@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ There are many methods and [algorithms](algorithm.md) for doing so differing in
As most existing 3D "frameworks" are harmful, a [LRS](lrs.md) programmer is likely to write his own 3D rendering system that suits his program best, therefore we should list some common methods of achieving 3D. Besides that, it's just pretty interesting to see what there is in the store.
**Rendering spectrum**: The book *Real-Time Rendering* mentions that methods for 3D rendering can be seen as lying on a spectrum, one extreme of which is *appearance reproduction* and the other *physics simulation*. Methods closer to trying to imitate the appearance try to simply create the same look of an object on the monitor that the actual 3D object would have -- these may e.g. use image data such as photographs; these methods may rely on lightfields, [textures](texture.md) etc. The physics simulation methods try to replicate the behavior of light in real life and so come to the same results: these methods rely on creating 3D geometry (e.g. that made of triangles or voxels), computing light reflections and [global illumination](global_illumination.md). Most methods lie somewhere in between these two extremes: for example [billboards](billboard.md) and [particle systems](particle_system.md) may use a texture to represent an object while at the same time using 3D quads (very simple 3D models) to correctly deform the textures by perspective and solve their visibility.
**Rendering spectrum**: The book *Real-Time Rendering* mentions that methods for 3D rendering can be seen as lying on a spectrum, one extreme of which is *appearance reproduction* and the other *physics simulation*. Methods closer to trying to imitate the appearance try to simply focus on imitating the look of an object on the monitor that the actual 3D object would have in real life, without being concerned with *how* that look arises in real life -- these may e.g. use image data such as photographs; these methods may rely on lightfields, photo [textures](texture.md) etc. The physics simulation methods try to replicate the behavior of light in real life -- their main goal is to solve the **[rendering equation](rendering_equation.md)**, usually only [approximately](approximation.md) -- and so, through internally imitating the same processes, come to similar visual results that arise in real world: these methods rely on creating 3D geometry (e.g. that made of triangles or voxels), computing light reflections and [global illumination](global_illumination.md). Most methods lie somewhere in between these two extremes: for example [billboards](billboard.md) and [particle systems](particle_system.md) may use a texture to represent an object while at the same time using 3D quads (very simple 3D models) to correctly deform the textures by perspective and solve their visibility. The classic polygonal 3D models are also usually somewhere in between: the 3D geometry and [shading](shading.md) are trying to simulate the physics, but e.g. a photo texture mapped on such 3D model is the opposite appearance-based approach ([PBR](pbr.md) further tries to shift the use of textures more towards the *physics simulation* end).
A table of some common 3D rendering methods follows, including the most simple, most advanced and some unconventional ones. Note that here we talk about methods and techniques rather than algorithms, i.e. general approaches that are often modified and combined into a specific rendering algorithm. For example the traditional triangle rasterization is sometimes combined with raytracing to add e.g. realistic reflections. The methods may also be further enriched with features such as [texturing](texture.md), [antialiasing](antialiasing.md) and so on. The table below should help you choose the base 3D rendering method for your specific program.
*See also http://techrights.org/2019/04/23/code-of-coercion/.*
Code of conduct (COC), also code of coercion, is a shitty invention of [SJW](sjw.md) fascists that dictates how development of specific software should be conducted, generally pushing toxic woke concepts such as forced inclusivity or use of politically correct language. COC is typically placed in the software repository as a `CODE_OF_CONDUCT` file. In practice COCs are used to kick people out of development because of their political opinions expressed anywhere, inside or outside the project, and to push political opinions through software projects.
Code of conduct (COC), also code of coercion, is a [shitty](shit.md) invention of [SJW](sjw.md) [fascists](fascism.md) that's put up in projects (e.g. software) and which declares how developers of a specific project must behave socially (typically NOT just withing the context of the development but also outside of it), generally pushing toxic woke concepts such as forced inclusivity, exclusivity of people with unapproved political opinions or use of [politically correct](political_correctness.md) language ([newspeak](newspeak.md)). Sometimes a toxic COC hides under a different name such as *social contract* or *mission statement*, though not necessarily. COC is typically placed in the project repository as a `CODE_OF_CONDUCT` file. In practice COCs are used to establish dictatorship and allow things such as kicking people out of development because of their political opinions expressed anywhere, inside or outside the project, and to push political opinions through software projects.
**[LRS](lrs.md) must never include any COC**, with possible exceptions of anti-COC (such as NO COC) or parody style COCs, not because we dislike genuine inclusivity, but because we believe COCs are bullshit and mostly harmful as they support bullying, censorship and exclusion of people.
@ -12,8 +12,10 @@ In the [FOSS](foss.md) world there is a huge battle between the copyleft camp an
In the great debate of copyleft vs permissive free licenses we, as technological anarchists, stand on the permissive side. Here are some reasons for why we reject copyleft:
- It **burdens the reuser of the work by requiring him to do something extra** -- while a public domain and many permissive licensed works can simply be taken and used without taking any extra action, just as it should ideally be, a work under copyleft requires its user to take an action, for example copying the license file (and then forever making sure it doesn't get lost), giving credit etc. While one may think this is not such a big deal, it's a form of friction that can get in the way of creativity, especially when combining many works under possibly different copyleft licenses which suddenly becomes quite cumbersome to handle.
- By adopting copyleft one is **embracing and supporting the copyright laws and perpetuating the [capitalist](capitalism.md) ways** ("marrying the lawyers") because copyleft relies on and uses copyright laws to function; to enforce copyleft (prevent "disallowed" use) one has to make a legal action (while with permissive license we simply basically give up the rights to make a legal action). Copyleft chooses to play along with the capitalist bullshit [intellectual property](intellectual_property.md) game and threatens to [fight](fight_culture.md) and use force and bullying in order to enforce *correct* usage of information.
- In a way it is **[bloat](bloat.md)**. Copyleft introduces **legal complexity**, [friction](friction.md) and takes programmers' [head space](head_space.md) (every programmer has to study a bit of copyright law nowadays due to such BS), especially considering that copyleft is also probably largely ineffective as **detecting its violation and actual legal enforcement is difficult, expensive and without a guaranteed positive outcome** ([FSF](fsf.md) encourages programmers to hand over their copyright to them so they can defend their programs which just confirms existence and relevance of this issue). The effort spent on dealing with this is a wasted human time. Sure, corporations can probably "abuse" permissive (non-copyleft) software easier, but we argue that this is a problem whose roots lie in the broken basic principles of our society ([capitalism](capitalism.md)) and so the issue should be addressed by improving our socioeconomic system rather than by bullshit legal techniques that just imperfectly and many times completely ineffectively try to cure the symptoms while strengthening the system's mechanisms.
- **The scope of copyleft is highly debatable, introducing doubt/uncertainty** (which is why we have different kind of copyleft such as *strong*, *weak*, *network* etc.). I.e. it can't be objectively said what exactly should classify as violation of copyleft AND increasing copyleft scope leads to copylefted software being practically unusable. You may say "so what", but in law clarity is extremely important, it may also discourage people because they don't really know what they sign up for, commercial use may also be discouraged by this for the same reason which may have a similar effect to a non-free license that downright disallows commercial use. Consider this **example**: [Linux](linux.md) is copylefted which means we can't create a proprietary version of Linux, nevertheless we can create a proprietary operating system of which Linux is part (e.g. [Android](android.md) in which its proprietary app store makes it de-facto owned by [Google](google.md)), and so Linux is effectively used as a part of proprietary software -- the copyleft is bypassed. One might try to increase the copyleft scope here by saying *"everything Linux ever touches has to be free software"* which would however render Linux unusable on practically any computer as most computers contain at least some small proprietary software and hardware. The restriction would be too great.
- **Copyleft licenses have to be complex and ugly** because they have to strictly describe the copyleft scope and include lots of legal [boilerplate](boilerplate.md) in order to make them well defendable in court (copyleft is really about preparing for a legal war) -- and as we know, complexity comes with bugs, vulnerabilities, it makes it incomprehensible to common people and imposes many additional burdens. Indeed, we see this in practice: the only practically used copyleft licenses are the various versions of GPL of which all are ugly and have historically shown many faults (which is again evident from e.g. looking at GPL v1 vs v2 vs v3). This introduces great license compatibility issues, headaches for programmers who should rather be spending time programming and other similar bullshit. Permissive licenses on the other hand are simple, clear and well understandable, they aren't as much preparing for a court battle as trying to give other hackers a peace of mind and make them free of legal worries.
- **Copyleft prevents not only inclusion in proprietary software but also in permissive FREE software.** I.e. as a consequence of denying code to corporations collateral damage is done by also denying code to ethical free software that wishes to be distributed without copyleft conditions. Similarly to how proprietary software forces free software programmers to reinvent wheels by rewriting software as free, copyleft forces permissive free software programmers to reinvent wheels and rewrite copylefted code as permissive. In this way copyleft [fights](fight_culture.md) not only proprietary software, but also other kinds of free software.
@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ A great many commonly used tricks in programming could be regarded as hacks even
- Computer [graphics](graphics.md) uses many clever tricks that could possibly be called hacks, e.g. in times when 3D graphics was primitive and didn't allow achieving such effects as mirror reflections easily, some [games](game.md) faked mirrors simply with a hole in the wall behind which the whole mirrored room was placed -- this achieved the same effect as a mirror and didn't require any extra rendering passes or shaders.
- **[quine](quine.md)**: A cleverly constructed self-replicating program in [programming language](programming_language.md) that prints its own source code -- this is a common exercise of language hackers.
- **MetaGolfScript [esoteric languages](esolang.md)**: rather than being a nicely designed [code golfing](code_golf.md) language MetaGolfScript invents infinitely many languages, each of which solves one problem with a zero-length program, making it possible to win any golfing contest that allows arbitrary choice of language just by choosing the correct MetaGolfScript language.
- **Appending "in Minecraft" to avoid legal responsibility**: some people try to avoid legal responsibility for threats by talking about the situation as if it was harmlessly happening in a video game such as Minecraft, for example "Bitch I'm going to come to your house and murder you in sleep, in Minecraft." Though this is a nice hack and should work, the dystopian governments can do whatever they want and still arrest you for this -- this happened e.g. in New Jersey when one guy threatened to kill a sheriff like this.
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Morality is the sense of greater values of an individual and society from which
Morality is very similar to **[ethics](ethics.md)**, to the point of often being used interchangeably, however we may still find slight differences. While morality is seen as something personal and intuitive, greatly driven by conscience and judged on a case-by-case basis, ethics is perceived more as a set of informal, often unwritten shared rules to assure morality in a larger group of individuals, i.e. ethics is an agreement on a way of behavior between individuals, each of which may have slightly different personal morals. Ethics is also sometimes defined as the branch of [philosophy](philosophy.md) concerned with examining morality.
**Morality is much different from legality.** Ideally it is said that laws should be the minimum (a proper [subset](subset.md)) of morality, i.e. laws should be the officially codified, approved and enforced rules that ensure the very basic moral behavior is sustained, such as people not murdering others, however laws CANNOT with the best of our effort ever capture the infinitely complex nature of morals (no one can ever write down EXACTLY what is and isn't moral in every single imaginable situation that can arise in real world), so it is seen as inevitable that laws will always allow some slightly immoral actions (imagine e.g. someone giving a bad advice to someone else on purpose just to see the other one fail -- this may be legal but is likely immoral). This is accepted because the other option, i.e. law trying to prevent ALL immoral behavior, would be too restrictive and would also inevitably prevent a huge amount of moral, useful and essential behavior; imagine e.g. law trying to prevent giving bad advice by banning all communication altogether. However, this ideal of "laws as a minimum of morals" doesn't hold in practice because law is hugely abused and manipulated to serve the evil, so not only does it allow immoral behavior (which would be kind of OK), it BANS moral behavior (which is unacceptable from the idealist point of view), for example it is prohibited sharing useful information ("[intellectual property](intellectual_property.md)"), repairing ([DRM](drm.md)), living in an abandoned house one doesn't "officially own" etc. Furthermore laws themselves in principle have a negative effect on morality because **people unfortunately start replacing morality with legality**; as laws get more complex and in control of our everyday lives, people only start deciding and judging actions based on a question of "is it legal?" rather than "is it moral?" -- indeed, if nowadays you accuse someone of doing something wrong, he will almost definitely reply something along the lines of "I can legally do that so shut up." Laws destroy morality, hence laws have to be cancelled (see [anarchism](anarchism.md)) and we have to focus only on developing our sense of morality better.
**Morality is much different from legality.** Ideally it is said that laws should be the minimum (a proper [subset](subset.md)) of morality, i.e. laws should be the officially codified, approved and enforced rules that ensure the very basic moral behavior is sustained, such as people not murdering others, however laws CANNOT with the best of our effort ever capture the infinitely complex nature of morals (no one can ever write down EXACTLY what is and isn't moral in every single imaginable situation that can arise in real world), so it is seen as inevitable that laws will always allow some slightly immoral actions (imagine e.g. someone giving a bad advice to someone else on purpose just to see the other one fail -- this may be legal but is likely immoral). This is accepted because the other option, i.e. law trying to prevent ALL immoral behavior, would be too restrictive and would also inevitably prevent a huge amount of moral, useful and essential behavior; imagine e.g. law trying to prevent giving bad advice by banning all communication altogether. However, this ideal of "laws as a minimum of morals" doesn't hold in practice because law is hugely abused and manipulated to serve the evil, so not only does it allow immoral behavior (which would be kind of OK), it BANS moral behavior (which is unacceptable from the idealist point of view), for example it is prohibited to share useful information ("[intellectual property](intellectual_property.md)"), repairing ([DRM](drm.md)), living in an abandoned house one doesn't "officially own" etc. Furthermore laws themselves in principle have a negative effect on morality because **people unfortunately start replacing morality with legality**; as laws get more complex and in control of our everyday lives, people only start deciding and judging actions based on a question of "is it legal?" rather than "is it moral?" -- indeed, if nowadays you accuse someone of doing something wrong, he will almost definitely reply something along the lines of "I can legally do that so shut up." Laws destroy morality, hence laws have to be cancelled (see [anarchism](anarchism.md)) and we have to focus only on developing our sense of morality better.
@ -10,13 +10,13 @@ I have not once now encountered groups of people who tried to seriously push me
love & peace ~drummyfish }
Pedophilia (also paedophilia or paedosexuality) is a sexual orientation towards children. A pedophile is often called a *pedo* or *minor-attracted person* (map). Opposition of pedophilia is called **[pedophobia](pedophobia.md)** or [pedohysteria](pedohysteria.md) and is a form of age [discrimination](discrimination.md).
Pedophilia (also paedophilia or paedosexuality) is a sexual orientation towards children. A pedophile is often called a *pedo* or *minor-attracted person* (map). Opposition of pedophilia is called **[pedophobia](pedophobia.md)** or [pedohysteria](pedohysteria.md) and is a form of age [discrimination](discrimination.md) and witch hunt.
Unlike for example pure [homosexuality](gay.md), pedophilia is completely natural, normal and not any more harmful than any other orientation, however it is nowadays wrongfully, for political reasons, labelled a "disorder" (just as homosexuality used to be not a long time ago). It is the forbidden, tabooed, censored and bullied sexual orientation of the [21st century](21st_century.md), even though all healthy people are pedophiles -- just don't pretend you've never seen a [jailbait](jailbait.md) you found sexy, people start being sexually attractive exactly as soon as they become able to reproduce; furthermore when you've gone without sex long enough and get extremely horny, you get turned on by anything that literally has some kind of hole in it -- this is completely normal. Basically everyone has some kind of weird fetish he hides from the world, there are people who literally fuck cars in their exhausts, people who like to eat shit, dress in diapers and hang from ceiling by their nipples, people who have sexual relationships with virtual characters etc. -- this is all considered normal, but somehow once you get an erection seeing a hot 17 year old girl, you're a demon that needs to be locked up and cured, if not executed right away, just for a thought present in your mind.
Even though one cannot choose this orientation and even though pedophiles don't hurt anyone any more than for example gay people do, they are highly oppressed and tortured. Despite what the propaganda says, a **pedophile is not automatically a rapist** of children (a pedophile will probably choose to never actually even have sex with a child) any more than a gay man is automatically a rapist of people of the same sex, and watching [child porn](child_porn.md) won't make you want to rape children any more than watching gay porn will make you want to rape people of the same sex. Nevertheless the society, especially the fascists from the [LGBT](lgbt.md) movement who ought to know better than anyone else what it is like to be oppressed only because of private sexual desires, actively hunt pedophiles, [bully](cancel_culture.md) them and lynch them on the Internet and in the [real life](irl.md) -- this is done by both both civilians and the state (I shit you not, in [Murica](usa.md) there are whole police teams of pink haired lesbians who pretend to be little girls on the Internet and tease guys so that they can lock them up and get a medal for it). LGBT activists proclaim that a "child can't consent" but at the same time tell you that "a prepubescent child can make a decision about changing its sex" (yes, it's happening, even if parent's agreement is also needed, would parents also be able to allow a child to have sex if it wishes to?). There is a literal **witch hunt** going on against completely innocent people, just like in the middle ages. Innocent people are tortured, castrated, cancelled, rid of their careers, imprisoned, beaten, rid of their friends and families and pushed to suicide sometimes only for having certain files on their computers or saying something inappropriate online (not that any of the above is ever justified to do to anyone, even the worst criminal).
{ I've had people point out to me that pedophobia hurts not only adults but also the minors and children; they told me they had strong sexual desires before the age of 18 they couldn't satisfy because of the age discrimination: even on many social networks they are forced to lie about their age just to be able to join and socialize with others. I myself remember I had the desires LONG before reaching adulthood and would be very glad to satisfy them back then. Sure, abuse can happen, but that's the case for any interaction between children and adults and strong and weak in general -- should we just ban children play park because that's where many child abductions happen? ~drummyfish }
{ I've had people point out to me that pedophobia hurts not only adults but also the minors and children; they told me they had strong sexual desires before the age of 18 they couldn't satisfy because of the age discrimination: even on many social networks they are forced to lie about their age just to be able to join and socialize with others. I myself remember I had the desires LONG before reaching adulthood and would be very glad to satisfy them back then. Sure, abuse can happen, but that's the case for any interaction between children and adults and strong and weak in general -- should we just ban children play parks because that's where many child abductions happen? ~drummyfish }
The fact that they made people believe it is a disorder if your penis can't magically telepathically check a chick's ID and may get erect if she's been born before a date legally established in political region the penis currently resides in shows that at this point an average citizen is more retarded than a braindead chimp.
@ -7,4 +7,5 @@ This is a place for sharing some practical programming tips.
- **Comments/preprocessor to quickly hide code**: It is a basic trick to comment out lines of code we want to temporarily disable. However preprocessor may work even better, e.g. in C if you want to be switching between two parts of code, instead of constantly commenting one part and uncommenting the other just use `#if 0` and `#else` directives around the two parts. You can switch between them by just changing 0 to 1 and back. This can also disable parts of code that already contain multiline comments (unlike a comment as nested multiline comments aren't allowed).
- **[KEEP IT SIMPLE](kiss.md)** and keep it [LRS](lrs.md), do not blindly follow mainstream ways and "workflows" as those are more often than not horrible. For example instead of using some uber bug tracker, you should use a simple plaintext TODO.txt file; instead of using and IDE use [vim](vim.md) or something similar. Stay away from [OOP](oop.md), [dependencies](dependency.md) etc.
- **Don't listen to advice of anyone who does programming for living**, he's most definitely accustomed to the worst ways of programming and will try to push you to [OOP](oop.md), [bloat](bloat.md), [proprietary](proprietary.md) tech, [tranny software](tranny_software.md), [GitHub](github.md) etc. Listening to advice of such people is like taking advice on whether to take drugs from a drug dealer.
- **Most true programming is done away from the computer** -- soydevs think that a good programmer just spends hours in front of a computer bashing the keyboard and drinking litres of coffee to stay alive and [PRODUCTIVE](productivity_cult.md); indeed, they usually do, but they are not good programmers, their time is spent slaving the computer doing [maintenance](maintenance.md), debugging, updating and socializing on Twitter. A good programmer actually programs everywhere: when going for walk, before falling asleep, when watching a movie etc. He only starts writing a serious program after years of thinking about it and already having most of it programmed in his head; sitting in front of a computer and writing the algorithm down is only the final smaller part of the journey.
@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ The web used to be perhaps the greatest part of the web, the thing that made Int
## How It Went To Shit
{ As of 2023 my 8GB RAM computer with multiple 2+ GHz CPUs has serious issues browsing the "modern" web, i.e. it is sweating on basically just displaying a formatted text, which if done right is quite comfortably possible to do on a computer with 100000 times lower hardware specs! In fact orders of magnitude weaker computers could browse the web much faster 20 years ago. Just think about how deeply fucked up this is: the world's foremost information highway and "marvel of technology" has been raped by capitalist soydevs so much that it is hundreds of thousands times less efficient than it should be, AND it wouldn't even require much effort to make it so. Imagine your car consuming 100000 litres of gasoline instead of 1 or your house leaking 99999 litres of water for any 1 litre of water you use. This is the absolute state of dystopian capitalist society. ~drummyfish }
