Cheating means circumventing or downright violating rules, usually while trying to keep this behavior secret. You can cheat on your partner, in games, in business etc., however despite cheating seeming like purely immoral behavior at first, it may be even relatively harmless or even completely moral, e.g. in [computer graphics](graphics.md) we sometimes "cheat" our sense of sight and fake certain visual phenomena which leads to efficient rendering algorithms. In [capitalism](capitalism.md) cheating is demonized and people are brainwashed to take part in **cheater witch hunts**.
The truth is that **cheating is only an issue in a shitty society** that's driven by competition. In such society there is a huge motivation for cheating (sometimes literally physical survival) as well as potentially disastrous consequences of it. Under the tyranny of capitalism we are led to worship heroes and high achievers and everyone gets pissed when we get fooled. Corporations go "OH NOES our multi bilion dollar entertainment industry is going to go bankrupt if consoomers get annoyed by cheaters! People are gonna lose their bullshit jobs! Someone is going to get money he doesn't deserve! Our customers may get butthurt!!!" (as if corporations themselves weren't basically just stealing money and raping people lol). So they start a huge brainwashing propaganda campaign, a cheater witch hunt. States do the same, communities do the same, everyone wants to stone cheaters to death but at the same time the society pressures all of us to compete to death with others or else we'll starve. We reward winners and torture the losers, then bash people who try to win -- and no, many times there is no other choice than to cheat, the top of any competition is littered with cheaters, most just don't get caught, so in about 99% of cases the only way to the top is to cheat and try to not get caught, just to have a shot at winning against others. It is proven time after time, legit looking people in the top leagues of sports, business, science and other areas are constantly being revealed as cheaters. Cheater detection systems are (and always will be) imperfect and try to minimize [false positives](false_positive.md), so only the most obvious cheaters get caught, the smart cheaters stay and take the top places in the competitive system, just as surely as natural selection leads to the evolution of organisms that best adapt to the environment. How to solve this enormously disgusting mess? We simply have to stop desperately holding to the system itself, we have to ditch it.
The truth is that **cheating is only an issue in a shitty society** that's driven by competition. In such society there is a huge motivation for cheating (sometimes literally physical survival) as well as potentially disastrous consequences of it. Under the tyranny of capitalism we are led to worship heroes and high achievers and everyone gets pissed when we get fooled. Corporations go "OH NOES our multi bilion dollar entertainment industry is going to go bankrupt if consoomers get annoyed by cheaters! People are gonna lose their bullshit jobs! Someone is going to get money he doesn't deserve! Our customers may get butthurt!!!" (as if corporations themselves weren't basically just stealing money and raping people lol). So they start a huge brainwashing propaganda campaign, a cheater witch hunt. States do the same, communities do the same, everyone wants to stone cheaters to death but at the same time the society pressures all of us to compete to death with others or else we'll starve. We reward winners and torture the losers, then bash people who try to win -- and no, many times there is no other choice than to cheat, the top of any competition is littered with cheaters, most just don't get caught, so in about 99% of cases the only way to the top is to cheat and try to not get caught, just to have a shot at winning against others. It is proven time after time, legit looking people in the top leagues of sports, business, science and other areas are constantly being revealed as cheaters, usually by pure accident (i.e. the number of actual cheater is MANY times higher). Take a look e.g. at the [Trackmania](trackmania.md) cheating scandal in which after someone invented a replay analysis tool he revealed that a great number or top level players were just cheaters, including possibly the GOAT of Trackmania [Riolu](riolu.md) (who just ragequit and never showed again lol). Of course famous cases like Neil Armstrong don't even have to be mentioned. Cheater detection systems are (and always will be) imperfect and try to minimize [false positives](false_positive.md), so only the cheaters who REPEATEDLY make MANY very OBVIOUS mistakes get caught, the smart cheaters stay and take the top places in the competitive system, just as surely as natural selection leads to the evolution of organisms that best adapt to the environment. Even if perfect cheat-detection systems existed, the problem would just shift from cheating to immoral unsportmanship, i.e. abuse of rules that's technically not cheating but effectively presents the same kind of problems. How to solve this enormously disgusting mess? We simply have to stop desperately holding to the system itself, we have to ditch it.
In a good society, such as [LRS](less_retarded_society.md), cheating is not an issue at all, there's no motivation for it (people don't have to prove their worth by their skills, there are no money, people don't worship heroes, ...) and there are no negative consequences of cheating worse than someone [ragequitting](ragequit.md) an online game -- which really isn't an issue of cheating anyway but simply a consequence of unskilled player facing a skilled one (whether the pro's skill is natural or artificial doesn't play a role, the nub will ragequit anyway). In a good society cheating can become a mild annoyance at worst, and it can really be a positive thing, it can be [fun](fun.md) -- seeing for example a skilled pro face and potentially even beat a cheater is a very interesting thing. If someone wants to win by cheating, why not let him? Valid answers to this can only be given in the context of a shit society. In a good society choosing to cheat in a game is as if someone chooses to fly to the top of a mountain by helicopter rather than climbing it -- the choice is everyone's to make.
The fact that cheating isn't really an issue is supported by the hilariously vastly different double standards applied e.g. by chess platforms in this matter, on one hand they state in their TOS they have absolutely 0% tolerance of any kind of cheating/assistance and will lifeban players for the slightest suspicion of cheating yelling WE HAVE TO [FIGHT](fight.md) CHEATING, on the other hand they allow streamers literally cheat on a daily basis on live stream where everyone is seeing it, of course because streamers bring them money -- ALL top chess streamers (chessbrah, Nakamura, ...), including the world champion Magnus Carlsen himself, have videos of themselves getting advice on moves from the chat or even from high level players present during the stream, Magnus Carlsen is filmed taking over his friend's low rated account and winning a game which is the same as if the friend literally just used an engine to win the game, and Magnus is also filmed getting an advice from a top grandmaster on a critical move in a tournament that won him the game and granted him a FINANCIAL PRIZE. **World chess champion is literally filmed winning money by cheating and no one cares** because it was done as part of a highly lucrative stream "in a fun/friendly mood". Chessbrah streams frequently consist of many people in the room just giving advice on moves to the one who is currently playing, of course they censor all comments that try to bring up the fact that this is 100% cheating directly violating the platform's TOS. People literally have no brains, they only freak out about cheating when they're told to by the industry, when cheating is good for business people are told to shut up because it's okay and indeed they just shut up and keep consuming.
The fact that cheating isn't really an issue is supported by the hilariously vastly different double standards applied e.g. by chess platforms in this matter, on one hand they state in their TOS they have absolutely 0% tolerance of any kind of cheating/assistance and will lifeban players for the slightest suspicion of cheating yelling "WE HAVE TO [FIGHT](fight.md) CHEATING", on the other hand they allow streamers literally cheat on a daily basis on live stream where everyone is seeing it, of course because streamers bring them money -- ALL top chess streamers (chessbrah, Nakamura, ...), including the world champion Magnus Carlsen himself, have videos of themselves getting advice on moves from the chat or even from high level players present during the stream, Magnus Carlsen is filmed taking over his friend's low rated account and winning a game which is the same as if the friend literally just used an engine to win the game, and Magnus is also filmed getting an advice from a top grandmaster on a critical move in a tournament that won him the game and granted him a FINANCIAL PRIZE. **World chess champion is literally filmed winning money by cheating and no one cares** because it was done as part of a highly lucrative stream "in a fun/friendly mood". Chessbrah streams frequently consist of many people in the room just giving advice on moves to the one who is currently playing, of course they censor all comments that try to bring up the fact that this is 100% cheating directly violating the platform's TOS. People literally have no brains, they only freak out about cheating when they're told to by the industry, when cheating is good for business people are told to shut up because it's okay and indeed they just shut up and keep consuming.
@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ The word *computer* can be defined in many ways and can also take many different
We can divide computers based on many attributes, e.g.:
- by continuous or discrete **representation of data**: [digital](digital.md) vs [analog](analog.md)
- by **[hardware](hw.md) technology**: [electronic](electronics.md), [mechanical](mechanical.md), [quantum](quantum.md), biological etc.
- by **[hardware](hw.md) technology**: [electronic](electronics.md) ("lightning in sand"), [mechanical](mechanical.md), [quantum](quantum.md), biological etc.
- by **purpose**: special purpose vs general purpose, [personal](pc.md), [server](server.md), [embedded](embedded.md), [supercomputers](supercomputer.md), gaming computer etc.
- by **[programmability](programming.md)**: non-programmable, partially or fully programmable
- by the theoretical **[model of computation](model_of_computation.md)** it is based on: [Turing machine](turing_machine.md), [lambda calculus](lambda_calculus.md) etc.
Function is a very basic term in [mathematics](math.md) and [programming](programming.md) with a slightly different meanings in each: mathematical function maps numbers to other numbers, a function in programming is a subprograms to which we divide a bigger program. Well, that's pretty simplified but those are the basic ideas. A more detailed explanation will follow.
Function is a very basic term in [mathematics](math.md) and [programming](programming.md) with a slightly different meanings in each: mathematical function maps numbers to other numbers, a function in programming is a subprogram to which we divide a bigger program. Well, that's pretty simplified but those are the basic ideas. A more detailed explanation will follow.
## Mathematical Functions
@ -12,9 +12,9 @@ Here we call the function *f* and say it takes one [parameter](parameter.md) (th
{ I always imagined functions as kind of little boxes into which we throw a number and another number falls out. ~drummyfish }
Now consider a function *f2(x) = 1 - 1 / x*. Note that in this case the domain is the set of real number minus [zero](zero.md); the function can't take zero as an input because we can't divide by zero. The codomain is the set of real numbers minus one because we can't ever get one as a result.
Now consider a function *f2(x) = 1 - 1 / x*. Note that in this case the domain is the set of real numbers minus [zero](zero.md); the function can't take zero as an input because we can't divide by zero. The codomain is the set of real numbers minus one because we can't ever get one as a result.
Another common example of a function is the [sine](sin.md) function that we write as *sin(x)*. It can be defined in several ways, commonly e.g. as follows: considering a [right triangle](right_triangle.md) with one of its angles equal to *x* [radians](radian.md), *sin(x)* is equal to the ratio of the side opposing this angle to the triangle [hypotenuse](hypotenuse.md). For example *sin(pi / 2) = sin(45 degrees) = 1 / sqrt(2) ~= 0.71*. The domain of sine function is again the set of real number but its codomain is only the set of real numbers between 0 and 1 because the ratio of said triangle sides can never be negative or greater than 1, i.e. sine function will never yield a number outside the interval <0,1>.
Another common example of a function is the [sine](sin.md) function that we write as *sin(x)*. It can be defined in several ways, commonly e.g. as follows: considering a [right triangle](right_triangle.md) with one of its angles equal to *x* [radians](radian.md), *sin(x)* is equal to the ratio of the side opposing this angle to the triangle [hypotenuse](hypotenuse.md). For example *sin(pi / 4) = sin(45 degrees) = 1 / sqrt(2) ~= 0.71*. The domain of sine function is again the set of real number but its codomain is only the set of real numbers between -1 and 1 because the ratio of said triangle sides can never be negative or greater than 1, i.e. sine function will never yield a number outside the interval <-1,1>.
Note that these functions have to satisfy a few conditions to really be functions. Firstly each number from the domain must be assigned exactly one number (although this can be "cheated" by e.g. using a set of couples as a codomain), even though multiple input numbers can give the same result number. Also importantly **the function result must only depend on the function's parameter**, i.e. the function mustn't have any memory or inside state and it mustn't depend on any external factors (such as current time) or use any randomness (such as a dice roll) in its calculation. For a certain [argument](argument.md) (input number) a function must give the same result every time. For this reason not everything that transforms numbers to other numbers can be considered a function.
@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ Are you a noob but see our ideas as appealing and would like to join us? Say no
- That all [Intel](intel.md) [processors](cpu.md) since 2008 (and [AMD](amd.md) processors since 2013) have a hardware [backdoor](backdoor.md) ([Intel ME](intel_me.md), [AMD PSP](amd_psp.md)) that run the [Minix](minix.md) operating system and allows spying on users of those processors no matter what operating system they run?
- That [capitalism](capitalism.md) is probably the most [retarded](retard.md) and dangerous idea in [history](history.md)?
- Thanks to [quantum computing](quantum.md) you can use a computer to [carry out computation](counterfactual_computing.md) without actually running the computer?
- You can mathematically [prove you don't know some information](no_knowledge_proof.md)?
- That a complement of a [formal language](formal_language.md) can be computationally simpler than the original -- for example that a [pushdown automaton](pushdown_automaton.md) cannot tell which strings are of form a^(n)b^(n)c^(n), but it can tell exactly which ones are not?
- That [LGBT](lgbt.md), [feminism](feminism.md) and similar movements are not truly leftist but rather [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) and therefore [fascist](fascism.md)?
@ -10,7 +10,9 @@ For its extreme save of space procedural generation is extremely popular in [dem
We may see procgen as being similar to [compression](compression.md) algorithms: we have large data and are looking for an algorithm that's much smaller while being able to reproduce the data (but here we normally go the other way around, we start with the algorithm and see what data it produces rather than searching for an algorithm that produces given data). [John Carmack](john_carmack.md) himself called procgen "basically a shitty compression".
Using [fractals](fractal.md) is a popular technique in procgen because they basically perfectly fit the definition of it: a fractal is defined by a simple equation or a set of a few rules that yield an infinitely complex shape. Nature is also full of fractals such as clouds, mountain or trees, so fractals look organic.
Using **[fractals](fractal.md)** (e.g. those in a form of [L-system](l_system.md)) is a popular technique in procgen because fractals basically perfectly fit the definition perfectly: a fractal is defined by a simple equation or a set of a few rules that yield an infinitely complex shape. Nature is also full of fractals such as clouds, mountain or trees, so fractals look organic.
There are also other techniques such as [wave function](wave_function.md) collapse which is used especially in tile map generation. Here we basically have some constraints set (such as which tiles can be neighbors) and then consider the initial map a [superposition](superposition.md) of all possible maps that satisfy these constraints -- we then set a random tile (chosen from those with lowest [entropy](entropy.md), i.e. fewest possible options) to a random specific value and propagate the consequences of it to other tiles causing a cascading effect of collapsing the whole map into one of the possible solutions.
A good example to think of is generating procedural [textures](texture.md). This is generally done by first generating a basis image or multiple images, e.g. with [noise](noise.md) functions such as [Perlin noise](perlin_noise.md) (it gives us a grayscale image that looks a bit like clouds). We then further process this base image(s) and combine the results in various ways, for example we may use different transformations, [modulations](modulation.md), blending, adding color using [color ramps](color_ramp.md) etc. The whole texture is therefore described by a [graph](graph.md) in which nodes represent the operations we apply; this can literally be done visually in software like [Blender](blender.md) (see its [shader](shader.md) editor). The nice thing is that we can now for example generalize the texture to 3 dimensions, i.e. not only have a flat image, but have a whole volume of a texture that can extremely easily be mapped to 3D objects simply by intersecting it with their surfaces which will yield a completely smooth texturing without any seams; this is quite often used along with [raytracing](raytracing.md) -- we can texture an object by simply taking the coordinates of the ray hit as the 3D texture coordinates, it's that simple. Or we can animate a 2D texture by doing a moving cross section of 3D texture. We can also write the algorithm so that the generated texture has no seams if repeated side-by-side (by using modular "wrap-around" coordinates). We can also generate the texture at any arbitrary resolution as we have a continuous mathematical description of it; we may perform an infinite zoom into it if we want. As if that's not enough, we can also generate almost infinitely many slightly different versions of this texture by simply changing the [seed](seed.md) of [pseudorandom](pseudorandom.md) generator we use.
The great doctor Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS, also [GNU](gnu.md)/Stallman and saint IGNUcius, born 1953 in New York) is one of the biggest figures in software [history](history.md), inventor of [free software](free_software.md), founder of the [GNU project](gnu.md), [Free Software Foundation](fsf.md), a great [hacker](hacking.md) and the author of a famous text editor [Emacs](emacs.md). He is a non-religious [Jew](jew.md) and an [atheist](atheism.md) (though he is the highest saint of [Church Of Emacs](church_of_emacs.md)), a man who firmly stands behind his beliefs and who's been advocating for ethics and user freedom in the computing world.
The great doctor Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS, also [GNU](gnu.md)/Stallman and saint IGNUcius, born 1953 in New York) is one of the biggest figures in software [history](history.md), inventor of [free software](free_software.md), founder of the [GNU project](gnu.md), [Free Software Foundation](fsf.md), a great [hacker](hacking.md) and the author of a famous text editor [Emacs](emacs.md). He is a non-religious [Jew](jew.md) and an [atheist](atheism.md) (though he is the highest saint of [Church Of Emacs](church_of_emacs.md)), a man who firmly stands behind his beliefs and who's been advocating for ethics and user freedom in the computing world. He has also been called the *king of software [cloning](clone.md)*, for he started the wave of making free, ethical clones of proprietary programs.
```
_..._
@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ The great doctor Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS, also [GNU](gnu.md)/Stallman and
Stallman's life along with free software's history is documented by a free-licensed book named *Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software* on which he collaborated. You can get it gratis e.g. at [Project Gutenberg](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5768). You should read this!
[tl;dr](tldr.md): At 27 as an employee at [MIT](mit.md) AI labs Stallman had a bad experience when trying to fix a Xerox printer who's [proprietary](proprietary.md) software source code was made inaccessible; he also started spotting the betrayal of hacker principles by others who decided to write proprietary software -- he realized proprietary software was inherently wrong as it prevented studying, improvement and sharing of software and enable abuse of users. From 1982 he was involved in a "fight" against the Symbolics company that pushed aggressive proprietary software; he was rewriting their software from scratch to allow Lisp Machine users more freedom -- here he proved his superior programming skills as he was keeping up with the whole team of Symbolics programmers. By 1983 his frustration reached its peak and he announced his [GNU](gnu.md) project on the [Usenet](usenet.md) -- this was a project to create a completely [free as in freedom](free_software.md) [operating system](os.md), an alternative to the proprietary [Unix](unix.md) system that would offer its users freedom to use, study, modify and share the whole software, in the hacker spirit. He followed by publishing a manifesto and establishing the [Free Software Foundation](fsf.md). GNU and FSF popularized and standardized the term [free (as in freedom) software](free_software.md), [copyleft](copyleft.md) and free licensing, e.g. with the [GPL](gpl.md) license. In the 90s GNU adopted the [Linux](linux.md) operating system kernel and released a complete version of the GNU operating system -- these are nowadays known mostly as "Linux" [distros](distro.md). As a head of FSF and GNU Stallman more or less stopped programming and started traveling around the world to give talks about free software and has earned his status of one of the most important people in software history.
[tl;dr](tldr.md): At 27 as an employee at [MIT](mit.md) AI labs Stallman had a bad experience when trying to fix a Xerox printer who's [proprietary](proprietary.md) software source code was made inaccessible; he also started spotting the betrayal of hacker principles by others who decided to write proprietary software -- he realized proprietary software was inherently wrong as it prevented studying, improvement and sharing of software and enable abuse of users. From 1982 he was involved in a "fight" against the Symbolics company that pushed aggressive proprietary software; he was rewriting their software from scratch to allow Lisp Machine users more freedom -- here he proved his superior programming skills as he was keeping up with the whole team of Symbolics programmers. By 1983 his frustration reached its peak and he announced his [GNU](gnu.md) project on the [Usenet](usenet.md) -- this was a project to create a completely [free as in freedom](free_software.md) [operating system](os.md), an alternative to the proprietary [Unix](unix.md) system that would offer its users freedom to use, study, modify and share the whole software, in the hacker spirit. He followed by publishing a manifesto and establishing the [Free Software Foundation](fsf.md). GNU and FSF popularized and standardized the term [free (as in freedom) software](free_software.md), [copyleft](copyleft.md) and free licensing, mainly with the [GPL](gpl.md) license. In the 90s GNU adopted the [Linux](linux.md) operating system kernel and released a complete version of the GNU operating system -- these are nowadays known mostly as "Linux" [distros](distro.md). As a head of FSF and GNU Stallman more or less stopped programming and started traveling around the world to give talks about free software and has earned his status of one of the most important people in software history.
Regarding [software](software.md) Stallman has for his whole life strongly and tirelessly promoted free software and [copyleft](copyleft.md) and has himself only used free software; he has always practiced what he preched and led the best example of how to live without [proprietary](proprietary.md) software. This is amazing. Nevertheless he isn't too concerned about [bloat](bloat.md) (judging by the GNU software and his own creation, [Emacs](emacs.md)) and he also doesn't care that much about [free culture](free_culture.md) (some of his written works prohibit modification and his GNU project allows proprietary non-functional data). Sadly he has also shown signs of being a [type A fail](fail_ab.md) personality by writing about some kind of [newspeak](newspeak.md) "*gender neutral language*" and by seeming to be caught in a [fight culture](fight_culture.md). Nevertheless he definitely can't be accused of populism or hypocrisy as he basically tells what he considers to be the truth no matter what, and he is very consistent in this. Some of his unpopular opinions brought him a lot of trouble, e.g. the wrath of [SJWs](sjw.md) in 2019 for his criticism of the [pedo](pedophile.md) witch hunt.
