Update

anorexia.md

@@ -6,34 +6,36 @@ TODO
 
 Here is a guide for anyone wanting to lose weight, only follow at own risk.
 
-{ Below given tips are a summary of my rich personal experience. I used to weight some 85 kg and every year I would go on a diet to get to 60 kg so that I could spend the rest of the year eating anything I wanted again. I always managed to lost those 10 to 15 kg in one to two months. One year I even lost over 30 kg (over a longer period) down to weighting only 54 kg thanks to a diet combined with an episode of depression. By now I am able to just do whatever I want with my weight. ~drummyfish }
+{ Below given tips are a summary of my rich personal experience. I used to weight some 85 kg and every year I would go on a diet to get to 60 kg so that I could spend the rest of the year eating anything I wanted again. I always managed to lose those 10 to 15 kg in one to two months. One year I even lost over 30 kg (over a longer period) down to weighting only 54 kg thanks to a diet combined with an episode of depression. By now I am able to just do whatever I want with my weight. ~drummyfish }
 
-WARNING: being too skinny is dangerous and this doesn't just mean the extreme case of possibly starving to death. A malnourished body lacks resources and has trouble sustaining vital thing which leads to issues with joints, teeth, skin, mental issues, decreased immunity, low blood pressure and even permanently damaged health -- women lose menstruation cycle and can become infertile etc. Be very careful about overdoing it.
+WARNING: being too skinny is dangerous and this doesn't just mean the extreme case of possibly starving to death. A malnourished body lacks resources and has trouble sustaining vital functions which leads to issues with joints, teeth, skin, mental health, immunity, blood pressure and even to permanent health damage -- women lose menstruation cycle and can become infertile etc. Overly anorexic chicks end up tied by ropes on intensive care unit, force fed, looking like a 120 year old. Be very careful about overdoing it.
 
-**Basics**: first thing to ask yourself is whether you aim to LITERALLY JUST LOSE WEIGHT or if you want to lose fat and keep/build muscle. Unsurprisingly the latter is harder, it REQUIRES exercise and optimizing nutrition. Merely losing weight is much easier, doesn't require exercise at all, and is fine in case you just want to get from morbidly obese to "normal". In any case you have to swallow this pill:
+**Basics**: first question asked must be whether you aim to LITERALLY JUST LOSE WEIGHT or if you want to lose fat and keep/build muscle. Unsurprisingly the latter is harder, it REQUIRES exercise and optimizing nutrition. Merely losing weight is much easier, not as troublesome thanks to not requiring exercise at all, and is fine in case you just want to go from morbidly obese to "normal". At any rate it's necessary to force swallow the following fact pill:
 
-**You HAVE TO go on a diet**, period. You CANNOT lose weight only with exercise if you keep consuming double cheeseburgers with Pepsi for breakfast and then a bag of large chips with Monster drinks and a beer during a movie. The amount of food we consume in the first world is NOT NORMAL, what the average folk considers a "normal" daily intake of food is actually overeating. Remember the trait imposed upon us by evolution: with enough food we overeat in order to store energy as body fat for the worse times of scarcity. This perfectly works in the jungle when times of abundance and scarcity alternate, but turns to a curse in times of constant abundance (and additional pressure of the food business). Exercise is cool and helps, but reducing calorie intake is the single most essential thing for losing weight.
+**You HAVE TO go on a diet**, period. Losing weight only with exercise is quite literally impossible if you keep consuming double cheeseburgers with Pepsi for breakfast and then watching a movie with a bag of large chips and Monster drinks plus a few beers on top. The amount of food we consume in the first world is NOT NORMAL, what the average folk considers a "normal" daily intake of food is actually overeating. Remember the trait imposed upon us by evolution: with enough food we overeat in order to store energy as body fat for the worse times of scarcity. This perfectly works in the jungle when times of abundance and scarcity alternate, but turns to a curse in times of constant abundance (and additional pressure of the food business). Exercise is cool and helps, but reducing calorie intake is the single most essential thing for losing weight.
 
 From weight losing perspective the primary key word in a diet is **calorie**, a unit [energy](energy.md). Watch out: everybody says "calories" but in fact what we always mean is kilocalories, i.e. *kcal*. Hearing someone talk about 100 calories means 100 kilocalories, 100 calories is just nothing. Every food has a certain amount of (kilo)calories and your body naturally burns some amount of calories per day -- if you give it more, you gain weight, if you give it less, you lose weight (because the body must take the missing energy from the stored fat). It's as simple as that. The number of calories in food is printed on the packaging and/or can be looked up on the [Internet](internet.md). Average adult male needs **2000 kcal** per day (exact value depends on sex, age, height, physical activity, genes etc.), so you aim to get less than that, to induce the energy deficit and burn the fat. In gradual weight loss you'll probably want to lost about 500 kcal per day, but there are even madmen eating less than 1000 calories per day. Some people even fast and eat nothing at all, but this mustn't be sustained for too long.
 
-So **how many calories are too much in food?** This depends, calories are usually measured per 100 grams of food but this depends on the DENSITY of the food, so rough calories/100 grams values can be misleading -- see also tips below. But in general it goes like this: fewer than 10 *kcal* / 100 g is guilt-free food, you can consume it as much as you want; under 100 *kcal* / 100 g is low-calorie food that you want to consume as your "normal" food; below 200 *kcal* is acceptable but should be limited and stuff above is best to be avoided. 400 and above is disaster.
+So **how many calories are too much in food?** This depends, calories are usually measured per 100 grams of food but this depends on the DENSITY of the food, so rough calories/100 grams values can be misleading -- see also tips below. But in general it goes like this: fewer than 10 *kcal* / 100 g is guilt-free food, you can consume it as much as you want; under 100 *kcal* / 100 g is low-calorie food that you want to consume as your "normal" food; below 200 *kcal* is acceptable but should be limited and stuff above is best to be avoided. 400 and above is a disaster.
 
-**How many calories must one burn to lose 1 kg of weight?** The number is said to be 7700 kcal as that's how many there are in 1 kg of fat, however it's just approximate (eventually the body also loses muscle, water etc.). Now you can do the math and see how quickly one is losing weight depending on the calorie deficit per day. Normal people will aim to maybe lost 0.5 to 1 kg per week, but obviously it can go a lot faster, though brutally fast weight loss (like more than 2 kg maybe) is generally not recommended.
+**How many calories must one burn to lose 1 kg of weight?** The number is said to be 7700 kcal as that's how many there are in 1 kg of fat, however it's just approximate (eventually the body also loses muscle, water etc.). Now you can do the math and see how quickly one is losing weight depending on the calorie deficit per day. Normal people will aim to maybe lose 0.5 to 1 kg per week, but obviously it can go a lot faster, though brutally fast weight loss (like more than 2 kg maybe) is generally not recommended.
 
-Now to debunk a common misconception here's another truth pill: **weight loss can't be targeted on body parts**. If you want to lose your belly fat, doing belly exercises will NOT make you lose fat there. NO IT WILL FUCKING NOT, IT'S TRUE MOTHERFUCKER. Exercising your belly will make you gain muscle there, but if you're staying fat, the muscle won't be seen. Yes, you saw a guy on TV do situps and then a cool six pack, but you don't get it, this is how it works: he loses weight mainly through diet which makes him lose fat, and the body burns fat from wherever it wants first -- sadly in places where you WANT to lose fat it usually goes last. Well, that's why it's probably seen as "sexy" to have a flat belly -- because it's HARD to do :) Why is the guy doing situps then? To keep the muscles. The body burns fat but also takes a bit of the muscle, and exercise certain parts makes the body invest in growing muscles there, slowing the loss. Of course exercise also burns calories so it accelerates loss of fat, but again, you cannot target where the fat will be lost.
+Now to debunk a common misconception here's another truth pill: **weight loss can't be targeted on body parts**. If you want to lose your belly fat, doing belly exercises will NOT make you lose fat there. NO IT WILL FUCKING NOT, IT'S TRUE MOTHERFUCKER. Exercising your belly will make you gain muscle there, but if you're staying fat, the muscle won't be seen. Yes, you saw a guy on TV do situps and then have a cool six pack in the next episode, but you don't get it, this is how it works: he loses weight mainly through diet which makes him lose fat, and the body burns fat from wherever it wants first -- sadly in places where you WANT to lose fat it usually goes last. Well, that's why it's probably seen as "sexy" to have a flat belly -- because it's HARD to do :) Why is the guy doing situps then? To keep the muscles. The body burns fat but also takes a bit of the muscle, and exercising certain parts makes the body invest in growing muscles there, slowing the loss. Of course exercise also burns calories so it accelerates loss of fat, but again, you cannot target where the fat will be lost.
 
-And to debunk another one: **increased mental effort doesn't burn more calories**. Well, maybe it does but only very insignificant amount. Look it up if you don't believe it. Yes, it's true that brain consumes a disproportionate amount of calories, but it's a faulty logic to think that increased or decreased mental effort changes this amount. The brain just consumes *X* calories per day no matter if you stare at a wall or study math, most of the energy goes to things like keeping organs functioning etc.
+And to debunk another one: **increased mental effort doesn't burn more calories**. Well, maybe it does but only very insignificant amount. Look it up if you don't believe it. If it did, why are all nerds fat? THINK FOR FUCKS SAKE. Yes, it's true that brain consumes a disproportionate amount of calories, but it's a faulty logic to think that increased or decreased mental effort changes this amount. The brain just consumes *X* calories per day no matter if you stare at a wall or study math, most of the energy goes to things like keeping organs functioning etc.
+
+And another one :) NO, **the body doesn't start storing more fat if you give it few calories**, that's bullshit. There seems to be circulating this hoax, perhaps propelled by its usability as a convenient excuse for not undertaking a diet, that a body deprived of food "gets scared" and "starts hoarding more fat". [LMAO](lmao.md), not true at all, it doesn't work like this, definitely not to any significant level. Do you think someone overeating will therefore start getting slimmer because the body sees there is enough food? Your body will eventually start hoarding more fat, but more due to aging and other factors. Stop looking for excuses.
 
 **[BMI](bmi.md)** (body mass index) is a measure often used to calculate how fat someone is depending on weight and height, you can use it to track where you stand.
 
-**Everyone can lose weight, there are no excuses**. People often cry they just can't lose weight because of "bad genes" or whatever but this is debunked by physics itself: if someone is able to not eat and keep weight, he is literally breaking physics laws, he is creating energy from nothing and should be awarded Nobel Prize for the greatest breakthrough in science. It's always only about having the will to not eat as much. This might come with a possible exception that will nonetheless be rare: even though literally everyone CAN lose weight, it's possible some people might have such a bizarre condition that would cause them to die if they lost weight, for which they'd have to choose not to lose it.
+**Everybody can lose weight, no excuses exist**. Fatties frequently go on crying they just won't lose weight despite diets because of "bad genes" or whatever but this is debunked by physics itself: if a man is able to not eat and keep his weight, he is literally breaking physics laws, creating [energy](energy.md) from nothing and should be awarded Nobel Prize for the greatest breakthrough in science. It's always only about having the will to not eat as much. This might come with a possible exception that will nonetheless be rare: even though literally everyone CAN lose weight, it's possible some might be cursed with such a bizarre condition that would cause them to die if they lost weight, for which they'd have to choose not to lose it. So if your excuse is to be "I cannot lose weight because of health problems", please be sure to prove that reaching healthy weight would kill you, otherwise please stop bullshitting everyone, admit you're lazy, stay fat and be happy, there is nothing wrong about making that decision.
 
 And now to some general tips:
 
-- **understanding calories**: It's common to get confused by the fact that for example diet food, such as that polystyrene bread or caffeine-coffee, advertise ungodly amount of calories on the package, or that cooking something makes it lose calories. WTF is going on? What you read on the package is amount of kcal on 100 grams, so if something has very low density, it will have a lot of calories advertised. The polystyrene bread is extremely dry and so very light, so even if it has 350 calories per 100 grams, it gives you 35 calories if it weights 10 grams!
+- **understanding calories**: It's common to get confused by the fact that for example diet food, such as that polystyrene bread or caffeine free coffee, advertise ungodly amount of calories on the package, or that cooking something makes it lose calories. WTF is going on? What you read on the package is amount of kcal on 100 grams, so if something has very low density, it will have a lot of calories advertised. The polystyrene bread is extremely dry and so very light, so even if it has 350 calories per 100 grams, one piece of it only has 35 calories if it weights 10 grams! Same with coffee drinks -- the powder may actually sport significant calories per 100 grams, but a typical cup will only contain a tiny spoon of the powder. Usually the more "watery" and "wet" something is, the fewer kcal per 100 grams it has, meaning one can eat a lot of it in terms of weight (i.e. probably also volume), making himself full without intaking too much energy.
 - **minding hidden calories**: An infamous "[enemy](fight_culture.md)" are the sneaky hidden calories in things one misses when tracking the intake. For example oil has gigantic amount of calories -- it's said there was a guy who lost some kilos ONLY by drying his pizzas from oil with paper towels.
 - **learning to estimate calories**: Beginners have to look everything up, pros can just take a look at the plate and tell you how many calories there are. Food should always have calorie value on the package, but one must be careful to always look at the value per 100 grams (sometimes they sneakily write something different, for example calories per serving or number of joules). Like with everything losing weight can also be trained to eventually be doing it effortlessly. { Nowadays I can even just "feel" if I've had enough -- even if I'm slightly hungry, I can tell "how hungry" I am and how much of a calorie deficit I have. ~drummyfish }
-- **waiting after eating**: After eating a dish, one must always wait before deciding to eat more. Once we start eating, the body just wants more and more, even if we've already had enough. Waiting makes us realize if we are ACTUALLY still hungry of not. In 99% cases hunger goes away after eating any small amount of food if one only waits 5 minutes.
+- **waiting after eating**: After eating a dish, one must always wait before deciding to eat more. Once we start eating, the body just desires more and more, even if we've already had enough. Waiting makes us realize if we are ACTUALLY still hungry of not. In 99% cases hunger goes away after eating any small amount of food if one only waits 5 minutes as the body starts the digesting process and expects you to rest.
 - **watching the vitamins**: When decreasing food consumption it's important to pay more attention to eating a balanced diet because with smaller amount of food neglecting something will result in far too little of that something. For losing weight basically only calories matter, but for staying healthy one must watch other things like amount of protein, vitamin B and stuff. Vitamins can be taken in pills without any calories.
 - **avoiding seeing food**: Hard to do in [capitalism](capitalism.md) but important, one must eliminate [ads](marketing.md), food documentaries, avoid billboards with food, going near food shops etc.
 - **avoiding access to food**: It's surprising how much of a role subconsciousness plays in being hungry -- just having food in a fridge nearby will make people hungry. { This I experienced and realized very much when spending time at my caravan in the woods. In a civilization I used to get hungry in the evening but in my caravan I never got hungry at all if I was only staying overnight and brought no food with me. ~drummyfish }
@@ -86,4 +88,9 @@ And now to some general tips:
 
 ## How To Gain Weight
 
-Do the opposite of the above.
+Do the opposite of the above.
+
+## See Also
+
+- [body shaming](body_shaming.md)
+- [suicide](suicide.md)

bill_gates.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 *"Some people are so poor that all they've got is money."*
 
-William "Bill" Gaytes (28.10.1955 -- TODO) is a [mass murderer and rapist](entrepreneur.md) (i.e. [capitalist](capitalism.md)) who established and led the terrorist organization [Micro$oft](microsoft.md). He is one of the most rich and evil individuals in [history](history.md) who took over the world by force establishing the [malware](malware.md) "[operating system](os.md)" [Window$](windows.md) as the common operating system, nowadays being dangerous especially by hiding behind his "charity organization" (see [charitywashing](charitywashing.md)) which has been widely criticized (see e.g. http://techrights.org/wiki/Gates_Foundation_Critique, even such mainstream media as [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) present the criticism) but which nevertheless makes him look as someone doing "public good" in the eyes of the naive brainless [NPC](npc.md) masses. His face looks like lemon from which someone sucked all the juice. The Church of [Emacs](emacs.md) call Gates the devil (https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/gospel.html).
+William "Bill" Gaytes (28.10.1955 -- TODO) is a malevolent [mass murderer and rapist](entrepreneur.md) (i.e. [capitalist](capitalism.md)) who established and led the terrorist organization [Micro$oft](microsoft.md). He is one of the most rich and evil individuals in [history](history.md) who took over the world by force establishing the [malware](malware.md) "[operating system](os.md)" [Window$](windows.md) as the common operating system, nowadays being dangerous especially by hiding behind his "charity organization" (see [charitywashing](charitywashing.md)) which has been widely criticized (see e.g. http://techrights.org/wiki/Gates_Foundation_Critique, even such mainstream media as [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) present the criticism) but which nevertheless makes him look as someone doing "public good" in the eyes of the naive brainless [NPC](npc.md) masses. His face looks like lemon from which someone sucked all the juice. The Church of [Emacs](emacs.md) call Gates the devil (https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/gospel.html).
 
 ```
      \__.,.
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ William "Bill" Gaytes (28.10.1955 -- TODO) is a [mass murderer and rapist](entre
 
 *ASCII portrait of Bill Gaytes*
 
-He is really dumb, only speaks one language and didn't even finish university. He also has no moral values, but that goes without saying for any rich businessman. He was owned pretty hard in [chess](chess.md) by Magnus Carlsen on some shitty TV show.
+He is really [dumb](retard.md), only speaks one language and didn't even finish university. He also has no moral values, but that goes without saying for any rich businessman. He was owned pretty hard in [chess](chess.md) by Magnus Carlsen on some shitty TV show.
 
 When Bill was born, his father was just busy counting dollar bills, so he named him Bill. Bill was mentally [retarded](retard.md) as a child and as such had to attend a private school. He never really understood programming but with a below average intelligence he had a good shot at succeeding in [business](capitalism.md). Thanks to his family connections he got to Harvard where he met [Steve Ballmer](steve_ballmer.md). Later he dropped out of the school due to his low intelligence.
 

chess.md

@@ -490,6 +490,7 @@ WORK IN PROGRESS, pls send me more tips :)
 - Just mirror the opponent's moves.
 - Any time you can play en passant do it no matter what and always follow by saying "google en passant".
 - The rating equalizer (you must be somewhat good): play so that you give rating to low rated players and take it away from high rated ones.
+- Say "MMR" instead of [Elo](elo.md).
 - When playing a noob don't just mate him but absolutely rape him, promote all pawns to knights before winning, then say you didn't even have to try and that he should look into another game as chess is clearly not his game. Research humiliating play: for example GM Aman Hambleton demonstrated on stream a so called *reset checkmate* in which one promotes all pawns so as to have the original back rank men and then delivers a checkmate by placing the men in the original starting position (furthermore he did this by premoving it all which adds to the humiliation).
 - Look up chess etiquette and do the exact opposite of what it says.
 - ...

gnu.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # GNU
 
-GNU (*"GNU is Not Unix"*, a [recursive](recursion.md) acronym) is a large software [project](project.md) established by [Richard Stallman](rms.md), the inventor of [free (as in freedom) software](free_software.md), running since 1983 with the goal of creating, maintaining and improving a completely free (as in freedom) [operating system](os.md), along with other free [software](software.md) that computer users might need. The project doesn't tolerate any [proprietary](proprietary.md) software (though it unfortunately tolerates other proprietary [data](data.md)). GNU achieved its goal of creating their free operating system when a [kernel](kernel.md) named [Linux](linux.md) became part of it in the 90s as the last piece of the puzzle -- the system should be called just GNU but is now rather known as GNU/Linux (watch out: most so called "Linux systems" nowadays aren't embraced by GNU as they diverge from GNU's strict policies on what the system should look like, only a handful of operating systems are recommended by GNU). However, the GNU project didn't end and continues to further develop the operating system, or rather a myriad of user software that runs under the operating system -- GNU develops a few of its projects itself and also offers hosting and support (such as free legal defense) for GNU projects developed by volunteers who dedicate their work to them. GNU gave rise to the [Free Software Foundation](fsf.md) and is one of the most important software projects in history of computing.
+GNU (*"GNU is Not Unix"*, a [recursive](recursion.md) acronym) is a large and prolific software [project](project.md) established by [Richard Stallman](rms.md), the inventor of [free (as in freedom) software](free_software.md), running since 1983 with the goal of creating, maintaining and improving a completely free (as in freedom) [operating system](os.md), along with other free [software](software.md) that computer users might need. The project doesn't tolerate any [proprietary](proprietary.md) software (though it unfortunately tolerates other proprietary [data](data.md)). GNU achieved its goal of creating their free operating system when a [kernel](kernel.md) named [Linux](linux.md) became part of it in the 90s as the last piece of the puzzle -- the system should be called just GNU but is now rather known as GNU/Linux (watch out: most so called "Linux systems" nowadays aren't embraced by GNU as they diverge from GNU's strict policies on what the system should look like, only a handful of operating systems are recommended by GNU). However, the GNU project didn't end and continues to further develop the operating system, or rather a myriad of user software that runs under the operating system -- GNU develops a few of its projects itself and also offers hosting and support (such as free legal defense) for GNU projects developed by volunteers who dedicate their work to them. GNU gave rise to the [Free Software Foundation](fsf.md) and is one of the most important software projects in history of computing.
 
 The mascot of GNU is literally gnu (wildebeest), it is available under a copyleft license. WARNING: ironically GNU is extremely protective of their brand's "intellectual property" and will rape you if you use the name GNU without permission (see the case of GNU boot). It's quite funny and undermines the whole project a bit.
 
@@ -12,18 +12,18 @@ The GNU/Linux operating system has several variants in a form of a few GNU appro
 
 - **GNU programs are typically [bloated](bloat.md)** -- although compared to [Windows](windows.md) GNU programs are really light as a feather and though GNU programs are also in many cases (but not always) quite optimized, their source code, judged from strictly [suckless](suckless.md) perspective, is mostly huge, which many view as a big issue (it's a common theme, there are [jokes](joke.md) such as GNU actually meaning *Gigantic and Nasty but Unavoidable* and so on). This is likely because GNU chooses to [battle](fight_culture.md) proprietary programs, often by trying to beat them at their own game, so features are preferred over [minimalism](minimalism.md) to stay competitive.
 - **GNU also doesn't mind proprietary non-functional data** (e.g. assets in video games). This goes against [free culture](free_culture.md) and many other free software groups, notably e.g. [Debian](debian.md). Justifications for this range from "data itself can't be harmful" (false), through "we just focus on software" to "we need GNU to be more popular" (i.e. compatible with proprietary games and so on). GNU is also generally **NOT supportive of [free culture](free_culture.md) and even uses copyright to prohibit modifications of their propaganda texts**: the [GFDL](gfdl.md) license (aka the propaganda license) they use for texts may contain sections that are prohibited from being modified and so are non-free by definition. They also try to "protect" their names, you can't use the name "GNU" without their permission and so on. This sucks big time and shows some of the movement's darker side.
-- **GNU is leaning towards dystopian, [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md)-style thought control**. Now of course let us say GNU does a lot of good and is not (at least yet) nowhere near as evil as any [corporation](corporation.md) for example, however some big red flags appear for example in their *Free System Distribution Guidelines* (FSDG) by which they POLITICALLY [censor](censorship.md) software -- let us repeat that political censorship is taking place here, not just filtering of non-free software. FSDG will for example exclude any software from GNU approved repositories which merely *recommends* proprietary software OR *allows* installing it. This here is an authority doing thinking and ethical judgments for the people. It's without question we disapprove of proprietary software too of course, but it should never be the case that authorities should filter works for users based on their interpretation of the work, that is extremely, extremely dangerous and a repeatedly proven recipe for disaster. The service which software repository offers to the user must only ever be a simple, almost automated check -- for example of whether a repository has a free license -- but it must NEVER do thinking for the user. And this is what GNU does.
+- **GNU is leaning towards dystopian, [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md)-style thought control**. Now of course let us say GNU blessed the world with a lot good and is not (at least yet) anywhere near as [evil](evil.md) as any [corporation](corporation.md) for example, however alarming red flags appear for example in their *Free System Distribution Guidelines* (FSDG) by which they POLITICALLY [censor](censorship.md) software -- let us repeat that political censorship is taking place here, not just filtering of non-free software. FSDG will for example exclude any software from GNU approved repositories which merely *recommends* proprietary software OR *allows* installing it. This here is an authority doing thinking and ethical judgments for the people, approaching radical religious orthodoxy. It's without question we disapprove of proprietary software too, but it should never be the case that authorities should filter works for users based on their interpretation of the work, that is extremely, extremely dangerous and a recipe for disaster, repeatedly proven evil by every totalitarian regime with strict outlines of allowed art, speech, politics, opinion and eventually thought itself. The service provided by a software repository to the user must only ever be a [selfless](selflessness.md), simple, almost automated check -- for example of whether a repository contains a free license -- but it must NEVER do any thinking for the user. And this is what GNU does. Sadly GNU seems to be following the traditional road starting with [freedom](freedom.md), continuing with protection, a political party, benevolent rule to eventual corruption, abuse of power and finally malevolent rule.
 - **GNU greatly pushes [copyleft](copyleft.md)**, which we, as well as many others, oppose.
 - **GNU embraces complexity, plays the corporate game and rejects the true way of freedom through [minimalism](minimalism.md)**. GNU basically just makes a mantra of "license with 4 freedoms on every software" and will mostly ignore everything else, they'll just do whatever it takes to stick with the mantra, i.e. GNU tries to achieve popularity, it tries to [fight](fight_culture.md) corporations, gets into activism, it will abuse copyright -- basically GNU wants to become a "superpower of freedom", it doesn't mind hierarchy, state, control, it wants to replace corporations in holding the power over technology, naively believing that it will be using the power for good. That's why they embrace complexity and harmful ways of [capitalist software](capitalist_software.md) (e.g. "GUI in everything", "fuck Unix", ...), that is why they simply copy proprietary software 1 to 1, just with a free license, it helps them be popular (people can drop in replace their proprietary software with GNU software), it also helps them get a [monopoly](bloat_monopoly.md) they don't mind (remember, they even ask people to transfer their copyright to them) as they DO want to become a centralized superpower. Where corporations push JavaScript on websites, GNU will just try to make sure the JavaScript has a free license, instead of rejecting the idea of JavaScript on websites. Where a corporation makes a "smart home", GNU will try to do the same, just with free software, instead of rejecting such a dumb idea in the first place. Anyone who ever saw anything from [history](history.md) knows it's not possible for a good superpower to exist -- no matter how pure it starts, with power WILL come corruption no matter what, any superpower will ALWAYS become evil. The TRUE way of freedom is simply abolishing all superpowers, embracing minimalism and giving power to the people instead of trying to fix maximalism and believe a monopoly will somehow be good. Just take a look at [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) as a recent example of how these things end. This philosophy is what helps GNU be big in short term but it's also what will kill it in the long term.
 - ...
 
 ## History
 
-The project officially started on September 27, 1983 by [Richard Stallman](rms.md)'s announcement titled *Free Unix!*. In it he expresses the intent to create a [free as in freedom](free_software.md) clone of the operating system [Unix](unix.md), and calls for people to join his effort (he also uses the term free software here). Unix was a good, successful de-facto standard operating system, but it was proprietary, owned by AT&T, and as such restricted by licensing terms. GNU was to be a similar system, compatible with the original Unix, but free as in freedom, i.e. freely available and allowing anyone to use it, improve it and share it.
+The project officially commenced on September 27, 1983 with [Richard Stallman](rms.md)'s announcement titled *Free Unix!*. In it he expresses his intent to create a [free as in freedom](free_software.md) [clone](clone.md) of the [Unix](unix.md) operating system, and calls for people to join the effort (he also uses the term *free software* here). Unix was a good, successful de-facto standard operating system, but it was proprietary, owned by AT&T, and as such restricted by licensing terms. GNU was to be a similar system, compatible with the original Unix, but free as in freedom, i.e. freely available and allowing anyone to use it, improve it and share it.
 
-In 1985 Richard Stallman wrote the GNU Manifesto, similar to the original project announcement, which further promoted the project and asked people for help in development. At this point the GNU team already had a lot of software for the new system: a text editor Emacs, a debugger, a number of utility programs and a nearly finished shell and [C](c.md) compiler ([gcc](gcc.md)).
+In 1985 Richard Stallman authored the GNU Manifesto, similar to the original project announcement, which further promoted the project and asked people for help with the development. At this point the GNU team already had a lot of software for the new system: a text editor Emacs, a debugger, a number of utility programs and a nearly finished shell and [C](c.md) compiler ([gcc](gcc.md)).
 
-At this point each program of the project still had its own custom license that legally made the software free as in freedom. The differences in details of these licenses however caused issues such as legal incompatibilities. This was addressed in 1989 by Richard Stallman's creation of a universal free software license: GNU General Public License ([GPL](gpl.md)) version 1. This license can be used for any free software project and makes these projects legally compatible, while also utilizing so called [copyleft](copyleft.md): a requirement for derived works to keep the same license, i.e. a legal mechanism for preventing people from making copies of a free project non-free. Since then GPL has become the primary license of the GNU project as well as of other unrelated projects.
+At the time each program of the project still had its own custom license that legally made the software free as in freedom. The differences in details of these licenses however caused issues such as legal incompatibilities. This was addressed in 1989 by Richard Stallman's creation of a universal free software license: GNU General Public License ([GPL](gpl.md)) version 1. This license can be used for any free software project and makes these projects legally compatible, while also utilizing so called [copyleft](copyleft.md): a requirement for derived works to keep the same license, i.e. a legal mechanism for preventing people from making copies of a free project non-free. Since then GPL has become the primary license of the GNU project as well as of other unrelated projects.
 
 ## GNU Projects
 

history.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ This is a brief summary of history of [technology](technology.md) and [computers
 
 { A curious pattern of history is that the civilization -- or maybe rather the dominating superpowers -- are moving to the west, kind of like: middle East -> Greece -> Rome -> Holy Roman Empire -> England/France/Spain -> America. ~drummyfish }
 
-The [Universe](universe.md) began in [singularity](singularity.md) and started to exist with [Big Bang](big_bang.md) almost 14 billion years ago. It went through several epochs during which it changed greatly: first there was the epoch of rapid inflation, up to about 10^-32 seconds, during which it expanded extremely rapidly. After this the fundamental forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational) started to become separate, the universe was cooling down, it became transparent and then, after 200 million years, first stars started to form. After another 200 million years first galaxies started to form, including our own Milky Way galaxy. Our [Earth](earth.md) formed some 4.5 billion years ago, along with the Moon. It seems [life](life.md) appeared about 3.8 billions years ago; about 600 million years ago multicellular life formed and 66 million years ago the dinosaurs went extinct, giving opportunity to mammals and eventually to us, humans.
+The [Universe](universe.md) began in [singularity](singularity.md) and started to exist with the [Big Bang](big_bang.md) almost 14 billion years ago. It went through several epochs during which it underwent fantastic changes: first there was the epoch of rapid inflation, up to about 10^-32 seconds, during which it expanded extremely rapidly. After this the fundamental forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational) started to become separate, the universe was cooling down, it became transparent and then, after 200 million years, first stars started to form. After another 200 million years first galaxies started to form, including our own Milky Way galaxy. Our [Earth](earth.md) formed some 4.5 billion years ago, along with the [Moon](moon.md) (created by an impact of Earth with a large body called Theia). It seems [life](life.md) appeared about 3.8 billions years ago; about 600 million years ago multicellular life formed and 66 million years ago the dinosaurs went extinct after the devastating impact of the Chicxulub asteroid (probably more than 10 km in diameter), giving opportunity to mammals and eventually to us, humans, who would go on to conquer the planet thereafter.
 
 The earliest known appearance of technology related to humans may likely be the use of **[stone](rock.md) tools** by hominids in Africa some two and a half million years ago (newest encyclopedia Britannica states even 3.3 million years ago) -- this is even before the appearance of modern humans, homo sapiens, that emerged roughly 600000 years ago. Learning to start and control **[fire](fire.md)** was another key invention of the earliest men; this probably happened hundreds of thousands to millions years ago, even before modern humans. Around 8000 BC the **[Agricultural Revolution](agricultural_revolution.md)** happened: this was quite a disaster -- as humans domesticated animals and plants, they had to abandon the comfortable life of hunters and gatherers and started to suffer the life of a farmer, full of extremely hard [work](work.md) in the fields (this can be seen e.g. from their bones). Around 4000 BC sailing ships were used on the Nile river. Permanent farmer settlements led to the establishment of first cities that would later become city states (as the name says -- something between a city and a state, i.e. greatly independent cities with their own laws etc.). Some of the first such cities were Ur and Uruk in Mesopotamia, since around 5000 BC. Primitive **writing** can be traced to about 7000 BC to China. **[Wheel](wheel.md)** was another crucial piece of technology humans invented, it is not known precisely when or where it appeared, but it might have been some time after 5000 BC -- in Ancient Egypt **The Great Pyramid** was built around 2570 BC still without the knowledge of wheel. Around 4000 BC **history starts with first written records**. Humans learned to smelt and use [metals](metal.md) approximately 3300 BC (**Bronze Age**) and 1200 BC (**Iron Age**). **[Abacus](abacus.md)**, one of the simplest [digital](digital.md) devices aiding with computation, was invented roughly around 2500 BC. However people used primitive computation helping tools, such as bone ribs, probably almost from the time they started trading. Babylonians in around 2000 BC were already able to solve some forms of **[quadratic equations](quadratic_equation.md)**.
 
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ In 1712 Thomas Newcomen invented the first widely used **[steam engine](steam_en
 
 In 1792 Clause Chappe invented **[optical telegraph](optical_telegraph.md)**, also called *semaphore*. The system consisted of towers spaced up to by 32 km which forwarded textual messages by arranging big arms on top of the towers to signal specific letters. With this messages between Paris and Strasbourg, i.e. almost 500 km, could be transferred in under half an hour. The system was reserved for the government, however in 1834 it was **[hacked](hack.md)** by two bankers who bribed the tower operators to transmit information about stock market along with the main message (by setting specific positions of arms that otherwise didn't carry any meaning), so that they could get an advantage on the market.
 
-By 1800 Alessandro Volta invented an **electric battery**. In 1827 André-Marie Ampère publishes a further work shedding light on [electromagnetism](electromagneticm.md). After this **[electric telegraph](telegraph.md)** would be worked on and improved by several people and eventually made to work in practice. In 1821 Michael Faraday invented the **[electromotor](electromotor.md)**. Georg Ohm and especially [James Maxwell](maxwell.md) would subsequently push the knowledge of electricity even further.
+By 1800 Alessandro Volta invented an **electric battery**. 1816 is known as **The Year Without Summer** for an unusual, catastrophic event -- now theorized to have been a giant volcanic eruption -- that for many months made the Sun get obscured and decreased temperatures, resulting in large famines. In 1827 André-Marie Ampère publishes a further work shedding light on [electromagnetism](electromagneticm.md). After this **[electric telegraph](telegraph.md)** would be worked on and improved by several people and eventually made to work in practice. In 1821 Michael Faraday invented the **[electromotor](electromotor.md)**. Georg Ohm and especially [James Maxwell](maxwell.md) would subsequently push the knowledge of electricity even further.
 
 In 1822 [Charles Babbage](charles_babbage.md), a fantastic English mathematician, completed the first version of a manually powered **[digital](digital.md) [mechanical](mechanical.md) [computer](computer.md)** called the Difference Engine whose purpose was to help with the computation of [polynomial](polynomial.md) [derivatives](derivative.md) to subsequently create mathematical tables used e.g. in navigation. It was met with success and further development became funded by the government, however difficulties of the construction led to never finishing the whole project. In 1837 Babbage designed a new machine, this time a **[Turing complete](turing_complete.md) general purpose computer**, i.e. allowing for programming with branches and loops, a true marvel of technology. It also ended up not being built completely, but it showed a lot about what computers would be, e.g. it had an [assembly](assembly.md)-like programming language, memory etc. For this computer [Ada Lovelace](ada_lovelace.md) would famously write the Bernoulli number algorithm.
 
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ Also in 1888 probably the **first [video](video.md)** that survived until today
 
 On December 17 1903 the Wright brothers famously performed the **first controlled flight of a motor airplane** which they built, in North Carolina. In repeated attempts they flew as far as 61 meters over just a few seconds.
 
-In 1907 Lee De Forest invented a practically usable **[vacuum tube](vacuum_tube.md)**, an extremely important part usable in electric devices for example as an amplifier or a switch -- this would enable construction of radios, telephones and later even primitive computers. The invention would lead to the [electronic](electronics.md) revolution. Also in 1907 [Belinographe](belinographe.md) was invented, allowing transmission of photographs over telephone lines.
+In 1907 Lee De Forest invented a practically usable **[vacuum tube](vacuum_tube.md)**, an extremely important part usable in electric devices for example as an amplifier or a switch -- this would enable construction of radios, telephones and later even primitive computers. The invention would lead to the [electronic](electronics.md) revolution. Also in 1907 [Belinographe](belinographe.md) was invented, allowing transmission of photographs over telephone lines. In the region of Tunguska in Russia a remarkable event occurred in 1908 -- a meteor (about 55 meters in size) exploded above ground, resulting in gigantic explosion, the largest in recent history.
 
 From 1914 to 1918 there was **[World War I](ww1.md)**.
 
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ In 1924 about 50% of US households own a car.
 
 October 22 1925 witnessed the invention of **[transistor](transistor.md)** by Julius Lilienfeld (Austria-Hungary), a component that would replace vacuum tubes thanks to its better properties, and which would become probably the most essential part of computers. At the time the invention didn't see much attention, it would only become relevant decades later.
 
-In 1931 [Kurt Gödel](kurt_godel.md), a genius mathematician and logician from Austria-Hunagry (nowadays Czech Republic), published revolutionary papers with his [incompleteness theorems](incompleteness.md) which proved that, simply put, mathematics has fundamental limits and "can't prove everything". This led to **[Alan Turing](turing.md)**'s publications in 1936 that nowadays stand as the **foundations of [computer science](compsci.md)** -- he introduced a theoretical computer called the **[Turing machine](turing_machine.md)** and with it he proved that computers, no matter how powerful, will never be able to "compute everything". Turing also predicted the importance of computers in the future and has created several [algorithms](algorithm.md) for future computers (such as a [chess](chess.md) playing program).
+In 1931 [Kurt Gödel](kurt_godel.md), a genius mathematician and logician from Austria-Hunagry (nowadays [Czech](czech.md) Republic), published revolutionary papers on his [incompleteness theorems](incompleteness.md) which [proved](proof.md) that, simply put, mathematics has fundamental limits and "can't prove everything". This led to **[Alan Turing](turing.md)**'s publications in 1936 that nowadays stand as the **foundations of [computer science](compsci.md)** -- he introduced a theoretical computer called the **[Turing machine](turing_machine.md)** and with it he proved that computers, no matter how powerful, will never be able to "compute everything". Turing also predicted the importance of computers in the future and has created several [algorithms](algorithm.md) for future computers (such as a [chess](chess.md) playing program).
 
 In 1938 [Konrad Zuse](konrad_zuse.md), a German engineer, constructed **[Z1](z1.md), the first working electric mechanical [digital](digital.md) partially programmable computer** in his parents' house. It weighted about a ton and wasn't very reliable, but brought huge innovation nevertheless. It was programmed with punched film tapes, however programming was limited, it was NOT [Turing complete](turing_complete.md) and there were only 8 instructions. Z1 ran on a frequency of 1 to 4 Hz and most operations took several clock cycles. It had a 16 word memory and worked with [floating point](float.md) numbers. The original computer was destroyed during the war but it was rebuilt and nowadays can be seen in a Berlin museum. Zuse also soon created what's regarded as the **first [programming language](programming_language.md)**, [Plankalkul](plankalkul.md).
 
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ In 1945 the construction of **the first electronic digital fully programmable co
 
 Among hackers the period between 1961 to 1971 is known as the **Iron Age of computers**. The period spans time since the first minicomputer ([PDP1](pdp1.md)) to the first microprocessor ([Intel 4004](intel4004.md)). This would be followed by so called *elder days*.
 
-On July 20 1969 **first men landed on the Moon** (Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin) during the USA Apollo 11 mission. This tremendous achievement is very much attributed to the cold war in which USA and Soviet Union raced in space exploration. The landing was achieved with the help of a relatively simple on-board computer: Apollo Guidance Computer clocked at 2 MHz, had 4 KiB of [RAM](ram.md) and about 70 KB [ROM](rom.md). The assembly source code of its software is nowadays available online.
+On July 20 1969 **first men landed on the Moon** (Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin) during the USA Apollo 11 mission (see also [moonhoax](moonhoax.md)). This remarkable achievement is now attributed to the pressure of cold war in which USA and Soviet Union raced in space exploration, racing to outpace the competitor in historical achievements and developing more advanced technology for potential military use. The landing was achieved with the help of a relatively [simple](kiss.md) on-board [computer](computer.md): Apollo Guidance Computer clocked at 2 MHz, had 4 KiB of [RAM](ram.md) and about 70 KB [ROM](rom.md). The [assembly](assembly.md) source code of its software is nowadays available online.
 
 Shortly after, on 29 October 1969, another historical event would happen that could be seen as the start of perhaps the greatest technological revolution yet, the **start of the [Internet](internet.md)**. The first letter, "L", was sent over a long distance via **[ARPANET](arpanet.md)**, a new experimental computer [packet switching](packet_switching.md) network without a central node developed by US defense department (they intended to send "LOGIN" but the system crashed). The network would start to grow and gain new nodes, at first mostly universities. The network would become the Internet.
 

human_language.md

@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ This section lists some of the most notable human languages. In the brackets the
     - **Afrikaans** (~7 M native speakers, *Wat is jou naam?*): Very similar to Dutch and English.
     - **Danish** (*Hvad er dit navn?*): TODO
     - **Dutch** (Netherlands, [ena], *Wat is jouw naam?*): Similar to English but with added "grunting" pig sounds.
-    - **[English](english.md)** (~400 M native speakers, [eta], *What's your name?*): Most spoken language in the world (considering also non-native speakers), very simple grammar, no letters with accents, pronounces "r" as if "having a hot potato in mouth", awkward spelling of words, can't say the Spanish "j", is the universal world language of modern age, a must know for everyone.
+    - **[English](english.md)** (~400 M native speakers, [eta], *What's your name?*): Most spoken language in the world (considering also non-native speakers), very simple grammar, fixed word order, no letters with accents, pronounces "r" as if "having a hot potato in mouth", awkward spelling of words, can't say the Spanish "j", is the universal world language of modern age, a must know for everyone.
       - **Australian**: Very similar to UK.
       - **Irish**: Most prominent feature is probably pronouncing "th" as "t" or "d", pronounce "r"s.
       - **New Zealand**: Pronounce certain letters differently, e.g. "pen" sounds like "pin".
@@ -56,45 +56,45 @@ This section lists some of the most notable human languages. In the brackets the
         - south: TODO
       - ...
     - **German** (~100 M native speakers, [eni], *Wie heißt du?*): Hard and rough staccato rhythm sound, unpleasant, very long words, identifiable by characteristic rolling "r" and articles like "das", "der" etc.
+    - **Swedish** (~10 M native speakers, [ean], *Vad heter du?*): Mutually intelligible with Norwegian and Danish.
     - ...
   - **Romance languages** (~1 B native speakers): Evolved from Latin, not the hardest to learn.
     - **French** ([esa], *Comment tu t'appelles?*): Very unique and distinctive [gay](gay.md) sound of French shows to what degree a serious language like Latin can degenerate, especially notable is the soft "r" and phrases like "ooo la la!", duckface when speaking, one the most easily recognizable languages.
     - **Italian** (~60 M native speakers, [eai], *Come ti chiami?*): Pleasant and melodic, very similar to Latin, sounds like singing, lots of vowels, stresses many times on first syllable. Body language such as waving hands in the air is a big part of speaking Italian correctly, recognizable by iconic phrases such as "spaghetti al dente, mamma mia!".
-    - **Portuguese** (~250 M native speakers, [aeo], *Como te chamas?*): Basically Spanish with funny pronunciation.
+    - **Portuguese** (~250 M native speakers, [aeo], *Como te chamas?*): Basically Spanish with funny pronunciation, speakers of the two languages can understand each other to a high degree.
     - **Romanian** ([eia], *Cum vă numiți?*): Sounds similar to Italian.
     - **Spanish** (~500 M native speakers, [eao], *¿Cómo te llamas?*): Extremely fast, quite pleasant and similar to Italian, has normal and hard "r" (written *rr*), can't pronounce "h" (it's always silent), recognizable by patterns like "El XXXo", "Los XXXos" etc. Described by [Uncyclopedia](uncyclopedia.md) as "essentially Latin for retards", nonetheless spoken all over the world (it's the second most spoken native language) and therefore very useful to learn.
     - ...
-  - **Slavic languages** (~300 M native speakers): Hard to learn, many grammatic cases, spoken in central/east Europe and north Asia.
+  - **Slavic languages** (~300 M native speakers): Hard to learn, many grammatical cases and inflections, spoken in central/east Europe and north Asia.
     - **Bulgarian** (*как се казваш, "Kak se kazvash?"*): TODO
     - **Croatian** ([aio], *Kako se zoveš?*): Kinda similar to Czech/Slovak/Polish, seems to have a lot of "ch" (as in "chicken") sounds.
-    - **[Czech](czechia.md)** ([oea], *Jak se jmenuješ?*): Very similar to Slovak but has a harder sound, contains the infamous "r with an arrow above it" which some consider the hardest sound to pronounce in any language.
+    - **[Czech](czechia.md)** ([oea], *Jak se jmenuješ?*): Very similar to Slovak but has a harder sound, contains the infamous "ř" which some consider the most unique and possibly most difficult sound to pronounce in any language -- by this it can be recognized.
     - **Polish** ([iae], *Jak się nazywasz?*): Similar to Czech/Slovak, has many "sz", "sh", "ch" sounds, stress usually on penultimate syllable.
-    - **Russian** (~150 M native speakers, [oea], *Как тебя зовут?, "Kak tebia zovut?"*): Written in cyrillic, characteristic sounds like "blj", speaking with duckface.
-    - **Slovak** ([aoe], *Ako sa voláš?*): Super similar to Czech (mutually intelligible), sounds much softer and more pleasant, especially e.g. the letter "l".
-    - **Ukrainian** ([oan], *Як тебе звати?, "Jak tebe zvati?"*): Different than Russian but sounds the same.
+    - **Russian** (~150 M native speakers, [oea], *Как тебя зовут?, "Kak tebia zovut?"*): Written in Cyrillic, characteristic sounds like "blj", speaking with duckface and long end and middle parts of words.
+    - **Slovak** ([aoe], *Ako sa voláš?*): Super similar to Czech (mutually intelligible), sounds much softer and more pleasant, especially e.g. the letter "l", also compared to Czech doesn't have [bullshit](bullshit.md) like "ř" and vocative case.
+    - **Ukrainian** ([oan], *Як тебе звати?, "Jak tebe zvati?"*): Different from Russian but sounds the same.
     - ...
   - ...
 - **Other languages**:
   - **Arabic** (~400 M native speakers, *ما اسمك؟, "Ma ismuka?"*): Sounds fast, weird script written right to left, difficult to learn.
   - **[Chinese](chinese.md)** (~1 B native speakers, *你贵姓大名?, "Ni quixing daming?"*): Considered the hardest language ever, has many variants and dialects that are even mutually unintelligible (and as such is actually sometimes rather considered a language family), most notably Cantonese and Mandarin, has most native speakers of all languages, has many soft sounds like "shii", "shoo", "chii", plus those "ching chong" sounds along with weird intonation (the language is tonal, meaning pitch changes meaning of words), writing system is a disaster (one character per word).
-  - **[Esperanto](esperanto.md)** (~1 K native speakers, [aie], *Kio estas via nomo?*): Most famous constructed language, even has a few native speakers, sounds similar to Italian.
+  - **[Esperanto](esperanto.md)** ([aie], *Kio estas via nomo?*): Most famous [constructed language](conlang.md), even has a few native speakers, sounds similar to Italian, in general resembled Romance languages, is very easy to learn thanks to completely regular grammar and vocabulary borrowed from many existing languages.
   - **Finnish** ([ena], *Mikä sinun nimesi on?*): TODO
   - **Greek** ([aoi], *Πώς σε λένε?, "Pos se lene?"*): Famously using the weird Greek alphabet, its old version is very historically significant.
   - **Hebrew** (*מַה שִּׁמְךָ?, "Ma shimkha?"*): TODO
-  - **Hindi** (~350 M native speakers, *तुम्हारा नाम क्या हे, "Tumhaara naam kya he?"*): Sounds quite fast, has that very specific "clicky" pronunciation of certain sounds like "t", "r" and "d", weird script, women talk in high pitch squeeking.
+  - **Hindi** (~350 M native speakers, *तुम्हारा नाम क्या हे, "Tumhaara naam kya he?"*): Sounds quite fast, has that very specific "clicky" pronunciation of certain sounds like "t", "r" and "d", weird script, women talk in high pitch squeaking.
   - **Hungarian**:  Super gibberish, many "sh" sounds.
-  - **Interslavic**: Constructed language to be understandable by speakers of any Slavic language.
-  - **Japanese** (~100 M native speakers): Very characteristic sound, recognizable by keywords like "desu" and "ka", can't pronounce "l", everything ends with "u", women talk like squeeky toys, brutally difficult writing system (one character per word, but unlike Chinese at least includes scripts for writing words by sillables).
+  - **Interslavic** (*Kako je tvoje ime?*): [Constructed language](conlang.md) to be understandable by speakers of any Slavic language. { As a Czech native speaker I can understand it very well without ever having studied it, especially in written form, it sounds like Polish or Croatian that I can actually understand. ~drummyfish }
+  - **Japanese** (~100 M native speakers, [rnu], *お名前はなんですか?, "Onamae wa nan desu ka"*): Very characteristic sound, recognizable by keywords like "desu" and "ka", can't pronounce "l", everything ends with "u", women talk like squeaky toys, brutally difficult writing system (one character per word, but unlike Chinese at least includes scripts for writing words by sillables), has many different "politeness" levels of speech, famously "doesn't have swearwords" (which apparently isn't completely true, they just "insult each other differently").
   - **Klingon** (*nuq 'oH ponglIj'e'?*): Fictional constructed language from Star Trek, in real life spoken mainly by [boomer](boomer.md) [nerds](nerd.md). Learning the language will make you [never get laid](wizard.md).
   - **Korean** (~80 M native speakers, *이름이 뭐에요?, "Ileum i mwo eyo?"*): Sounds like Japanese but isn't Japanese (can be recognized by lack of "Japanese keywords"), simple writing system, starts to incorporate many English words.
   - **[Latin](latin.md)** ([eit], *Quid est nomen tibi?*): Officially not spoken anymore but many enthusiasts learn it, [historically](history.md) significant, similar to Italian, everything is written WITH CAPSLOCK, doesn't have the letter "U" (uses "V" instead), characteristic word endings such as "us", "um".
   - **[Newspeak](newspeak.md)** (*Question [moderated](censored.md) for [privacy](privacy.md) concerns.*): Language from a famous dystopian sci-fi book *[1984](1984.md)*, a version of English formed to serve brainwashing and thought control. At the time of writing the book the language was fictional, [nowadays](21st_century.md) it's already being implemented.
-  - **Sanskrit** (*तव नाम किम्, "Tavva nama kim?"*): TODO
-  - **Swedish** ([ean], *Vad heter du?*): TODO
+  - **Sanskrit** (*तव नाम किम्, "Tavva nama kim?"*): Old language, nowadays spoken only by few, sacred most notably to Hinduism, important to Asia where it's something akin to what Latin and old Greek is to Europe.
   - **[Toki Pona](toki_pona.md)** (*nimi sina li seme?*): New constructed language claiming to be highly [minimalist](minimalism.md), however also looks kind of [SJW](sjw.md).
   - **Turkish** ([aei], *İsmin ne?*): TODO
   - **Vietnamese** (~100 M native speakers, *Bạn tên gì?*): Typical Asian "meowing" sound, tonal (pitches distinguish meanings of words).
-  - **Yiddish** (*װי הײסטו, "Vi heystu?"*): TODO
+  - **Yiddish** (*װי הײסטו, "Vi heystu?"*): Language spoken by [Jews](jew.md), developed in Jewish diaspora, an interesting "Frankenstein monster" mix of German, Hebrew and other languages.
   - ...
   
 TODO: average word length, longest word, number of letters in alphabet, ...
@@ -116,6 +116,7 @@ Here are some tips for learning foreign languages:
   - **Watch movies with subtitles in the language you're learning.** Do NOT put on subtitles in your native language, that will just make you read them and not focus on the language you're learning. It may be cool to watch movies you already know and like in the foreign language dub, you will just know what's going on and you'll likely at least remember the memorable lines.
   - **Watch [memes](meme.md), videos etc.**
   - **Move to a country that speaks the language.** Obviously, works probably 100% of the times, but takes some dedication.
+  - **Passive "consumption" doesn't really work.** Like [Luke Smith](luke_smith.md) points out oh his website, you will probably learn next to nothing by just having audio playing in your room without actually paying any attention to it (just like you won't learn to program just by sharing a room with a programmer) -- it's good to have the language around, but to learn it one must concentrate and interact with it at least sometimes.
   - ...
 - **"Comprehensible input"** is a method promoted by many teachers nowadays, and it seems to be very effective. It basically says: "consume" as much "content" in the language as you can, i.e. watch videos, listen to music, watch TV etc., but you must understand it at least a bit -- this doesn't mean you must understand every word and every sentence, on the contrary if you do, you'll probably learn nothing, but you also mustn't be absolutely clueless about what's going on (so just don't go reading medieval poetry right away). The point is you seeing people talk about things and naturally deducing what words mean e.g. from their body language, AND getting the "feel" for the structures used in the language -- by listening to the language you build the intuiting for knowing when something "sounds wrong", even without knowing the exact rules, and this is how you learn the grammar without memorizing it.
 - **Create a steady habit, it's a long run, not a sprint.** It is ideal if you make it a habit to actively study the language EVERY SINGLE DAY, even if it just means watching one 10 minute video every day. You think it's a burden but you'll get into it quickly after a week or two and then it will be as natural as brushing your teeth. It is better to study 10 minutes every day than 70 minutes once a week -- spread the time evenly, this way you'll firstly put in more focus (fully focusing for 70 minutes is impossible, but completely doable for 10 minutes) and secondly you won't allow yourself to ever fall out of the language. Remember: you CANNOT learn a language in a week, not in a month, you need at least several years. If you dedicate 10, 15 minutes to the language every day for three years, it is IMPOSSIBLE you don't learn it at least at some intermediate level.
@@ -131,3 +132,7 @@ Here are some tips for learning foreign languages:
 - Especially if you're learning your first foreign language: be ready, make no assumptions about the new language based on your native language, different language may break all the rules of your language and importantly: different language is not just different words and grammar, it is also a **different [CULTURE](culture.md)**. Forget EVERYTHING you think you know and that you assume should hold, many words and sentences will be UNTRANSLATABLE. There will be many rules that make ZERO logical sense, for example a word may have different spelling in different contexts just because, or there will be many words for something that in your language only has one name, just don't ask why, it simply is so. The new language may for example have various politeness levels -- different ways of says "you" for instance, depending on whom you are addressing -- which will have no counterpart in English; there may be completely different tenses and cases, grammatical concepts you never heard of, words may have unclear translations or unexpected connotations, it may be uncommon to make [jokes](jokes.md) you're used to make (for example in [Czech](czech.md) it's not common to make [puns](pun.md) as much as in English), certain phrases will be used much more or much less frequently (e.g. in English it's pretty common to hear family members say "I love you" to one another, but this isn't common in many other languages), in some languages it's very common to greet strangers with many different phrases etc. Don't try to understand these differences logically, these are historical and cultural features which are sometimes untraceable leftovers from something that's already gone, you just have to learn it all by listening and using the language, you can't memorize it.
 - ...
 
+## See Also
+
+- [programming language](programming_language.md)
+- [lrs dictionary](lrs_dictionary.md)

internet.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Internet
 
-Internet (sometimes just the *net*, also *serious business*) is the grand, [decentralized](decentralization.md) global network of interconnected [computer](computer.md) [networks](network.md) that allows advanced, cheap, practically instantaneous intercommunication of people and computers and sharing of large amounts of [data](data.md) and [information](information.md). Over just a few decades since its birth in 1970s it changed the society tremendously, shifted it to the information age and stands as possibly the greatest technological invention of our society. It is a platform for many services and applications such as the [web](www.md), [e-mail](email.md), [internet of things](iot.md), [torrents](torrent.md), phone calls, video streaming, multiplayer [games](game.md) etc. Of course, once Internet became accessible to normal people and became the largest public forum on the planet, it has also become the biggest dump of retards in history and, as always, [capitalism](capitalism.md) turned the dream of Internet into a nightmare.
+Internet (sometimes just the *net*, also *serious business*) is the grand, [decentralized](decentralization.md) global network of interconnected [computer](computer.md) [networks](network.md) that allows advanced, cheap, practically instantaneous intercommunication of people and computers and sharing of large amounts of [data](data.md) and [information](information.md). Over just a few decades since its inception in 1970s it grew over biblical proportions, changed the society tremendously, shifted it to the information age and thereafter stands as possibly the greatest technological invention of our society. It is a platform for many services and applications such as the [web](www.md), [e-mail](email.md), [internet of stinks](iot.md), [torrents](torrent.md), phone calls, video streaming, multiplayer [games](game.md) etc. Of course, once Internet became accessible to [the common folk](npc.md) and turned to largest public forum on [the planet](earth.md), it has also become the largest dump of retards in [history](history.md) and, as always, [capitalism](capitalism.md) turned the dream of Internet into a nightmare.
 
 Before continuing it's important to make a clear **distinction between the Internet as such and the Internet Revolution**. The Internet in itself is a marvel of ingenuity and a good tool with great potential to help all the people, but the so called "Internet Revolution" was a **disaster** due to having a very bad, [capitalist](capitalism.md) society in place, just like the Agricultural and Industrial revolutions presented a disaster for the people despite farming, engineering, mass production and automation being potentially good concepts in themselves. A knife is a tool, it can be used for good, but it's a bad tool in hands of a psychopath, and the same goes about any technology. Therefore we have to distinguish between the Internet alone (good) and the effects that Internet created in our dystopian society (bad).
 
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ Internet overtook the world thanks to having enabled great number of services to
 - **leaving signs ([rocks](rock.md), sticks, leaves, messages in sand, bulletin boards, ...)**: Some forest people communicate by leaving signs for others e.g. by leaving tears on leaves or making shapes from sticks or rocks -- these can carry messages like "beware, dangerous animal around", "today I hunted down a monkey here" or "I have extra food, come take some". When improved, we could communicate whole text messages, numbers and any binary data this way -- imagine e.g. a small ["bulletin board"](bbs.md) on some frequently visited crossroads between villages where people leave latest news, offers, demands, requests for information from others, silly jokes etc. In some cities there exist book exchange booths (often made from old phone booths) where people just leave their old books for others to take -- this could be further improved by adding some sort of message board for communication. Similarly networks such as *BookCrossing* work by people marking books with a tag and leaving them for others to find in some public place -- the books are traced on the Internet by their tags and may travel around the world.
 - **[intranet](intranet.md), [LAN](lan.md), [WAN](wan.md), ...**: Networks using basically the same technology as the Internet ([TCP](tcp.md)/[IP](ip.md), [ethernet](ethernet.md), [wifi](wifi.md), routers, ...), just on smaller scales -- the technology can actually be simpler: simpler routers can be used, no high performance backbone routers are needed, [Ronja](ronja.md) may be used instead of wifi, [DNS](dns.md) may be omitted and so on. There are many such networks, [military](military.md) has its own isolated networks, North Korea has its famous nation-wide isolated intranet ([Kwangmyong](kwangmyong.md)), Cuba has the famous [SNet](snet.md) -- "street net" that's used for pirating and games -- and so on. In Spain there is the famous [Guifi](guifi.md) network (with as of now nearly 40 thousand nodes) working in decentralized manner just on top of many interconnected wifi devices. The advantage is relative simplicity of implementation -- the technology is all there and quite cheap, you can set up your own network in the neighborhood and have complete control over it, government isn't gonna bully you for sharing movies, it won't spy on your communication (at least not so easily) etc.
 - **[radio](radio.md), [telegraph](telegraph.md)**: Plain FM/AM radio communication is a serious competition to Internet in terms of delay, bandwidth and distance of reach, while being very simple in comparison -- a skilled individual can construct or repair a radio with just some basic electronic components, which can't be said about digital computer networks that require extremely complex computer chips. Radio can relatively easily transfer analog information such as voice, but it can also send digital information. With [Morse code](morse_code.md) even the most primitive radio communication system can turn into something extremely powerful.
-- **[broadcast](broadcast.md) and alternative network topologies** (see also [world broadcast](world_broadcast.md)): broadcasts (one way communication towards many) can be implemented in many ways: with radio, audio, optically and so on. Broadcast only networks, such as [teletext](teletext.md), [TV](tv.md) or radio station broadcast, can be much simpler than a two way communication -- there don't have to be such complex protocols, there are no handshakes, devices can work on low power (as they're only receivers) and the broadcaster can't be overloaded by client requests. These can cover a great range of services such as news, weather forecast, time synchronization, geolocalization, work organization ("now we need you to produce this and this"), some forms of entertainment or providing generally useful data such as maps and books. If we do go for two way communication anyway, we should at least consider simpler network topologies -- with Internet we tend to think in mesh networks, i.e. "everyone connected to everyone", but that may be too complex to implement with other kinds of networks, it may be better to consider something like a ring network.
+- **[broadcast](broadcast.md) and alternative network topologies** (see also [world broadcast](world_broadcast.md)): broadcasts (one way communication towards many) can be implemented in many ways: with radio, audio, optically and so on. Broadcast only networks, such as [teletext](teletext.md), [TV](tv.md) or radio station broadcast, can be much simpler than a two way communication -- there don't have to be such complex protocols, there are no handshakes, devices can work on low power (as they're only receivers) and the broadcaster can't be overloaded by client requests. These can cover a great range of services such as news, weather forecast, time synchronization, geolocalization, work organization ("now we need you to produce this and this"), some forms of entertainment or providing generally useful data such as maps and [books](books.md). If we do go for two way communication anyway, we should at least consider simpler network topologies -- with Internet we tend to think in mesh networks, i.e. "everyone connected to everyone", but that may be too complex to implement with other kinds of networks, it may be better to consider something like a ring network.
 - **optical telegraph, smoke signals, lanterns, flag semaphores, kites, flares, mirrors and other optical communication**: Optical communication is another technique widely used throughout history -- the advantage here is speed as obviously [light](light.md) is the fastest medium you can ever use. Lighting bonfires on hill tops could send a message about incoming enemy at great distances, ancient Greeks could even send more complex messages this way (see Phryctoria), later on even a more complex information could be sent using optical telegraph -- a chain of towers that forwarded symbols one to another by positioning big arms on their rooftops to form some specific shape, with the next tower copying the symbol and so on. You can leave big symbols in your window to send a few bytes to anyone with a telescope in the line of sight of your house. Basically if you can make someone see something, you can send a message; you can increase the amount of data by utilizing [color](color.md), movement, blinking and so on. Also remember that [optical fiber](optical_fiber.md) doesn't need a computer to work, it could probably be operated even manually provided we have some kind of [laser](laser.md).
 - **[audio](audio.md) signals (bells, canon shots, drums, horns, megaphones, ...)**: Audio signal were again used a lot in history, a church bell could tell people many different things by how it was rang, canon shots could warn of incoming enemies and so on, voice can be used too. Drums are still widely used this way in Africa. The principle of string telephone can be considered to make some audio based networks.
 - **[pneumatic tube](pneumatic_tube.md)** and similar non-electric networks: A network of tubes using pressured air to transform small capsule containers from one place to another pretty fast, often used in factories -- this can carry written messages but also, unlike the Internet, physical objects! Other mechanism could be explored to construct similar networks, e.g. something based on hydraulics, string pulling, steam engines, gears, simple gravity (sending a marble down some tunnel could be a quite fast message) and so on.
@@ -107,9 +107,9 @@ Internet overtook the world thanks to having enabled great number of services to
 
 Would the Internet exist in [less retarded society](less_retarded_society.md)? Is it compatible with it? And if so, how different would it be?
 
-It's very clear the Internet as seen today was shaped by [capitalism](capitalism.md) and thus reflects its values such as [consumerism](consumerism.md), [censorship](censorship.md) ("[privacy](privacy.md)", "[security](security.md)"), wasteful [maximalism](bloat.md) (maximum bandwidth, maximum speed, ...), centralized control ([DNS](dns.md), content delivery networks, ...) etc. This is what would have to change in less retarded society whose values are mostly opposite: [minimalism](minimalism.md), [simplicity](kiss.md), non-commerce, absolute openness, slow life etc. In a better form the Internet is indeed completely compatible with ideal society, it is a tool that can be used for the good. Many of the above mentioned alternative and non-traditional ways of data exchange could be used to make Internet "less retarded".
+It's very clear the Internet as seen today was shaped by [capitalism](capitalism.md) and thus reflects its (anti)values such as [consumerism](consumerism.md), [censorship](censorship.md) ("[privacy](privacy.md)", "[security](security.md)"), wasteful [maximalism](bloat.md) (maximum bandwidth, maximum speed, ...), centralized control ([DNS](dns.md), content delivery networks, ...) etc. This is what would have to change in less retarded society whose values are mostly opposite: [minimalism](minimalism.md), [simplicity](kiss.md), [selflessness](selflessness.md), non-commerce, absolute openness, slow life etc. In a better form the Internet is indeed completely compatible with ideal society, it is a tool that can be used for the good. Many of the above mentioned alternative and non-traditional ways of data exchange could be used to make Internet "less retarded".
 
-As always nothing can be predicted with certainty, but our Internet would likely be more diverse e.g. in protocols and media used for connecting computers which would depend on location: in some places radio and cables could be used, in other places data mules, light or sound could do better, and highly expensive and complicated methods like satellites would be reduced or eliminated. Computer wouldn't be *always online* like today, personal computers mostly wouldn't use wifis (though they could easily receive [radio broadcasts](world_broadcast.md)) -- common people would carry their personal computers along with the data they need, and would only connect to local Internet hubs if they need to send an email or download some additional data. Two way radio communication would potentially only be used to connect far away hubs if cables would be too expensive, and even so the transmission wouldn't likely be sustained 24/7, it could only happen for example once a day. As a result Internet would be slower, data from far away would be [cached](cache.md) in local hubs and Internet communities would be more local (in the spirit of [BBS](bbs.md) networks in the 80s and 90s), more self sufficient and more independent. Internet would blend together with all other networks and so for example [radio broadcasts](world_broadcast.md) would become part of it, enabling easier, further reaching and more efficient one way transmission of data about weather, news and so on. Instantaneous high-bandwidth communication, such as video calls, would be possible on shorter distances but challenging and sometimes impossible over large distances, but society wouldn't depend on them like it does today.
+As always nothing can be predicted with certainty, but our Internet would likely be more diverse e.g. in protocols and media used for connecting computers which would depend on location: in some places radio and cables could be used, in other places data mules, light or sound could do better, and highly expensive and complicated methods like satellites would be reduced or eliminated. Computers wouldn't sport the *always online* paradigm like they do today, personal ones mostly wouldn't even use wifis (though they could easily receive [radio broadcasts](world_broadcast.md)) -- common people would carry their personal computers along with the data they need, and would only connect to local Internet hubs if they need to send an email or download some additional data. Two way radio communication would potentially only be used to connect far away hubs if cables would be too expensive, and even so the transmission wouldn't likely be sustained 24/7, it could only happen for example once a day. As a result Internet would be slower, data from far away would be [cached](cache.md) in local hubs and Internet communities would be more local (in the spirit of [BBS](bbs.md) networks in the 80s and 90s), more self sufficient and more independent. Internet would blend together with all other networks and so for example [radio broadcasts](world_broadcast.md) would become part of it, enabling easier, further reaching and more efficient one way transmission of data about weather, news and so on. Instantaneous high-bandwidth communication, such as video calls, would be possible on shorter distances but challenging and sometimes impossible over large distances, but society wouldn't depend on them like it does today.
 
 TODO: moar
 

minimalism.md

@@ -8,15 +8,15 @@ Antoine de Saint-Exupery sums it up with a quote: *we achieve perfection not whe
 
 **[Forth](forth.md)** is perhaps the best example of software minimalism and demonstrates that clever, strictly minimalist design can be absolutely superior to the best efforts of maximalists. Languages such as Scheme [Lisp](lisp.md) show that minimalism can also be applied on high level of [abstraction](abstraction.md).
 
-The concept of minimalism is also immensely important in [art](art.md), religion and other aspects of culture and whole society, for example in architecture and design we see a lot of minimalism, and basically every major religion values frugality and letting go material desired, be it [Christianity](christianity.md), [Islan](islam.md) or [Buddhism](buddhism.md). Therefore there also exists the generalized concept of **life minimalism** which applies said wisdom and philosophy to all areas of [life](life.md) and which numerous technological minimalists quite naturally start to follow along the way -- life minimalism is about letting go of objects, thoughts and desires that aren't necessarily needed because such things enslave us and mostly just make us more miserable; from time to time you should meditate a little bit about what it is that you really want and need and only keep that. Indeed this is nothing new under the Sun, this wisdom has been present for as long as humans have existed, most religions and philosophers saw a great value in [asceticism](asceticism.md), frugality and even poverty, as owning little leads to [freedom](freedom.md). For instance owning a [car](car.md) is kind of a slavery, you have to clean it, protect it, repair it, [maintain](maintenance.md) it, pay for parking space, pay for gas, pay for insurance -- this is not a small commitment and you sacrifice a significant part of your life and [head space](head_space.md) to it (especially considering additional commitments of similar magnitude towards your house, garden, clothes, electronics, furniture, pets, bank accounts, social networks and so forth), a minimalist will rather choose to get a simple [suckless](suckless.md) bicycle, travel by public transport or simply walk. Life minimalism is also much healthier both for the individual and for whole society. A man who tries to live with very little starts to enjoy mundane things much more, a simple thing such as an extra nice meal once a week suddenly feels like it's Christmas, unlike to someone who overeats daily and can hardly take any extra pleasure in food at all. It is also proven (despite you disagreeing with it) that people living in scarcity are friendlier to each other, i.e. a community of people who live with very little will be more socialist, loving and caring, without crime and hostility, unlike a community of overstimulated fat depressed consumers who only feel competition and hostility towards each other.
+The concept of minimalism is also immensely important in [art](art.md), religion and other aspects of culture and whole society, for example in architecture and design we see a lot of minimalism, and basically every major religion values frugality and letting go material desired, be it [Christianity](christianity.md), [Islan](islam.md) or [Buddhism](buddhism.md). Therefore there also exists the generalized concept of **life minimalism** which applies said wisdom and philosophy to all areas of [life](life.md) and which numerous technological minimalists quite naturally start to follow along the way -- life minimalism is about letting go of objects, thoughts and desires that aren't necessarily needed because such things enslave us and mostly just make us more miserable; from time to time you should meditate a little bit about what it is that you really want and need and only keep that. Indeed this is nothing new under the Sun, this wisdom has been present for as long as humans have existed, most religions and philosophers saw a great value in [asceticism](asceticism.md), frugality and even poverty, as owning little leads to [freedom](freedom.md). For instance owning a [car](car.md) is kind of a slavery, you have to clean it, protect it, repair it, [maintain](maintenance.md) it, pay for parking space, pay for gas, pay for insurance -- this is not a small commitment and you sacrifice a significant part of your life and [head space](head_space.md) to it (especially considering additional commitments of similar magnitude towards your house, garden, clothes, electronics, furniture, pets, bank accounts, social networks and so forth), a minimalist will rather choose to get a simple [suckless](suckless.md) bicycle, travel by public transport or simply walk. Life minimalism is also much healthier both for the individual and for whole society. A man who learns to live with very little starts to find much more enjoyment in mundane things thereafter, a simple pleasure such as an extra meal once a week suddenly feels like it's Christmas, unlike to someone who overeats daily and can hardly take any extra pleasure in food at all. It is also proven (despite you disagreeing with it) that people living in scarcity are friendlier to each other, i.e. a community of people living with little are more [socialist](socialism.md), sharing, loving and caring, without crime and hostility, unlike communities of overstimulated fat depressed consumers addicted to endless increase of pleasure, demanding more and more from the day, eventually ending up only with [competition](competition.md) and hostility on their mind.
 
 Minimalism is a sign of high [IQ](iq.md) and better developed mind, it is something that requires an intellect strong enough to overcome the human instinct for hoarding to which the unintelligent is a slave -- an instinct that was important in times of scarce resources but one that's become harmful in times when certain resources are abundant and can be consumed without limits. It is like with overeating: the intelligent man is able to restrain from unhealthy overeating to which he is pushed by his instinct.
 
-**Minimalism is necessary for [freedom](freedom.md)** as a free technology can only be that over which no one has a [monopoly](bloat_monopoly.md), i.e. which many people and small parties can utilize, study and modify with affordable effort, without needing armies of technicians just for the maintenance of such technology. Minimalism goes against the creeping overcomplexity of technology which always brings huge costs and dangers, e.g. the cost of [maintenance](maintenance.md) and further development, obscurity, inefficiency ("[bloat](bloat.md)", wasting resources), consumerism, the increased risk of bugs, errors and failure.
+**Minimalism is necessary for [freedom](freedom.md)** as free technology can only be that over which no one holds a [monopoly](bloat_monopoly.md), i.e. which many people and small parties can fully control and make use of, study and modify with affordable effort, without needing armies of technicians just for carrying out [maintenance](maintenance.md). Minimalism stands opposed to creeping overcomplexity of technology that always brings about huge costs and dangers, e.g. the cost of [maintenance](maintenance.md) and further development, costs of required expertise, creeping [obscurity](obscurity.md), inefficiency ("[bloat](bloat.md)", wasting resources) brought by the need for high [abstraction](abstraction.md), increased risk of bugs, errors and failures, [money](money.md) and business leading to [consumerism](consumerism.md) and so on.
 
 { Apparently some people "disagree" with the above and say that "complexity is OK" in free software. I don't think it is possible to disagree on this, it is only possible to not see the issue because of lack of experience. Someone "disagreeing" here means one of two things: he only pretends to care about freedom while actually pursuing other interests (for example creating a "community" around some highly bloated project), OR he has fewer than one brain cell. ~drummyfish }
 
-**It is a beginner mistake to think that minimalism complicates things**: a man not experienced with technology only sees short-term benefits and so he believes that bloated technology is a better choice as it lets him immediately [produce](productivity_cult.md) things faster. Indeed this is a mind of a child that wants everything and now without doing any thinking of the future -- of course, writing software in a minimalist programming language will be more difficult and will take more time, but that's simply investing in building good foundations, ones that will last for a very long time, just like building a house of solid stone will be more difficult than quickly building it out of drywall -- a building made of stone will last many centuries, it pays off many times in the future. Of course there is also [capitalism](capitalism.md) playing a huge part as a system hostile to anything permanent, a dystopia that needs to constantly rebuild things anew so it needs things that never last too long. Peasants play along with the system and just [do what it wants them to](just_doing_my_job.md) as again that gives them immediate benefits in form of salary, however it still holds that this technology is bad, it's just that dystopias require and support bad technology. [We](lrs.md) however don't.
+**It is a beginner mistake to think that minimalism complicates technology**, by definition it's the exact opposite of complication: a man not experienced with technology only sees short-term benefits and so he believes that bloated technology is a better choice as it lets him immediately [produce](productivity_cult.md) things faster. Indeed this is a mind of a child that wants everything NOW without any thought of the future -- of course, writing software in a minimalist programming language may be more difficult and time consuming, but it's simply an investment in solid foundations, ones that will [last for a very long time](future_proof.md), just like building a house of solid stone will be more difficult than quickly building it out of drywall -- a building made of stone will last many centuries, it pays off many times in the future. Of course there is also [capitalism](capitalism.md) playing a huge part as a system hostile to anything permanent, a dystopia that needs to constantly rebuild things anew so it needs things that never last too long. Peasants play along with the system and just [do what it wants them to](just_doing_my_job.md) as again that gives them immediate benefits in form of salary, however it still holds that this technology is bad, it's just that dystopias require and support bad technology. [We](lrs.md) however don't.
 
 There is a so called *[airplane rule](airplane_rule.md)* that states a plane with two engines has twice as many engine problems than a plane with a single engine.
 

npc.md

@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ It is a common misconception that humans keep getting smarter and smarter by evo
 - [blue pill](blue_pill.md)
 - [normie](normie.md)
 - [muggle](muggle.md)
+- [peasant](peasant.md)
+- [soyboy](soyboy.md)
 - [humanoid](humanoid.md)
 - [retard](retard.md)
 - [tool slave](tool_slave.md)

reactionary_software.md

@@ -4,13 +4,13 @@
 
 Reactionary software (reactionary meaning *opposing the [modern](modern.md), favoring the old*) is a kind of [software](software.md)/[technology](tech.md) philosophy opposing [modern](modern.md) technology and advocating more [simplicity](kiss.md) as a basis for better technology (and possibly whole society); it is similar e.g. to [suckless](suckless.md) and our own [less retarded software](lrs.md), though it's not as "hardcore" [minimalist](minimalism.md) (e.g. it's okay with old versions of [Java](java.md) which we still consider kind of [bloated](bloated.md) and therefore [bad](bad.md)). Just as suckless and LRS, reactionary software notices the unbelievably degenerated state of "[modern](modern.md)" technology (reflecting the degenerate state of whole society) manifested in [bloat](bloat.md), overengineering, overcomplicating, user abuse, ugliness, buzzword hype, [DRM](drm.md), [bullshit](bullshit.md) features, planned obsolescence, fragility etc., and advocates for rejecting it, for taking a step back to when technology was still sane (before 2000s). The website of reactionary software is at http://www.reactionary.software (on top it reads *Make software great again!*). There is also a nice forum at http://www.mikraite.org/Reactionary-Software-f1999.html (tho requires JS to register? WTF. LOL they even use [Discord](discord.md), that's just lame.). The spirit is good, however the people in the group mostly seem not to be the experts of computer technology (still above average tech savvy but not like "top hackers"), which of course isn't anything bad, it's just that they sometimes propose shitty "solutions" -- at least from the forum posts it seems they are mostly frustrated users rather than frustrated skilled programmers. Again, there is nothing wrong about this, we need to listen to them, it's just that we should probably rather listen to the complaints than to some of the proposed solutions.
 
-**The biggest difference compared to suckless/LRS is that reactionary software focuses on the simplicity from user's point of view** (as stated on their forums). Of course this is not in conflict with our views, we want the same thing, however if we stay ONLY at the external simplicity, we fall into the trap of [pseudominimalim](pseudominimalism.md) -- we, the LRS, therefore additionally see the simplicity of internals as equally important of a goal.
+**The most prominent difference against [suckless](suckless.md)/[LRS](lrs.md) is that reactionary software focuses on simplicity from the user's point of view** (as stated on their forums). Of course this is not in conflict with our views, we want the same, however if we stop at external simplicity, we're falling victim to the trap of [pseudominimalim](pseudominimalism.md) -- we, the LRS, therefore additionally see the simplicity of internals as an equally important of a goal.
 
-The founder of reactionary software is fschmidt and he still seems to be the one who mostly defines it (just like [drummyfish](drummyfish.md) is at the moment basically solo controlling [LRS](lrs.md)), though there is a forum of people who follow him. The philosophy can potentially be extended beyond just software, to other fields of endeavor and potentially whole society -- the discussion of reactionary software revolves around wide context, e.g. things like philosophy, religion and [collapse](collapse.md) of society (fschmidt made a post where he applies Old Testament ideas to programming). This is pretty good, focus on the [big picture](big_picture.md) is something we greatly embrace too.
+The founder of reactionary software is fschmidt and he still seems to be the one who mostly defines it (just like [drummyfish](drummyfish.md) is at the moment basically solo controlling [LRS](lrs.md)), though there is a small forum of followers. The philosophy can potentially be extended beyond just software, to other fields of endeavor and potentially whole society -- the discussion of reactionary software revolves around wide context, e.g. things like philosophy, religion and [collapse](collapse.md) of society (fschmidt made a post where he applies Old Testament ideas to programming). This is pretty good, focus on the [big picture](big_picture.md) is something we greatly embrace too.
 
-fschmidt seems to be a lot into religion and also has some related side projects with wider scope, e.g. [Arkians](arkians.md) which deals with society and [eugenics](eugenics.md). It seems to be trying to establish a community of "chosen people" (those who pass certain tests)  who selective breed to renew good genes in society. { PLEASE DON'T JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS, I just quickly skimmed through it -- people will probably freak out and start calling that guy a [Nazi](nazi.md) -- please don't, read his site first. I can't really say more about it as I didn't research it well, but he doesn't seem to be proposing violent solutions. Peace. ~drummyfish }
+Fschmidt seems to be a lot into [religion](religion.md) and maintains a few related side projects with wider scope, e.g. [Arkians](arkians.md) which deals with society and [eugenics](eugenics.md). It seems to be trying to establish a community of "chosen people" (those who pass certain tests) who selective breed to renew "good genes" in society. { PLEASE DON'T JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS, I just quickly skimmed through it -- people will probably freak out and start calling the guy a [Nazi](nazi.md) -- please don't, read his site first. I can't really say more about it as I didn't research it well, but he doesn't seem to be proposing violent solutions. Peace. ~drummyfish }
 
-**What do [we](lrs.md) think about reactionary software?** To sum up: the vibes are good, it basically seems like "suckless-lite" -- we agree with what they identify as causes of decline of modern technology, we like that they discuss wide context and the big picture and our solutions are often aligned, in the same direction -- theirs are just not as radical, or maybe we just disagree on minor points. We may e.g. disagree on specific cases of software, for example they approve of old [Python](python.md), [Java](java.md) and lightweight [JavaScript](js.md) used on the [web](www.md) -- we see such software as unacceptable, it's too complex, unnecessary and from ground up designed badly. { As clarified on the forums, reactionary software focuses on the simplicity from user's perspective, not necessarily the simplicity of internals. ~drummyfish } Nevertheless we definitely see it as good this philosophy exists, it fills a certain niche, it's a place for people who aren't necessarily hardcore hackers but still see the value of minimalism, which of course shows they're one of the more intelligent out there. Reactionary software contributes to improving technology at the very least by spreading awareness and taking actual stance, they may help provide alternatives to tech refugees who suffer from modern tech but suckless or LRS is too difficult for them to jump right into. The fact that more and more smaller communities with ideas similar to LRS come to life indicates the ideas themselves are alive and start to flourish, in a decentralized way -- this is good.
+**What does [LRS](lrs.md) conclude about reactionary software?** To sum up: the vibes are [good](good.md), it basically seems like "suckless-lite" -- we agree with what they identify as causes of decline of modern technology, we like that they discuss wide context and the big picture and our solutions are often aligned, in the same direction -- theirs are just not as radical, or maybe we just disagree on minor points. We may e.g. disagree on specific cases of software, for example they approve of old [Python](python.md), [Java](java.md) and lightweight [JavaScript](js.md) used on the [web](www.md) -- we see such software as unacceptable, it's too complex, unnecessary and from ground up designed badly. { As clarified on the forums, reactionary software focuses on the simplicity from user's perspective, not necessarily the simplicity of internals. ~drummyfish } Nevertheless we definitely see it as good this philosophy exists, it fills a certain niche, it's a place for people who aren't necessarily hardcore hackers but still see the value of minimalism, which of course shows they're one of the more intelligent out there. Reactionary software contributes to improving technology at the very least by spreading awareness and taking actual stance, they may help provide alternatives to tech refugees who suffer from modern tech but suckless or LRS is too difficult for them to jump right into. The fact that more and more smaller communities with ideas similar to LRS come to life indicates the ideas themselves are alive and start to flourish, in a decentralized way -- this is good.
 
 Examples of reactionary software include (examples from the site itself):
 

soyence.md

@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ Compared to good old [fun](fun.md) pseudosciences such as [astrology](astrology.
 
 Soyence uses all the cheap tricks of politics (also not dissimilar to those of [greenwashing](greenwashing.md), [openwashing](openwashing.md) etc.) to win stupid people, it builds on the cult of bullying religion and creating a [war mentality](fight_culture.md), overuse of twisted "rationality" ([pseudoskepticism](pseudoskepticism.md)), creating science [bloat](bloat.md) and bullshit "scientific" fields to obscure lies, punishment of the correct use of rationality, building cults of personality ("science educators", the [gatekeepers](gatekeeping.md) of "science") and appealing to egoism and naivity of wannabe smartasses while at the same time not even holding up to principles of science such as genuine objectivity. A soyence kid will for example keep preaching about how everything should be proven by reproducible experiments while at the same time accepting [de facto](de_facto.md) irreproducible results, e.g. those obtained with billion dollar worth research performed at [CERN](cern.md) which can NOT be reproduced anywhere else than at CERN with thousands of top scientist putting in years of work. Such results are not reproducible in practice, they are accepted on the basis of pure faith in those presenting it, just as religious people accept the words of preachers. The kid will argue that in theory someone else can build another CERN and reproduce the results, but that won't happen in practice, it's just a purely theoretical unrealistic scenario so his version of what "science" is is really based on reproducibility that only works in a dreamed up world, this kind of reproducibility doesn't at all fulfill its original purpose of allowing others to check, confirm or refute the results of experiments. This starts to play a bigger role when for example vaccines start to get promoted by the government as "proven safe by science" (read "claimed safe by a corporation who makes money off of people being sick"), the soyence kid will gladly accept the vaccine and [fight](fight_culture.md) for their acceptance just thanks to this label, not based on any truly scientific facts but out of pure faith in self proclaimed science authorities -- trusting an authority (be it pope, priests, holy book or a scientific journal) is by definition [religion](religion.md) and here the soyentist is relying purely on faith, a concept he would like to think he hates with his soul.
 
+Soyence is trying to introduce to science absolutely anti-scientific concepts such as [political correctness](political_correctness.md), "politeness", [censorship](censorship.md), [democratic](democracy.md) voting on official truth (AKA "consensus") and veto powers of authorities. While the non-scientific majority of population (those who in "democratic" systems make decisions) might not immediately see a problem with this, scientists must get alarmed because the mentioned concepts effectively **remove falsifiability**, a very basic pillar of the scientific method. Once a hypothesis becomes unquestionable -- by whatever means (even political or [cultural](culture.md) pressure, [fear](fear_culture.md), [law](law.md), economic obstacles, ...) -- it cannot be falsified and as such cannot be examined by science at all. If someone argues that it's enough for a hypothesis to be falsifiable in theory, ignoring other possible [de facto](de_facto.md) obstacles to it, then it must be admitted the discipline we are subsequently talking about is also science ONLY IN THEORY, not necessarily in practice. This is however a very subtle thing to realize, something that escapes even to many "professional scientists" -- the problematic is similar to a situation that arouse in [free software](free_software.md) where many programs are already "free only on the paper", "free" by a [license](license.md) but non-free in practical terms, e.g. due to [bloat](bloat.md).
+
 The "[citation needed](citation_needed.md)" insanity that indicates lack of any brain and pure reliance on the word of authority is best exemplified by [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md). Wikipedia doesn't accept original research, observation or EVEN LOGIC ITSELF as a basis for presenting something -- everything, even trivial claims, must have a "citation" from a source WITH mainstream political views (unpopular and controversial sources are banned); Wikipedia is therefore one big propaganda ground for those with power over the mainstream media.
 
 Soyence relies on low [IQ](iq.md), shallow education and popular "science education" (e.g. neil de grass), while making its followers believe they are smart. It produces propaganda material such as "documentaries" with Morgan Freeman (i.e. people who are good at persuasion rather than being competent), series like The Big Bang Theory and [YouTube](youtube.md) videos with titles such as "Debunking Flat Earth with FACTS AND LOGIC", so there's a huge mass of [NPCs](npc.md) thinking they are Einsteins who blindly support this cult. Soyence attacks science from within by attacking its core principles, i.e. it tries to ridicule and punish thinking outside the box and asking specific questions -- in this it is not dissimilar to a mass [religion](religion.md).

wiki_stats.md

@@ -2,10 +2,10 @@
 
 This is an autogenerated article holding stats about this wiki.
 
-- number of articles: 627
-- number of commits: 986
-- total size of all texts in bytes: 5159054
-- total number of lines of article texts: 37598
+- number of articles: 629
+- number of commits: 987
+- total size of all texts in bytes: 5192169
+- total number of lines of article texts: 37792
 - number of script lines: 324
 - occurrences of the word "person": 10
 - occurrences of the word "nigger": 114
@@ -30,98 +30,104 @@ longest articles:
 - [bloat](bloat.md): 40K
 - [iq](iq.md): 40K
 - [copyright](copyright.md): 40K
+- [human_language](human_language.md): 40K
 - [cheating](cheating.md): 36K
-- [raycasting](raycasting.md): 36K
 
 top 50 5+ letter words:
 
-- which (2841)
-- there (2231)
-- people (2177)
-- example (1806)
-- other (1614)
-- about (1438)
-- number (1337)
+- which (2850)
+- there (2249)
+- people (2193)
+- example (1812)
+- other (1620)
+- about (1449)
+- number (1342)
 - software (1293)
-- because (1185)
+- because (1195)
 - their (1108)
-- would (1079)
-- something (1064)
+- would (1084)
+- something (1081)
 - program (1061)
-- being (1047)
-- things (964)
-- called (945)
-- language (941)
-- without (870)
-- function (865)
-- simple (864)
+- being (1053)
+- things (966)
+- language (963)
+- called (947)
+- without (872)
+- simple (869)
+- function (866)
 - computer (850)
 - numbers (835)
-- different (801)
-- these (787)
-- however (786)
+- different (806)
+- these (792)
+- however (792)
 - programming (776)
-- world (762)
-- system (747)
-- should (727)
-- still (719)
-- doesn (716)
-- games (694)
+- world (767)
+- system (750)
+- should (732)
+- doesn (724)
+- still (721)
+- games (696)
 - while (685)
+- drummyfish (685)
 - society (677)
-- drummyfish (675)
-- point (674)
-- possible (659)
-- simply (657)
-- probably (650)
-- using (645)
-- always (637)
-- course (613)
-- similar (606)
-- actually (594)
-- someone (592)
-- https (585)
-- though (584)
-- really (576)
-- basically (571)
-- first (564)
+- point (675)
+- possible (664)
+- simply (658)
+- probably (654)
+- using (648)
+- always (647)
+- similar (620)
+- course (614)
+- someone (599)
+- actually (597)
+- https (591)
+- though (588)
+- really (584)
+- basically (578)
+- first (570)
 
 latest changes:
 
 ```
-Date:   Wed Mar 12 21:04:56 2025 +0100
-  atheism.md
-  duke3d.md
-  exercises.md
-  faq.md
-  interesting.md
+Date:   Sat Mar 15 23:42:07 2025 +0100
+  3d_rendering.md
+  abstraction.md
+  anorexia.md
+  asexuality.md
+  bloat.md
+  capitalism.md
+  disease.md
+  drummyfish.md
+  encyclopedia.md
+  english.md
+  entropy.md
+  free_software.md
+  gay.md
+  gopher.md
+  history.md
+  how_to.md
+  human_language.md
+  jargon_file.md
+  jesus.md
+  jokes.md
+  kiss.md
+  left_right.md
   less_retarded_society.md
-  lrs_wiki.md
+  lotr.md
+  lrs.md
   main.md
+  often_confused.md
+  oop.md
+  political_correctness.md
   random_page.md
   rationalization.md
-  shortcut_thinking.md
+  rationalwiki.md
+  usa.md
   wiki_pages.md
   wiki_stats.md
-Date:   Wed Mar 12 16:58:53 2025 +0100
-  acronym.md
-  exercises.md
-  interesting.md
-  lmao.md
-  lrs_dictionary.md
-  main.md
-  number.md
-  paradigm.md
-  random_page.md
-  rgb332.md
-  rgb565.md
-  rms.md
-  wiki_pages.md
-  wiki_stats.md
-Date:   Tue Mar 11 12:33:07 2025 +0100
-  c_tutorial.md
-  chess.md
-  consumerism.md
+  woman.md
+  youtube.md
+Date:   Wed Mar 12 21:04:56 2025 +0100
 ```
 
 most wanted pages:
@@ -150,33 +156,33 @@ most wanted pages:
 most popular and lonely pages:
 
 - [lrs](lrs.md) (338) 
-- [capitalism](capitalism.md) (307) 
+- [capitalism](capitalism.md) (310) 
 - [c](c.md) (239) 
 - [bloat](bloat.md) (234) 
 - [free_software](free_software.md) (199) 
-- [game](game.md) (152) 
+- [game](game.md) (153) 
 - [suckless](suckless.md) (149) 
 - [proprietary](proprietary.md) (134) 
 - [modern](modern.md) (124) 
-- [minimalism](minimalism.md) (120) 
+- [minimalism](minimalism.md) (121) 
 - [censorship](censorship.md) (118) 
 - [computer](computer.md) (117) 
-- [kiss](kiss.md) (112) 
+- [kiss](kiss.md) (113) 
 - [programming](programming.md) (111) 
+- [fun](fun.md) (107) 
 - [math](math.md) (106) 
-- [fun](fun.md) (106) 
 - [gnu](gnu.md) (105) 
 - [linux](linux.md) (104) 
 - [shit](shit.md) (103) 
 - [woman](woman.md) (100) 
+- [fight_culture](fight_culture.md) (97) 
 - [corporation](corporation.md) (97) 
-- [fight_culture](fight_culture.md) (96) 
 - [bullshit](bullshit.md) (96) 
 - [art](art.md) (94) 
 - [hacking](hacking.md) (93) 
 - [less_retarded_society](less_retarded_society.md) (92) 
 - [free_culture](free_culture.md) (91) 
-- [history](history.md) (87) 
+- [history](history.md) (89) 
 - [chess](chess.md) (87) 
 - [public_domain](public_domain.md) (86) 
 - ...