76K
+- [capitalism](capitalism.md): 76K
 - [how_to](how_to.md): 72K
 - [less_retarded_society](less_retarded_society.md): 64K
 - [3d_rendering](3d_rendering.md): 56K
@@ -35,60 +35,74 @@ longest articles:
 
 top 50 5+ letter words:
 
-- which (2526)
-- there (1952)
-- people (1791)
-- example (1532)
-- other (1409)
+- which (2529)
+- there (1959)
+- people (1799)
+- example (1534)
+- other (1413)
 - number (1264)
-- about (1242)
+- about (1243)
 - software (1209)
-- program (995)
-- because (976)
-- their (959)
-- would (929)
-- being (871)
-- something (864)
-- things (858)
-- called (853)
+- program (996)
+- because (979)
+- their (961)
+- would (934)
+- being (877)
+- something (865)
+- things (859)
+- called (857)
 - language (849)
 - numbers (809)
 - simple (799)
-- computer (782)
-- without (756)
+- computer (783)
+- without (757)
 - programming (733)
 - function (717)
-- different (712)
-- however (710)
-- these (707)
+- different (713)
+- however (712)
+- these (708)
+- world (666)
 - system (666)
-- world (664)
 - doesn (642)
-- should (640)
-- while (629)
+- should (641)
+- while (630)
 - point (617)
-- games (615)
-- still (607)
+- games (616)
+- still (609)
 - drummyfish (601)
 - society (599)
-- simply (584)
+- simply (586)
+- using (576)
 - possible (576)
-- using (575)
-- though (555)
+- though (556)
 - https (551)
 - course (547)
-- similar (542)
-- always (533)
+- similar (544)
+- always (535)
 - memory (531)
 - basically (521)
 - probably (520)
 - value (513)
+- technology (513)
 - really (513)
-- technology (512)
 
 latest changes:
 
 ```
+Date:   Wed Oct 30 16:31:42 2024 +0100
+  art.md
+  c_tutorial.md
+  chess.md
+  debugging.md
+  drummyfish.md
+  feminism.md
+  island.md
+  main.md
+  random_page.md
+  smallchesslib.md
+  transsexual.md
+  wiki_pages.md
+  wiki_stats.md
 Date:   Mon Oct 28 15:53:35 2024 +0100
   art.md
   chess.md
@@ -108,25 +122,6 @@ Date:   Mon Oct 28 15:53:35 2024 +0100
   wiki_stats.md
 Date:   Sat Oct 26 19:38:41 2024 +0200
   anarch.md
-  app.md
-  censorship.md
-  cheating.md
-  chess.md
-  cracker.md
-  debugging.md
-  drummyfish.md
-  freedom.md
-  google.md
-  hero_culture.md
-  jokes.md
-  less_retarded_society.md
-  main.md
-  music.md
-  palette.md
-  plan9.md
-  pride.md
-  random_page.md
-  stereotype.md
 ```
 
 most wanted pages:

windows.md

@@ -14,9 +14,10 @@ Windows has these disadvantages (this is just a few things, we can't possibly as
 - It has blatant backdoors, Microsoft can absolutely take over your computer whenever they want.
 - It's paid and expensive.
 - It needs to restart on updates, it won't let you reject updates, it will restart in the middle of your work and ruin it.
-- It shows you ads.
+- It shows you [ads](marketing.md) and propaganda.
 - It crashes extremely often -- so often its crash screen got a special name: [blue screen of death](bsod.md).
 - It doesn't work.
+- It's unintuitive.
 - You can't customize it.
 - It forces you to update to newer and shittier versions.
 - It forces you to constantly buy new hardware else it stops working.
@@ -29,7 +30,7 @@ Windows has these disadvantages (this is just a few things, we can't possibly as
 - It doesn't work on old (superior) computers.
 - It's unusable for servers. It's also unusable for anything else.
 - It shits on [Unix philosophy](unix_philosophy.md), it does everything EXACTLY the opposite way than it should be done. It pushes harmful concepts such as monolithic software, [GUI](gui.md) for everything etc.
-- It does poorly even in implementing its own philosophy, for example its GUI design is absolute crap cretinous retarded shit that was designed by a monkey, incoherent and unintuitive rushed piece of shit.
+- It does poorly even in implementing its own "philosophy", for example its GUI design is absolute crap cretinous retarded shit that was designed by a monkey, incoherent and unintuitive rushed piece of shit.
 - It constantly downloads stuff from the Internet, eating up your bandwidth, stopping to work when Internet goes down.
 - It's hostile to anything [free](free_software.md), for example it will nuke all other operating systems when installed.
 - It has a shitty EULA that makes Micro$oft able to sue you for absolutely anything, it forbids studying the system, copying it, borrowing it, basically doing anything with it.
@@ -40,7 +41,7 @@ Windows has these disadvantages (this is just a few things, we can't possibly as
 - If you use it your mother will die in her sleep.
 - ...
 
-Some "people" still decide to use it.
+Some "people" still decide to use it. Why? For a single reason: it comes preinstalled on the computer they buy.
 
 Not that you should never use Windows programs but even if you WANT that you can do it with [Wine](wine.md) under GNU/Linux, sometimes the programs even run better under Wine than on winshit itself lol. By this there is [zero](zero.md) (or maybe even fewer) reasons to ever use windows, it's literally just for [faggots](faggot.md).
 

woman.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ The symbol for woman is a circle with cross at its bottom ([Unicode](unicode.md)
 
 **Even mainstream science acknowledges women are dumber than men**: even the extremely politically correct [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) states TODAY in the article on human brain that male brain is on average larger in volume (even when corrected for the overall body size) AND that there is correlation between volume and intelligence: this undeniably implies women are dumber. Men also have faster reaction times. On average male brain weights 10% more than woman's and has 16% more brain cells. The Guinness book of 1987 states the average male brain weight being 1424 grams and that of a female being 1242 grams; the averages both grow with time quite quickly so nowadays the numbers will be higher in both sexes, though the average of men grows faster. The heaviest recorded brain belonged to a man (2049 grams), while the lightest belonged to a woman (1096 grams). Heaviest woman brain weighted 1565 grams, only a little more than men's average. [IQ](iq.md)/intelligence measured by various tests has been consistently significantly lower for women than for men, e.g. the paper named *Sex differences in intelligence and brain size: A paradox resolved* found a 4 point difference, noting that in some problems such as 3D spatial rotations males score even 11 points higher average.
 
-[Historically](history.md) in every [culture](culture.md) women have been privileged over men, and they still are very much (for example they commit [suicides](suicide.md) much less often) -- while men had to [work](work.md) their asses off, go to [wars](war.md), explore and hunt for food, women often weren't even supposed to work, they could stay at home, chill while guarding the fire and playing with children -- this is becoming less and less so with [capitalism](capitalism.md) which aims to simply enslave everyone, nowadays mostly through the [feminist](feminism.md) cult that brainwashed women to desire the same slavery as men. In case of emergencies it's always been the rule to save women and children first, in wars women and children were oftentimes spared in mass executions. Thanks to being smaller, thinner and lighter women need fewer calories to survive, i.e. men have to pay more money just for staying alive (Does anyone care about this inequality gap? Of course not). Statistically **women live about 6 years longer lives than men** because they have easier and less stressful life, they don't have to work as hard and they can obtain privileges (such as free food and better healthcare) just with a flirty smile. Woman make much more money by prostitution than men, why don't evil women discriminate against poor men this way? While feminists are furious about wage gaps in professions where men make more money than women, none gives a single damn about these opposite kinds of inequality gaps which just confirms what everyone already knows: feminists don't care about equality, they simply care about women. Women also have the huge social privilege of being able to to have sex and/or get a partner at any time with no effort and/or **trade sex (or even just mere company) for things and services** -- this happens very often, see e.g. the [GamerGate](gamergate.md) scandal which basically revealed that women "developers" were fucking game reviewers to push promotion of their "games", i.e. here we see that **women oppress men** not just by treating them as mere sexual objects but also by having good games made by men be rejected in favor of bad games made by women by the power of sex. Being a woman means playing life on very low difficulty, you can have anything you want at any time. Man on the other hand won't get sex unless he's a billionaire or at least 2 meters tall, no matter how smart, nice of physically fit he is. For a woman to get sex it's enough to just ask while not weighting two tons, that's literally how easy it is. It is proven that taller men have more sexual partners which means women are discriminating against short men: why are women so evil and practice [body shaming](body_shaming.md)? Didn't they want equality or something?
+[Historically](history.md) in every [culture](culture.md) women have been privileged over men, and they still are: being a woman means playing life on low difficult (women for example commit [suicides](suicide.md) much less often, much less frequently end up being homeless and so on) -- while men always had to [work](work.md) their asses off, go to [wars](war.md), explore and hunt for food, women often weren't even supposed to work, they could stay at home, chill while guarding the fire and playing with children -- this is becoming less and less so with [capitalism](capitalism.md) which aims to simply enslave everyone, nowadays mostly through the [feminist](feminism.md) cult that brainwashed women to desire the same slavery as men. In case of emergencies it's always been the rule to save women and children first, in wars women and children were oftentimes spared in mass executions. Thanks to being smaller, thinner and lighter women need fewer calories to survive, i.e. men have to pay more money just for staying alive (Does anyone care about this inequality gap? Of course not). Statistically **women live about 6 years longer lives than men** because they have easier and less stressful life, they don't have to work as hard and they can obtain privileges (such as free food and better healthcare) just with a flirty smile. Woman make much more money by prostitution than men, why don't evil women discriminate against poor men this way? While feminists are furious about wage gaps in professions where men make more money than women, none gives a single damn about these opposite kinds of inequality gaps which just confirms what everyone already knows: feminists don't care about equality, they simply care about women. Women also have the huge social privilege of being able to to have sex and/or get a partner at any time with no effort and/or **trade sex (or even just mere company) for things and services** -- this happens very often, see e.g. the [GamerGate](gamergate.md) scandal which basically revealed that women "developers" were fucking game reviewers to push promotion of their "games", i.e. here we see that **women oppress men** not just by treating them as mere sexual objects but also by having good games made by men be rejected in favor of bad games made by women by the power of sex. Being a woman means playing life on very low difficulty, you can have anything you want at any time. Man on the other hand won't get sex unless he's a billionaire or at least 2 meters tall, no matter how smart, nice of physically fit he is. For a woman to get sex it's enough to just ask while not weighting two tons, that's literally how easy it is. It is proven that taller men have more sexual partners which means women are discriminating against short men: why are women so evil and practice [body shaming](body_shaming.md)? Didn't they want equality or something?
 
 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. 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 we 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. It makes sense from the evolutionary standpoint as well, women simply evolved to take care of children, guard fire and save resource consumption by being only as strong as necessarily required for this task, while men had to be stronger and smarter to do the hard job of providing food and protection.
 
@@ -26,15 +26,15 @@ Of course even though rare, well performing women may statistically appear (thou
 
 A woman in emergency situations even presents a deadly danger: not only do women have significantly lower reaction times (source e.g. Aditya Jain et al. 2015), but in sudden emergency situations women always start to freak out and panic, they start screaming, running around and can't control themselves -- this is because, again, genetically men are programmed to deal with danger, men stay calm in a crisis, while women are programmed to rather signal the danger and run away. This can be seen basically in any video of some accident. For this reason letting women into critical missions such as space walks is a huge, life threatening risk.
 
-**Supposed "achievements" of women after circa 2010 can't be taken seriously**, [propaganda](propaganda.md) has started to tryhard and invent and overrate achievements and basically just steal achievements of men and hand them over to women (not that there were any significant achievement post 2010 though). Remember, by now things such as [ghostwriting](ghostwriter.md) are absolutely normal -- a rich guy without any writing talent just pays someone to write for him while giving the authorship credit to the rich guy, it's legal and completely common, so very soon there will be things like men who are paid to secretly make scientific research that will then be handed over to some woman because politics just needs women with achievements they can't make themselves, it's just natural development. At the moment there are many [token](token.md) women inserted on [soyentific](soyence.md) positions etc. (lol just watch any recent [NASA](nasa.md) mission broadcast, there is always a woman inserted in front of the camera).
+**Supposed "achievements" of women after circa 2010 can't be taken seriously**, [propaganda](propaganda.md) has started to tryhard and invent and overrate achievements and basically just steal achievements of men and hand them over to women (not that there were any generally significant achievement post 2010 though). Remember, by now things such as [ghostwriting](ghostwriter.md) are absolutely normal -- a rich guy without any writing talent just pays someone to write for him while giving the authorship credit to the rich guy, it's legal and completely common, money can nowadays buy anything, including talent or making lie into truth, so very soon there will be (or possibly there already are) things like men who are paid to secretly make scientific research that will then be handed over to some woman because politics just needs women with achievements which they can't reach themselves, it's just natural development under [capitalism](capitalism.md). At the moment there are many [token](token.md) women inserted on [soyentific](soyence.md) positions etc. (lol just watch any recent [NASA](nasa.md) mission broadcast, there is always a woman inserted right in front of the camera).
 
 Of course, [LRS](lrs.md) loves all living beings equally, even women. In order to truly love someone we have to be aware of their true nature so that we can truly love them, despite all imperfections.
 
-**Is there even anything women are better at than men?** Well, women seem for example more peaceful or at least less violent on average (feminism of course sees this as a "weakness" and tries to change it), though they seem to be e.g. more passive-aggressive. Nevertheless there have been a few successful queens in history, women can sometimes perhaps be good in representative roles (and other simple chair-sitting jobs), in being a "symbol", which doesn't require much of any skill (a statue of a god can do the same job really). They have also evolved to perform the tasks of housekeeping and care taking at which they may excel, but still it seems that if men fully focus on a specific task, they will beat women at anything, for example the best cooks in the world are men (in Japan it is common knowledge that sushi made by women is not as good because their hands are too warm). Sometimes women may be preferable exactly for not being as "rough" as men, e.g. as singers, therapists, sex workers etc. There were also some good English female writers actually, like Agatha Christie and J. K. Rowling, though that's still pretty weak compared to Hemingway, Goethe, Tolkien, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoevsky etcetc.
+**Is there even anything women are better at than men?** Well, women seem for example more peaceful or at least less violent on average (although feminism of course views this as a "weakness" and already diminished this moral advantage women used to posses), though they seem to be e.g. more passive-aggressive and love to plot behind the scenes. Nevertheless there have been a few successful queens in history, women can sometimes perhaps be good in representative roles (and other simple chair-sitting jobs), in being a "symbol", which doesn't require much of any skill (a statue of a god can do the same job really). They have also evolved to perform the tasks of housekeeping and care taking at which they may excel, but still it seems that if men fully focus on a specific task, they will beat women at anything, for example the best cooks in the world are men (in Japan it is common knowledge that sushi made by women is not as good because their hands are too warm). Sometimes women may be preferable exactly for not being as "rough" as men, e.g. as singers, therapists, sex workers etc. There were also some good English female writers actually, like Agatha Christie and J. K. Rowling, though that's still pretty weak compared to Hemingway, Goethe, Tolkien, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoevsky etcetc.
 
-**Can women be allowed in technology?** Well yes, sure, we don't forbid anyone from doing anything. Can a [dog](dog.md) become a writer? Maybe -- it'll be awesome when he does, but we shouldn't encourage dogs to become writers or see lack of dog writers as a problem. In any case **we need fewer women doing important intellectual tasks**, forcing women to do tasks vital for functioning of society has led to those tasks being done poorly and society is getting destroyed, it's not [fun](fun.md) anymore, the world is literally [collapsing](collapse.md) because women were forced to do important tasks for [political reasons](feminism.md), it is now time to prioritize saving society before [political correctness](political_correctness.md). Just admit women are dumb, stop forcing women everywhere and the numbers will get back to healthy levels. In general something like 1 woman for 1000 men doing intellectual task such as [programming](programming.md), writing or [science](science.md) is about the ratio we are probably looking for.
+**Can women be allowed in [technology](tech.md)?** Well yes, sure, we don't forbid anyone from doing anything. Can a [dog](dog.md) become a writer? Maybe -- it'll be awesome when he does, but we shouldn't encourage dogs to become writers or see lack of dog writers as a problem. In any case **we need fewer women doing important intellectual tasks**, forcing women to do tasks vital for functioning of society has led to those tasks being done poorly and society is getting destroyed, it's not [fun](fun.md) anymore, the world is literally [collapsing](collapse.md) because women were forced to do important tasks for [political reasons](feminism.md), it is now time to prioritize saving society before [political correctness](political_correctness.md). Just admit women are dumb, stop forcing women everywhere and the numbers will get back to healthy levels. In general something like 1 woman for 1000 men doing intellectual task such as [programming](programming.md), writing or [science](science.md) is about the ratio we are probably looking for.
 
-Also **women aren't funny** for some reason (with one possible exception of [Ashley Jones](ashley_jones.md)) -- somehow it's very very difficult to find a woman with comedic talent and if very rarely at least a somewhat funny girl appears, it seems she has to be extremely ugly for it to work. It's hard to say if it's because of their low intelligence or due to the natural perception of women (e.g. when a woman is attempting comedy it's still very hard for a man to not just focus on imagining sex with her).
+Also **women aren't funny** for some reason (with one possible exception of [Ashley Jones](ashley_jones.md)) -- somehow it's very very difficult to find a woman with comedic talent and if very rarely at least a somewhat funny girl appears, it seems she has to be extremely ugly for it to work. It's hard to say if it's because of their low intelligence or due to the natural public perception of women (e.g. when a woman is attempting comedy it's still very hard for a man to not just focus on imagining sex with her).
 
 lol http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com
 also https://encyclopediadramatica.gay/Woman :D
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ Note: It is guaranteed that [soyentific](soyence.md) BIGBRAINS will start screec
 | muscle/mass avg.   | 42%              | 32%              |                                     |
 |life span: avg. (EU)| 75 years         | 81 years         |                                     |
 | life span: greatest| 116 y. (Kimura)  | 122 y. (Calment) |top 10 oldest people ever are all W  |
+| homeless ratio     | ~75%             | ~25%             |W is much less likely to be homeless |
 | suicides / 100K    | 11.15            | 2.86             |M die by suicide nearly 4x as often  |
 |average IQ (US 1993)| 101.8            | 98.8             |in some areas M score even 11 higher |
 |Fields medals (2022)| 62               | 2                |W had 0 until 2014                   |

www.md

@@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ An important part of the web is also searching its vast oceans of information wi
 
 Mainstream web is now EXTREMELY [bloated](bloat.md), unusable and beyond saving, for more [suckless](suckless.md) alternatives see [gopher](gopher.md). See also [smol web](smol_internet.md).
 
-Prior to the tragedy of [mainstreamization](mainstream.md) the web used to be perhaps the greatest and most spectacular part of the whole Internet, the service that made Internet widespread, however it soon deteriorated by [capitalist](capitalism.md) interests, commercialization and subsequent invasion of idiots from real world; by this date, in 2020s, it is one of the most illustrative, depressing and also hilarious examples of [capitalist](capitalist_software.md) [bloat](bloat.md). A good article about the issue, called *The Website Obesity Crisis*, can be found at https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm. There is a tool for measuring website bloat at https://www.webbloatscore.com/: it computes the ratio of the page size to the size of its screenshot (e.g. [YouTube](youtube.md) currently scores 35.7).
+Prior to the tragedy of [mainstreamization](mainstream.md) the web used to be perhaps the greatest and most spectacular part of the whole Internet, the service that made Internet widespread, however it soon deteriorated by [capitalist](capitalism.md) interests, commercialization and subsequent invasion of idiots from real world; by this date, in 2020s, it is one of the most illustrative, depressing and also hilarious examples of [capitalist](capitalist_software.md) [bloat](bloat.md). A good article about the issue, called *The Website Obesity Crisis*, can be found at https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm. There used to be a tool for measuring website bloat (now dead) which worked like this: it computed the ratio of the page size to the size of its screenshot (e.g. [YouTube](youtube.md), as of writing this, scored 35.7).
 
-Currently a "vision" hangs in the air of so called **"[web 3](web3.md)"** which is supposed to be the "next iteration" of the web with new "[paradigms](paradigm.md)", making use of "[modern](modern.md)" (i.e. probably shitty) technology such as [bloackchain](blockchain.md); they say web 3 wants to use [decentralization](decentralization.md) to prevent central control and possibly things like [censorship](censorship.md), however [we](lrs.md) can almost certainly guarantee web 3 will be yet exponentially amplified pile of [bloat](bloat.md), garbage and a worse dystopia than our nightmares were able to come up with so far, we simply have to leave this ship sink. If web 3 is what web 2.0 was to web 1.0, then indeed we are [doomed](doom.md). Our prediction is that web will simply lose its status of the biggest Internet service just as [Usenet](usenet.md) did, or like TV lost its status of the main audiovisual media; web will be replaced by something like akin "islands of franchised social media accessed through apps"; it will still be around but will be just a huge ad-littered swamp inferior to [teletext](teletext.md) where the elderly go to share pictures no one wants to see and where guys go to masturbate.
+Currently there's a "vision" of so called **"[web 3](web3.md)"** which is supposed to be the "next iteration" of the web with new "[paradigms](paradigm.md)", making use of "[modern](modern.md)" (i.e. probably [shitty](shit.md)) technology such as [bloackchain](blockchain.md); they say web 3 wants to use [decentralization](decentralization.md) to prevent central control and possibly things like [censorship](censorship.md), however [we](lrs.md) can almost certainly guarantee web 3 will be yet exponentially amplified pile of [bloat](bloat.md), garbage and a worse dystopia than our nightmares were able to come up with so far, we simply have to leave this ship sink. If web 3 is what web 2.0 was to web 1.0, then indeed we are [doomed](doom.md). Our prediction is that web will simply lose its status of the biggest Internet service just as [Usenet](usenet.md) did, or like TV lost its status of the main audiovisual media; web will be replaced by something like akin "islands of franchised social media accessed through apps"; it will still be around but will be just a huge ad-littered swamp inferior to [teletext](teletext.md) where the elderly go to share pictures no one wants to see and where guys go to masturbate.
 
 ## How It Went To Shit