*Not to be [confused](often_confused.md) with [autism](autism.md).*
Altruism means striving for the wellbeing of others, actively performing [selfless](selflessness.md) actions. It is a purely good attitude which we, the [LRS](lrs.md), fully embrace. It's no surprise that under [capitalism](capitalism.md), the rule of [evil](evil.md), altruism is commonly met with hostility or, in the better case, with ridicule.
Cancer is similar to [shit](shit.md) but is even worse because it spreads itself and infects anything else it touches (it is a subset of shit).
Examples of cancer are:
- human civilization
- [capitalism](capitalism.md) and many of its parts like [consumerism](consumerism.md), [corporations](corporation.md), [marketing](marketing.md), industrialization etc.
- [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) movements like [LGBT](lgbt.md) or [Feminism](feminism.md)
Corporation is basically a huge company that doesn't have a single owner but is rather managed by many shareholders. Corporations are one of the most powerful, dangerous and unethical entities that ever came into existence -- their power is growing, sometimes even beyond the power of states and their sole goal is to make as much profit as possible without any sense of morality. Existence of corporations is enabled by [capitalism](capitalism.md). Examples of corporations are [Micro$oft](microsoft.md), [Apple](apple.md), [Amazon](amazon.md), [Walmart](walmart.md), [Te$la](tesla.md), [McDonald$](mcdonalds.md), [Facebook](facebook.md) etc. Every [startup](startup.md) is an aspiring corporation, so never support any startup.
Corporation is basically a huge company that doesn't have a single owner but is rather managed by many shareholders. Corporations are one of the most powerful, dangerous and unethical entities that ever came into existence -- their power is growing, sometimes even beyond the power of states and their sole goal is to make as much profit as possible without any sense of morality. Existence of corporations is enabled by [capitalism](capitalism.md). Examples of corporations are [Micro$oft](microsoft.md), [EA](ea.md), [Apple](apple.md), [Amazon](amazon.md), [Walmart](walmart.md), [Te$la](tesla.md), [McDonald$](mcdonalds.md), [Facebook](facebook.md) etc. Every [startup](startup.md) is an aspiring corporation, so never support any startup.
The most basic fact to know about corporations is that **100% of everything a corporation ever does is done 100% solely for maximizing its own benefit for any cost, with no other reason, with 0 morality and without any consideration of consequences**. If a corporation could make 1 cent by raping 1000000000 children and get away with it, it would do so immediately without any hesitation and any regret. This is very important to keep in mind. Now try to not get depressed at realization that corporations are those to whom we gave power and who are in almost absolute control of the world.
*Not to be confused with [data type](data_type.md).*
*Not to be [confused](often_confused.md) with [data type](data_type.md).*
Data structure refers to a any specific way in which [data](data.md) is organized in computer memory, which often comes with associated efficient operations on such data. A specific data structure describes such things as order, relationships (interconnection, hierarchy, ...), helper values ([checksum](checksum.md), [indices](index.md), ...), formats and [types](data_type.md) of parts of the data. [Programming](programming.md) is sometimes seen as consisting mainly of two things: design of [algorithms](algorithm.md) and data structures these algorithm work with.
@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Drummyfish (also known as *tastyfish*, *drummy*, *drumy*, *smellyfish* and *i fo
**Drummyfish is the most physically disgusting bastard on [Earth](earth.md)**, no [woman](woman.md) ever loved him, he is so ugly people get suicidal thoughts from seeing any part of him.
He loves all living beings, even those whose attributes he hates or who hate him. He is a [vegetarian](vegetarianism.md) (since about 2018) and here and there supports good causes, for example he donates hair and gives money to homeless people who ask for them. He also tried to donate blood but couldn't because he's taking antidepressants.
He loves all living beings, even those whose attributes he hates or who hate him. He is a [vegetarian](vegetarianism.md) (since about 2018) and here and there supports good causes, for example he donates hair and gives money to homeless people who ask for them and sometimes cleans the [Earth](earth.md) from plastic garbage (something he learned when he slaved as a factory cleaner). He also tried to donate blood but couldn't because he's taking antidepressants.
Drummyfish has a personal website at [www.tastyfish.cz](https://www.tastyfish.cz), and a gopherhole at [self.tastyfish.cz](gopher://self.tastyfish.cz). He uses [vim](vim.md), doesn't have any favorite distro and will NEVER HAVE ONE (in fact he hates [Linux](linux.md) and would use another kernel if it was possible).
@ -90,6 +90,7 @@ There are many reasons, it serves multiple purposes which also change a bit over
- I hope to contribute to the downfall of capitalism, though TBH I don't believe it can happen at this point.
- This also helped me find some cool online friends. If you go searching for people like you, you won't find them, but if you put your ideas publicly on the display, people with similar ideas will reach out to you themselves.
- It's a work I can read myself knowing I won't find things that make me more suicidal like the word "person" and stupid grammar mistakes such as using apostrophes for plurals, using "it's" instead of "its", sentences containing "the reason is because" or "just because ... doesn't mean" etc.
- I like wikis, I like editing the pages, but I hate wikis with other people on it.
- Probably other reasons I couldn't recall right now :-)
- ...
@ -147,7 +148,7 @@ It also has the nice side effect of making this less likely to be used by corpor
### How can you say you love all living beings and use offensive language at the same time?
The culture of being offended is [bullshit](bullshit.md), it is a [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) (fascist) invention that serves as a weapon to justify censorship, canceling and bullying of people. Since I love all people, I don't support any weapons against anyone (not even against people I dislike or disagree with). People are offended by language because they're taught to be offended by it by the propaganda, I am helping them unlearn it.
The culture of being offended is [bullshit](bullshit.md), it is a [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) (fascist) invention that serves as a weapon to justify censorship, canceling and bullying of people. Since I love all people, I don't support any weapons against anyone (not even against people I dislike or disagree with). People are offended by language because they're taught to be offended by it by the propaganda, I am helping them unlearn it. [Political correctness](political_correctness.md) is one of the most retarded and toxic things to ever have been invented. Learn to separate being evil and being angry.
### But don't you think someone can misinterpret your politically incorrect speech for inciting violence, fascism etc.?
Fixed point arithmetic is a simple and often [good enough](good_enough.md) method of computer representation of [fractional](rational_number.md) numbers (i.e. numbers with higher precision than [integers](integer.md), e.g. 4.03), as opposed to [floating point](float.md) which is a more complicated way of doing this which in most cases we consider a worse, [bloated](bloat.md) alternative. Probably in 99% cases when you think you need floating point, fixed point will do just fine. Fixed point arithmetic is not to be confused with fixed point of a function in mathematics (fixed point of a function *f(x)* is such *x* that *f(x) = x*), a completely unrelated term.
Fixed point arithmetic is a simple and often [good enough](good_enough.md) method of computer representation of [fractional](rational_number.md) numbers (i.e. numbers with higher precision than [integers](integer.md), e.g. 4.03), as opposed to [floating point](float.md) which is a more complicated way of doing this which in most cases we consider a worse, [bloated](bloat.md) alternative. Probably in 99% cases when you think you need floating point, fixed point will do just fine. Fixed point arithmetic is not to be [confused](often_confused.md) with fixed point of a function in mathematics (fixed point of a function *f(x)* is such *x* that *f(x) = x*), a completely unrelated term.
Fixed point has at least these advantages over floating point:
*Not to be confused with [open $ource](open_source.md).*
*Not to be [confused](often_confused.md) with [open $ource](open_source.md).*
Free (as in freedom) software is a type of ethical [software](software.md) that's respecting its users' freedom and preventing their abuse, generally by availability of its source code AND by a [license](license.md) that allows anyone to use, study, modify and share the software without restricting conditions (such as having to pay or get explicit permission from the author). Free software is NOT equal to software whose source code is just available publicly or software that is offered for zero price, the basic legal rights to the software are the key attribute that has to be present. Free software stands opposed to [proprietary software](proprietary_software.md) -- the kind of abusive, closed software that [capitalism](capitalism.md) produces by default. Free software is not to be confused with [freeware](freeware.md) ("gratis", software available for free); although free software is always available for free thanks to its definition, zero price is not its goal. The goal is freedom.
*Not to be confused with [cracking](cracking.md).*
*Not to be [confused](often_confused.md) with [cracking](cracking.md).*
Hacking (also hackerdom) in the widest sense means exploiting usually (but not necessarily) a [computer](computer.md) [system](system.md) in a clever, "thinking outside the box" way. In context of computers the word *hacker* was originally -- that is in 1960s -- used for very good [programmers](programming.md) and people who were simply good with computers, the word *hacking* had a completely positive meaning; hacker could almost be synonymous with computer [genius](genius.md) (at the time people handling computers were usually physicists, engineers or mathematicians), someone who enjoyed handling and programming computers and could playfully look for very clever ways of making them do what he wanted. Over time hackers evolved a whole **hacker culture** with its own slang, set of values, behavioral and ethical norms, in jokes and rich lore. As time marched on, computer [security](security.md) has started to become an important topic and some media started to use the word *hacker* for someone breaking into a computer system and so the word gained a negative connotation in the mainstream -- though many refused to accept this new meaning and rather used the word *[cracker](cracker.md)* for a "malicious hacker", there appeared new variants such as *white hat* and *black hat* hacker, referring to ethical and malicious hackers. With onset of online [games](game.md) the word *hacking* even became a synonym for [cheating](cheating.md). The original positive meaning has recently seen some comeback with popularity of sites such as [hacker news](hacker_news.md) or hackaday, the word *life hack* has even found its way into the non-computer mainstream dictionary, however a "[modern](modern.md) hacker" is a bit different from the oldschool hacker, usually for the worse (for example a modern self proclaimed "hacker" has no issue with wearing a [suit](suit.md), something that would be despised by an oldschool hacker). We, [LRS](lrs.md), advocate for using the original, oldschool meaning of the word *hacker*.
"Intellectual property" (IP, not to be confused with [IP address](ip_address.md)) is a toxic [capitalist](capitalism.md) idea that says that people should be able to own [information](information.md) (such as ideas, presentation style, songs or text) and that it should be treated in ways very similar to physical property. For example [patents](patent.md) are one type of intellectual property which allow an inventor of some idea to *own* that idea and be able to limit its use and charge money to people using that idea, or prevent people from using that idea altogether. [Copyright](copyright.md) is probably the most harmful of IP today, and along with patents the most relevant one in the area of technology. However, IP encompasses many other subtypes of this kind of "property" such as [trademarks](trademark.md), trade dress, plant varieties etc. IP is an arbitrarily invented grant of monopoly on information, i.e. something that is otherwise naturally free.
"Intellectual property" (IP, not to be confused with [IP address](ip_address.md)) is a twisted [capitalist](capitalism.md) idea establishing that people be able to own [information](information.md) (such as ideas, presentation style, songs or text) and that it should be treated in ways very similar to physical property. For example [patents](patent.md) are one type of intellectual property which allow an inventor of some idea to *own* that idea and be able to limit its use and charge people fees for using that idea, or prevent people from using that idea altogether. [Copyright](copyright.md) is probably the most harmful type of IP as of today, and along with patents the most relevant one in the area of technology. However, IP encompasses many other subtypes of this kind of "property" such as [trademarks](trademark.md), trade dress, plant varieties etc. IP is an **arbitrarily invented grant of monopoly** on information, i.e. something that is otherwise naturally free. Only very few other ideas reach the level of stupidity of the IP concept, most people with brain oppose it, see e.g. http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/intellectual_property/.
Most people with brain oppose this idea, see e.g. http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/intellectual_property/.
IP exists to benefit [corporations](corporation.md), it artificially limits the natural [freedom of information](information_freedom.md) and tries to eliminate freedom and competition of the IP owners, it fuels [consumerism](consumerism.md) (for example a company can force deletion of old version of its program in order to force users to buy a new version), it helps keep malicious features in programs (by forbidding any study and modifications) and forces reinventing wheels which is extremely energy and resource wasting, whose side effect (or rather one of many side effects) is of course destroying the whole [Earth](earth.md). IP creates a kind of [artificial scarcity](artificial_scarcity.md), i.e. in a world where any information once created would be abundant, available to everyone, IP kills this abundance so as to create a new "market" and [bullshit](bullshit.md) businesses and slaveries such as various IP law firms, patent offices, brand protections, copyright verification for courts, [DRM](drm.md) programmers and so on. Without IP everyone would be happy, able to study, share, improve, [remix](remix_culture.md) and combine existing technology and art into amazing things.
IP exists to benefit [corporations](corporation.md), it artificially limits the natural [freedom of information](information_freedom.md) (see [artificial scarcity](artificial_scarcity.md)) and tries to eliminate freedom and competition, it fuels consumerism (for example a company can force deletion of old version of its program in order to force users to buy the new version), it helps keep malicious features in programs (by forbidding any study and modifications) and forces reinventing wheels which is extremely energy and resource wasting. Without IP, everyone would be able to study, share, improve and remix and combine existing technology and art.
Only idiots defend IP -- basically just [capitalists](capitalists.md). They give absolutely invalid arguments like "but without IP there would be no progress" etc. Of course there would be [progress](progress.md), progress can't be stopped even if you try. Capitalists are amazingly retarded creatures.
Many people protest against the idea of IP -- either wanting to abandon the idea completely, as [we](lrs.md) do, or at least arguing for great relaxation the insanely strict and aggressive forms that destroy our society. Movements such as [free software](free_software.md) and [free culture](free_culture.md) have come into existence in protest of IP laws. Of course, capitalists don't give a shit. It can be expected the IP [cancer](cancer.md) will be reaching even more extreme forms very soon, for example it will be perpetual and encompassing such things as mere though (thoughts will be monitored and people will be charged for thinking about ideas owned by corporations).
This is the freedom island where [we](less_retarded_society.md) live! It has [no owner](free_universe.md). Feel free to take off your clothes, we don't wear them here. You can build your house on any free spot. Planting trees and making landscape works are allowed too. Basically we have [no laws](anarchism.md).
*Not to be [confused](often_confused.md) with [Java](java.md).*
JavaScript (JS) is a very popular, highly [shitty](shit.md) [bloated](bloat.md) [scripting](script.md) [programming language](programming_language.md) used mainly on the [web](www.md). The language is basically the centerpoint of [web development](webdev.md), possibly the worst area a programmer can find himself in, so it is responsible for a great number of [suicides](suicide.md), the language is infamously surrounded by a clusterfuck of most toxic [frameworks](framework.md) you can imagine and a curious fact is also that people who program in JavaScript are less intelligent than people who don't program at all. JavaScript is NOT to be confused with an unrelated language called [Java](java.md), which for some time used to be used on the web too but works very differently. JavaScript should also not be confused with [ECMAScript](ecmascript.md), a language standard which JavaScript is based on but to which it adds yet more antifeatures, i.e. JavaScript is a dialect of ECMAScript (other similar ECMAScript-based languages are e.g. ActionScript and JScript). [LRS](lrs.md) stance towards this language is clear: as any other mainstream [modern](modern.md) language **JavaScript is an absolutely unacceptable choice for any serious project**, though it may be used for quick experiments and ugly temporary programs as the language is high level, i.e. extremely easy, it doesn't require any ability to think, it works in every browser (so you get a kind of [multiplatformness](multiplatform.md)) and allows making things such as [GUI](gui.md) and visualizations super quickly and easily. But remember that this kind of "comfort" always comes for a cost too high to pay.
*Not to be confused with [libertarianism](libertarianism.md).*
*Not to be [confused](often_confused.md) with [libertarianism](libertarianism.md).*
Liberalism is a political ideology whose definition is not greatly clear (we may find branches that differ a lot) but which usually aims for "liberty", focus on individuals who ought to be protected by the state and have equal opportunities, which leads to obsession with all kinds of "[rights](rights_culture.md)" and "social justice" (i.e. social revenge of minorities); as one of worst imaginable ideologies it is no surprise it's the prevailing [US](usa.md) ideology and ideology of [SJW](sjw.md)s -- liberalism is taking over the whole western world and it's destroying everything. It basically tries to take the worst of all other ideologies: liberalism supports things such as [state](state.md) and strong laws (to "protect" people), [capitalism](capitalism.md) (to give them "opportunities"), [censorship](censorship.md), [political correctness](political_correctness.md) and violence; supporting concepts connected to both [right and (pseudo)left](left_right.md), it is said to be a "centrist" stance, however [we](lrs.md) just call it confused -- they just try to combine absolutely incompatible things, they want a competitive environment in which "everyone wins". Liberalism is highly [harmful](harmful.md), retarded and should never be supported.
*Not to be confused with [liberalism](liberalism.md).*
*Not to be [confused](often_confused.md) with [liberalism](liberalism.md).*
Libertarianism is a [harmful](harmful.md) political ideology whose definition is quite broad and not super clear, but which in essence gives highest priority to individual "liberty" and seeks to minimize the role of state (but typically without wanting to remove it). A bit like [anarchism](anarchism.md), libertarianism has many branches which frequently greatly diverge and even oppose each other, some are called more "leftist", some more "rightist" -- libertarianism usually tries to pretend to be focusing on the people, i.e. their "liberties", pseudoequality ("equality before law", "equality of opportunity", ...), oppose "the kind of corporate [capitalism](capitalism.md) we have today", believing some kind of "saner" version of it can work (which it can't), and claims that people can form a working, decentralized society by loose associations, however, unlike anarchism which opposes state and any kind of hierarchy altogether (with [true anarchism](anpac.md) also opposing any violence), libertarianism typically wants to preserve some functions of the state such as courts and justice for protection against crime, and it acknowledges property as a sacred thing that may even be defended by violence, i.e. libertarianism just replaces the rule of states by rule of private subjects, getting quite close to ["anarcho" capitalism](ancap.md), the stupidest idea yet conceived. Libertarians basically adopts the **"law of the jungle"** or **"wild west"** mindset. So it's [shit](shit.md), do not subscribe.
@ -10,12 +10,15 @@ The wiki can also additionally be seen as a dirty collection of drummyfish's che
The wiki is similar to and was inspired by other wikis and similar works, for example in its topics and technical aspects it is similar to the earliest (plain HTML) versions of [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) and [wikiwikiweb](wikiwikiweb.md). In tone and political incorrectness it is similar to [Encyclopedia Dramatica](dramatica.md), but unlike Dramatica LRS is a "serious" project.
LRS wiki is currently written as a collection of [Markdown](markdown.md) files that use a few [shell scripts](shell_script.md) that convert the whole thing to HTML for the web, i.e. it doesn't use any wiki engine or bloated static site generator. There is a plan to rewrite the wiki in [comun](comun.md).
LRS wiki is currently written as a collection of [Markdown](markdown.md) files that use a few [shell scripts](shell_script.md) that convert the whole thing to HTML for the web (and can also produce txt and pdf version of it), i.e. it doesn't use any wiki engine or bloated static site generator. There is a plan to rewrite the wiki in [comun](comun.md).
HEADER2="</title></head><body><h1>less_retarded_wiki</h1><span class=\"nav\"><a href=\"main.html\">main page</a>, <a class=\"notdead\" href=\"$FILELIST.html\">file list ($FILECOUNT)</a>, <a class=\"notdead\" href=\"https://git.coom.tech/drummyfish/less_retarded_wiki/archive/master.zip\">source</a>, <a class=\"notdead\" href=\"lrs_wiki.7z\">all in md+txt+html+pdf</a>, <a class=\"notdead\" href=\"report.html\">report abuse</a>, <a class=\"notdead\" href=\"wiki_stats.html\">stats</a>, <a class=\"notdead\" href=\"$RANDPAGE.html\">random article</a>, <a class=\"notdead\" id=\"fancylink\" href=\"pimp_my_lrs.html?p=main.html&s=style_fancy.css\">consoomer version</a>, wiki last updated on $DATE</span><hr />"
FOOTER="<hr/><p>All content available under <a class=\"notdead\" href=\"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/\">CC0 1.0</a> (public domain). Send comments and corrections to drummyfish at disroot dot org. </p></body></html>"
FOOTER="<hr/><p>All content available under <a class=\"notdead\" href=\"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/\">CC0 1.0</a> (public domain). Send comments and corrections to drummyfish at disroot dot org. </p></body></html>"
@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ A naive idea still present among people is that "ethical marketing" is possible
Another extremely childish idea is that "marketing serves the people by informing them of new products" :D { I don't know, I always think capitalists have at least one brain cell, but they always manage to surprise me by saying something like this. ~drummyfish } This may not even need much comment (it seems weird, like trying to explain that a book dropped from a table will fall to the ground, feels extremely stupid) but let's see: maybe in times of caveman when market was just invented ads worked like this for exactly two days until one caveman realized he can lie on the ad and if he paints a bigger picture on the wall the other caveman customers will be more likely to buy his rocks than the competing caveman's rocks; exactly at this day ads seized to be about informing people and became solely used for forcing one's products and tricking people, and trying to find ways around laws that tried to prohibit this, spawning the endless bullshit war of advertisers and law makers. It's been thousands of years now that ads have absolutely 0% informative value -- imagine an informative ad on TV, a simple white screen with text: "there is a new shampoo in the shop". This literally doesn't even give any information to the consumer, everyone knows there are shampoos in the shop. Do you think there exists any marketing company in which they wouldn't shit themselves in uncontrollable laughter if some of their employee was like "we should make our ad less intrusive, it should only inform the consumer about our product"? Are you really this braindead now?
**Marketing people are subhuman.** Of course, let us be reminded [we](lrs.md) love all living beings, even subhuman, but the marketing trash not only doesn't show any signs of conscience or [morals](morality.md), they hardly seems [conscious](consciousness.md) at all, they are just a robotic tool of [capitalism](capitalism.md), more akin monkeys -- however immoral shit they get into, they always just reply "[just doing my job](just_doing_my_job.md)" and "[it pays well](it_pays_well.md)" to anything. They make the worst kind of [propaganda](propaganda.md) which literally kills people, they would mercilessly torture children to death if it was on their contract. A capitalist is screeching HAHAHA IT NOT THE SAME bcuz CHILREN ARE MAGICAL n economy is pwogwesss, so this invalid. Indeed, it doesn't make any sense -- a capitalist will stay what it is, the lowest class of brainwashed [NPC](npc.md) incapable of thinking on its own. All in all, avoid anyone who has anything to do with marketing.
**Marketing people are subhuman.** Of course, let us be reminded [we](lrs.md) love all living beings, even subhuman, but the marketing trash not only doesn't show any signs of conscience or [morals](morality.md), they hardly seems [conscious](consciousness.md) at all, they are just a robotic tool of [capitalism](capitalism.md), more akin monkeys -- however immoral shit they get into, they always just reply "[just doing my job](just_doing_my_job.md)" and "[it pays well](it_pays_well.md)" to anything. What can you say about someone who dedicates his life to [bullshit](bullshit.md)? And not just any bullshit -- bullshit that makes other people more miserable. They make the worst kind of [propaganda](propaganda.md) which literally kills people, they would mercilessly torture children to death if it was on their contract. A capitalist is screeching HAHAHA IT NOT THE SAME bcuz CHILREN ARE MAGICAL n economy is pwogwesss, so this invalid. Indeed, it doesn't make any sense -- a capitalist will stay what it is, the lowest class of brainwashed [NPC](npc.md) incapable of thinking on its own. All in all, avoid anyone who has anything to do with marketing.
Good things don't need promotion (it's true even if you disagree). **The bigger the promotion, the bigger [shit](shit.md) it is.**
*Not to be confused with [communism](communism.md).*
*Not to be [confused](often_confused.md) with [communism](communism.md).*
Marxism comprises ideas, theories and ideologies strongly based in works of [Karl Marx](marx.md) (and also Friedrich Engels), roughly aiming for a [revolution](revolution.md) that should end [capitalism](capitalism.md), replace it with [socialist](socialism.md) society and eventually a truly [communist](communism.md) society. Though the terms Marxism and communism are NOT the same (communism is a general idea with many branches, e.g. [anarcho communism](ancom.md), Christian communism etc.), most common people see them as equivalent, which is unfortunate as communism is a purely [good](good.md) idea while Marxism is mostly a bad way of trying to achieve and sustain communism (the relationship between communism and Marxism may be roughly compared to the relationship between Christianity and Catholicism). Marxism comes with aggressive, revolutionary mindset that has caused great tragedies mainly during the 20th century, see mainly [USSR](ussr.md). Marxism sees itself as a [scientific](science.md) effort, it is studied by intellectuals and lives mainly in written works of Marxists.
*Not to be [confused](often_confused.md) with [Niger](niger.md).*
Nigger (also nigga, niBBa, nigra, N-word or chimp) is a [forbidden word](newspeak.md) that refers to a member of the [black](black.md) [race](race.md), [SJWs](sjw.md) call the word a [politically incorrect](political_correctness.md) "slur". Its counterpart targeted on white people is *[cracker](cracker.md)*. To Harry Potter fans the word may be compared to the word *Voldemort* which everyone is afraid to say out of fear of being [cancelled](cancel_culture.md). Nigger is not to be confused with [negro](negro.md), negrito etc. (which are subgroups of the black race).
{ I found the idea here https://suricrasia.online/no-knowledge.html, the page claims it comes from a Twitter user @chordowl. ~drummyfish }
In the context of [cryptography](cryptography.md) *no knowledge proof* (NOT to be confused with [zero knowledge proof](zero_knowledge_proof.md)) is a mathematical [proof](proof.md) of not knowing certain information. At the moment it seems to be kind of a [fun](fun.md) idea and curiosity without much use, but in math many fun ideas have found a serious use later on, so who knows. { If anyone knows of a legit use, let me know. ~drummyfish }
In the context of [cryptography](cryptography.md) *no knowledge proof* (NOT to be [confused](often_confused.md) with [zero knowledge proof](zero_knowledge_proof.md)) is a mathematical [proof](proof.md) of not knowing certain information. At the moment it seems to be kind of a [fun](fun.md) idea and curiosity without much use, but in math many fun ideas have found a serious use later on, so who knows. { If anyone knows of a legit use, let me know. ~drummyfish }
The principle is this: supposed we have a one way (practically irreversible) [hash](hash.md) function *H* (such as [SHA-256](sha_256.md)). Also suppose we have all agreed on a special value *y* that's non-zero and has been constructed so that it most likely doesn't have any malicious properties, i.e. it is a so called *nothing up my sleeve* value and can be for example some sentence converted to ASCII -- more detail on this will follow later, now simply suppose we have some value *y*. Now by providing someone with a number *x* we prove we don't know a value *z* such that *h(z) = h(x) xor y*.
{ There's most likely a lot of BS, math people pls send me corrections, thank u. ~drummyfish }
Numbers (from Latin *numerus* coming from a Greek word meaning "to distribute") are one of the most elementary [mathematical](math.md) objects, building stones serving most often as quantitative values (that is: telling count, size, length, order etc.), in higher math also used in much more [abstract](abstraction.md) ways which have only distant relationship to traditional counting. Examples of numbers are minus [one](one.md) half, [zero](zero.md), [pi](pi.md) or [i](i.md). Numbers constitute the basis and core of mathematics and as such they sit almost at the [lowest level](low_level.md) of it, i.e. most other things such as algebra, [functions](function.md) and [equations](equation.md) are built on top of numbers or require numbers to even be examined. In modern mathematics numbers themselves aren't on the absolute bottom of the foundations though, they are themselves built on top of [sets](set.md), as set theory is most commonly used as a basis of whole mathematics, however for many purposes this is just a formalism that's of practical interest only to some mathematicians -- on the other hand numbers just cannot be avoided anywhere, by a mathematician or just a common folk. The word *number* may be the first that comes to our mind when we say *mathematics*. The area of [number theory](number_theory.md) is particularly focused on examining numbers (though it's examining almost exclusively integer numbers because these seem to have the deepest pattern related e.g. to divisibility).
Let's not confuse numbers with digits or figures (numerals) -- a number is a purely abstract entity while digits serve as symbols for numbers so that we can write them down. One number may be written in many ways, using one of many [numeral systems](numeral_system.md) (Roman numerals, tally marks, Arabic numerals of different [bases](base.md) etc.), for example 4 stands for a number than can also be written as IV, four, 8/2, 16:4, 2^2, 4.00 or 0b100. There are also numbers which cannot exactly be captured within our traditional numeral systems, for some of them we have special symbols -- most famous example is of course [pi](pi.md) whose digits we cannot ever completely write down -- and there are even numbers for which we have no symbols at all, ones that are yet not well researched and are only described by equations to which they are the solution. Sure enough, a number by itself isn't too interesting and probably doesn't even make sense, it's only in context, when it's placed in relationship with other numbers (by ordering them, defining operations and properties based on those operations) that patterns and useful attributes emerge.
Let's not [confuse](often_confused.md) numbers with digits or figures (numerals) -- a number is a purely abstract entity while digits serve as symbols for numbers so that we can write them down. One number may be written in many ways, using one of many [numeral systems](numeral_system.md) (Roman numerals, tally marks, Arabic numerals of different [bases](base.md) etc.), for example 4 stands for a number than can also be written as IV, four, 8/2, 16:4, 2^2, 4.00 or 0b100. There are also numbers which cannot exactly be captured within our traditional numeral systems, for some of them we have special symbols -- most famous example is of course [pi](pi.md) whose digits we cannot ever completely write down -- and there are even numbers for which we have no symbols at all, ones that are yet not well researched and are only described by equations to which they are the solution. Sure enough, a number by itself isn't too interesting and probably doesn't even make sense, it's only in context, when it's placed in relationship with other numbers (by ordering them, defining operations and properties based on those operations) that patterns and useful attributes emerge.
Humans first started to use positive natural numbers, i.e. 1, 2, 3 ..., so as to be able to trade, count enemies, days and so on -- since then they kept expanding the concept of a number with more [abstraction](abstraction.md) as they encountered more complex problems. First extension was to fractions, initially reciprocals of integers (like one half, one third, ...) and then general ones. Around 6th century BC Pythagoras showed that there even exist numbers that cannot be expressed as fractions ([irrational numbers](irrational_number.md), which in the beginning was a controversial discovery), expanding the set of known numbers further. A bit later negative numbers were discovered/invented, likely in China. Adoption of the number [zero](zero.md) also took some time, with it first just having a limited use as a mere placeholder digit. Since 16th century a highly abstract concept of [complex numbers](complex_number.md) started to appear, which was later (19th century) expanded further to [quaternions](quaternion.md). With more advancement in mathematics -- e.g. with the development of set theory -- more and more concepts of new kinds of numbers appeared and still appear to this day. Nowadays we have greatly abstract numbers, ones existing in many dimensions, capable of counting and measuring infinitely large and infinitely small entities, and it seems we still haven't nearly discovered everything there is to know about numbers.
@ -131,6 +133,7 @@ There are different types of numbers, in mathematics we classify them into [sets
- **Qp: [p-adic numbers](p_adic_number.md)**: Alternative way of generalizing rational numbers; p-adics are quite mindblowing as they may have infinitely many digits to the left side (for which they are sometimes called *leftist numbers*), there are numbers that are their own squares without either being 1 or 0, they also contain negative numbers and fractions without having to add extra symbols. There are different kinds of p-adic number sets for different *p*s, e.g. 10-adic, 3-adic and so on (prime number *p*s are chosen for good properties). E.g. (10-adic) ...333.33, ...87187, ...11112 etc.
- **H: [quaternions](quaternion.md)**: A sum of real number, imaginary number and two other kinds of numbers, forming a number in four dimensional space. E.g. 1 + i + j - k, 50 - 0.6k or 2i + 7j.
- **C: [complex](complex_number.md)**: A sum of real and imaginary number, forming a number in two dimensional plane. E.g. 3 + 2i, 0.5 - 13i or 100i.
- **complex integer**: Complex numbers with both real and imaginary component being integer. E.g. 13 - 2i, 44i or 0.
- **[algebraic](algebraic_number.md)**: Are roots of one variable [polynomials](polynomial.md) with integer coefficients. E.g. 4/3, the [golden ratio](golden_ratio.md) or square root of two.
- **[transcendental](transcendental_number.md)**: Aren't algebraic. E.g. [pi](pi.md), [sine](sin.md) of [e](e.md) or two to the power of square root of two.
- **[imaginary](imaginary_number.md)**: Have the same properties as real numbers but lie in another dimension, on a line perpendicular to the real number line, going through 0 -- they are connected to real numbers by the fact that imaginary unit ([i](i.md)) squared equals minus one. E.g. 0, 3i or -i.
@ -149,6 +152,8 @@ There are different types of numbers, in mathematics we classify them into [sets
- **N: natural (without zero)**: "Caveman numbers", the kind of numbers people started to use first. E.g. 1, 10 or 945.
- **[prime](prime.md)**: Are only divisible by 1 and themselves, excluding 1. E.g. 2, 7 or 809.
- **composite**: Aren't primes, excluding 1. For example 4, 22 or 150.
- **highly composite**: Composite numbers that have more divisors than any lower number. E.g. 4, 36 or 1260.
- **[perfect](perfect_number.md)**: Equal to the sum of its divisors. E.g. 6, 28 or 8128.
One of the most interesting and mysterious number sets are the [prime numbers](prime.md), in fact many number theorists dedicate their whole careers solely to them. Primes are the kind of thing that's defined very simply but give rise to a whole universe of mysteries and whys, there are patterns that seem impossible to describe, conjectures that look impossible to prove and so on. Another similar type of numbers are the [perfect numbers](perfect_number.md).
@ -164,7 +169,7 @@ TODO: what is the best number? maybe top 10? would 10 be in top 10?
## Numbers In Programming/Computers
While mathematicians work mostly with infinite number sets, [programmers](programming.md) have to limit themselves to finite sets of numbers because computers have limited memory and can only store limited number of numeric values. Mathematicians are as precise with numbers as possible as they're interested in structures and patterns that numbers form, programmers just want to use numbers to solve problems, so they mostly use [approximations](approximation.md) -- for example programmers typically approximate real numbers with floating point numbers that are just a subset of rational numbers. This isn't really a problem though, computers can comfortably work with numbers large and precise enough for solving any practical problem -- a slight annoyance is that one has to be careful about such things as [underflows](underflow.md) and [overflows](overflow.md) (i.e. a value wrapping around from lowest to highest value and vice versa), limited precision resulting in error accumulation, unlinearization of linear systems and so on. Programmers also don't care about strictly respecting some properties that certain number sets must mathematically have, for example integers along with addition are mathematically a [group](group.md), however signed integers in [two's complement](twos_complement.md) aren't a group because the lowest value doesn't have an inverse element (e.g. on 8 bits the lowest value is -128 and highest 127, the lowest value is missing its partner). Programmers also allow "special" values to be parts of their number sets, especially e.g. with the common IEEE [floating point](float.md) types we see values like plus/minus [infinity](infinity.md), [negative zero](negative_zero.md) or [NaN](nan.md) ("not a number") which also break some mathematical properties but this really doesn't play much of a role in practical problems. Numbers in computers are represented in [binary](binary.md) and programmers themselves often prefer to write numbers in binary, hexadecimal or octal representation -- they also often meet powers of two rather than powers of ten (for example the data type limits are typically limited by some power of two). Famously programmers start counting from 0 (they go as far as using the term "zeroth") while mathematicians rather tend to start at 1. Just as mathematicians have different sets of numbers, programmers have an analogy in numeric [data types](data_type.md) -- a data type defines a set of values and operations that can be performed with them. The following are some of the common data types and representations of numbers in computers:
While mathematicians work mostly with infinite number sets and all kind of "weird" hypothetical numbers like hyperreals and transcendentals, [programmers](programming.md) still mostly work with "normal", practical numbers and have to limit themselves to finite number sets because, of course, computers have limited memory and can only store limited number of numeric values -- computers typically work with [modulo](mod.md) arithmetic with some high power of two modulo, e.g. 2^32 or 2^64, which is a [good enough](good_enough.md) approximation of an infinite number set. Mathematicians are as precise with numbers as possible as they're interested in structures and patterns that numbers form, programmers just want to use numbers to solve problems, so they mostly use [approximations](approximation.md) where they can -- for example programmers normally approximate [real numbers](real_number.md) with [floating point](float.md) numbers that are really just a subset of rational numbers. This isn't really a problem though, computers can comfortably work with numbers large and precise enough for solving any practical problem -- a slight annoyance is that one has to be careful about such things as [underflows](underflow.md) and [overflows](overflow.md) (i.e. a value wrapping around from lowest to highest value and vice versa), limited and sometimes non-uniform precision resulting in [error](error.md) accumulation, unlinearization of linear systems and so on. Programmers also don't care about strictly respecting some properties that certain number sets must mathematically have, for example integers along with addition are mathematically a [group](group.md), however signed integers in [two's complement](twos_complement.md) aren't a group because the lowest value doesn't have an inverse element (e.g. on 8 bits the lowest value is -128 and highest 127, the lowest value is missing its partner). Programmers also allow "special" values to be parts of their number sets, especially e.g. with the common IEEE [floating point](float.md) types we see values like plus/minus [infinity](infinity.md), [negative zero](negative_zero.md) or [NaN](nan.md) ("not a number") which also break some mathematical properties and creates situations like having a number that says it's not a number, but again this really doesn't play much of a role in practical problems. Numbers in computers are represented in [binary](binary.md) and programmers themselves often prefer to write numbers in binary, hexadecimal or octal representation -- they also often meet powers of two rather than powers of ten or primes or other similar limits (for example the data type limits are typically limited by some power of two). Famously programmers start counting from 0 (they go as far as using the term "zeroth") while mathematicians rather tend to start at 1. Just as mathematicians have different sets of numbers, programmers have an analogy in numeric [data types](data_type.md) -- a data type defines a set of values and operations that can be performed with them. The following are some of the common data types and representations of numbers in computers:
- **numeric**: Anything considered a number. In very high level languages there may be just one generic "number" type that can store any kind of number, automatically choosing best representation for it etc.
- **unsigned**: Don't allow negative values -- this is sufficient in many cases, simpler to implement and can offer higher range in the positive direction.
@ -85,9 +85,16 @@ There also exists a term **pseudoprime** -- it stands for a number which is not
**[Fun](fun.md) with primes**: thanks to their interesting, mysterious and [random](randomness.md) nature, primes can be played around -- of course, you can examine them mathematically, which is always fun, but you can also play sort of [games](game.md) with them. For example the prime race: you make two teams of primes, one that gives 1 modulo 4, the other one that gives 3; then you go prime by prime and add points to each team depending on which one the prime falls in; the interesting thing is that team 3 is almost always in lead just by a tiny amount (this is known as Chebyshev bias, only after 2946 primes team 1 gets in the lead for a while, then at 50378 etc.). Similar thing can be done by evaluating the Mobius function: set total sum to 0, then go number by number and if it only has unique prime factors, add 1 if the number of those factors is even, otherwise subtract 1 -- see how the function behaves. Of course you can go crazy, make primes paint pictures or compose [music](music.md) -- people also like to do this with digits of numbers, e.g. those of [pi](pi.md) or [e](e.md).
**Can we generalize the concept of prime numbers?** Yeah, sure, why not? The ways are many, we'll rather run into the issue of analysis paralysis -- choosing the interesting generalization of out of the many possible ways. The above mentioned pseudoprimes, superprimes and twin primes are examples of generalizing primes, another one is e.g. defining so called **almost primes** -- a number is *n*-almost-prime if it has *n* prime factors, so 1-almost-primes are just regular primes (they have 1 prime divisor -- themselves) but then there are 2 almost primes like 9 or 15 that are kind of closer to being primes than let's say 5-almost-primes such as 48 or 80. I.e. we took the idea of numbers having either none (primes) or some (non-primes) divisors and generalized it by says a number is more prime like if it has fewer divisors. Another generalization was hinted on above: construct a [tree](tree.md) of numbers, 1 being the root, assigning each number a parent that's its greatest divisor (exclude the number itself from divisors); in this tree 1 is above prime numbers, prime numbers are on level 1, second level may be seen as the "next best thing" to primes (4, 6, 9, 10, 15, ...), third level the next (8, 12, 18, 27) and so on, i.e. we define the "primeness" as a number of times we have to replace it with its greatest divisor before we get to 1. Similarly we may try to play on this observation: a non-prime is a number that is divisible by something, i.e. there is some number that when dividing the original number gives remainder after division zero; primes are those for which no number gives remainder zero, but some primes might be considered "weaker" by giving very low or very high remainder such as 1, i.e. being "not quite but almost" divisible by something (of course we have to somehow account for the fact that low divisors can only ever give low remainders) -- ideal prime would have remainders after division near the half of the dividing number (it would dodge multiples of other numbers with some margin), which we can formalize and define kind of "prime strength".
TODO: generalization to non integers? does it exist?
**Can we generalize/modify the concept of prime numbers?** Yeah, sure, why not? The ways are many, we'll rather run into the issue of analysis paralysis -- choosing the interesting generalization of out of the many possible ways. Some possible generalizations include:
- **pseudoprimes**: the above mentioned, i.e. non-primes passing many prime tests.
- **almost primes**: a number is *n*-almost prime if it has *n* prime factors, so 1-almost primes are just regular primes (they have 1 prime divisor -- themselves) but then there are 2 almost primes like 9 or 15 that are kind of closer to being primes than let's say 5-almost-primes such as 48 or 80. We take the idea of numbers having either none (primes) or some (non-primes) divisors and generalized it by says a number is more prime like if it has fewer divisors.
- Another idea hinted on above: make a [tree](tree.md) of numbers with 1 as its root, assign each number a parent that's its greatest divisor (excluding the number itself); in this tree 1 is above prime numbers, prime numbers are on level 1, second level may be seen as the "next best thing" to primes (4, 6, 9, 10, 15, ...), third level the next (8, 12, 18, 27) and so on, i.e. we define the "primeness" as the depth in this tree, the number of times we have to replace the number with its greatest divisor before we get to 1.
- **[complex](complex_number.md) (Gaussian) primes**: This is not a strict generalization because we remove some primes by were primes before, but we may define prime numbers also within complex integers. Here we get primes to be 3, 7, 11, 19, 23 etc.
- Similarly we may try to play on this observation: a non-prime is a number that is divisible by something, i.e. there is some number that when dividing the original number gives remainder after division zero; primes are those for which no number gives remainder zero, but some primes might be considered "weaker" by giving very low or very high remainder such as 1, i.e. being "not quite but almost" divisible by something (of course we have to somehow account for the fact that low divisors can only ever give low remainders) -- ideal prime would have remainders after division near the half of the dividing number (it would dodge multiples of other numbers with some margin), which we can formalize and define kind of "prime strength".
- TODO: generalization to non integers? haven't found anything
*Not to be [confused](often_confused.md) with [coding](coding.md).*
Programming is the act, [science](science.md) and [art](art.md) of writing [computer](computer.md) [programs](program.md); it involves creation of [algorithms](algorithm.md) and [data structures](data_structure.md) and implementing them in [programming languages](programming_language.md). It may involve related activities such as [testing](testing.md), [debugging](debugging.md), [hacking](hacking.md) and drinking coffee.
In majority of cases a [programming language](programming_language.md) lets the programmer choose the visual/surface style in which to write the code -- one may choose names for variables, indent and align commands in a convenient way, insert comments and so on. This gives rise to various styles -- typically a programmer will have his own preferred style, kind of like handwriting, but once he works in a team, some compromise has to be found to which everyone must conform so as to keep the code nice, consistent and [readable](readability.md). Some project, e.g. [Linux](linux.md), have evolved quite good, tested and de facto standardized styles, so instead of inventing a custom style (which may not be as easy as it sounds) one may choose to adopt some of the existing styles.
There exist automatic code formatters, they are often called **code beautifiers**. But not everything can be automatized, for example inserting empty spaces to separate logically related parts of a sequential of code.
TODO: moar
## Recommended LRS C Programming Style/Formatting
Here we propose a programming style and C code formatting you may use in your programs. { It's basically a style I personally adopted and fine-tuned over many years of my programming. ~drummyfish } Remember that nothing is set in stone, the most important thing is usually to be consistent within a single project and to actually think about why you're doing things the way you're doing them. Keeping to the standard set here will gain you advantages such as increased readability for others already familiar with the same style and avoiding running into traps set by short-sighted decisions e.g. regarding identifiers. Try to think from the point of view of a programmer who gets just your source code without any way to communicate with you, make his life as easy as possible. The LRS style/formatting rules follow:
Here we propose a programming style and C code formatting you may use in your programs. { It's basically a style I personally adopted and fine-tuned over many years of my programming. ~drummyfish } Remember that nothing is set in stone (except that you mustn't use tabs), the most important thing is usually to be consistent within a single project and to actually think about why you're doing things the way you're doing them. Keeping to the standard set here will gain you advantages such as increased readability for others already familiar with the same style and avoiding running into traps set by short-sighted decisions e.g. regarding identifiers. Try to think from the point of view of a programmer who gets just your source code without any way to communicate with you, make his life as easy as possible. Also suppose he's reading your code on a calculator. The LRS style/formatting rules follow:
- **Respect the [LRS](lrs.md) design principles** ([KISS](kiss.md), no [OOP](oop.md), avoid dependencies such as [stdlib](stdlib.md) etc.).
- **Indentation: use two spaces, NEVER use [tabs](tab.md)**. Why? Tabs are ugly, tricky (look the same as spaces) non-standard behaving characters (behavior is dependent on editor and settings, some processors will silently convert tabs and spaces, copy-paste may do so also etc.), they don't carry over to some platforms (especially paper), some very simple platforms may not even support them; your source will contain spaces either way, no need to insert additional blank character.
RAM stands for *random access memory*, a type of [computer](computer.md) [memory](memory.md) characterized by allowing access to arbitrary addresses (as opposed to [SAM](sam.md) -- sequential memories, such as tapes, which only allow sequential access); a bit confusingly (for historical reasons) the term RAM came to be used more as a synonym for so called **main memory**, i.e. the computer's **working memory** (memory used for performing the actual computation, as opposed to e.g. persistent storage or [read only memory](rom.md)). It is true that working memory is very often a random access memory, but it doesn't always have to be so and there exist random access memories that don't serve as the main working memory. Similarly confusing is the fact that RAM is often opposed to [ROM](rom.md) (read only memory) -- again, it is true that many computers use RAM as main working memory and ROM as the "other" kind of memory used for static data so in practice these two complement each other, but it is entirely possible for random access memory to be read-only (so RAM can also be ROM) and so on. Nevertheless, though it's imprecise, in this articles we WILL conform to the established terminology a lot -- implicitly we will see RAM as meaning a **[volatile](volatile.md) random access read/write memory serving as a working memory** (volatile meaning it's erased on power off).
RAM stands for *random access memory*, a type of [computer](computer.md) [memory](memory.md) characterized by allowing access to arbitrary addresses (as opposed to [SAM](sam.md) -- sequential memories, such as tapes, which only allow sequential access); a bit [confusingly](often_confused.md) (for historical reasons) the term RAM came to be used more as a synonym for so called **main memory**, i.e. the computer's **working memory** (memory used for performing the actual computation, as opposed to e.g. persistent storage or [read only memory](rom.md)). It is true that working memory is very often a random access memory, but it doesn't always have to be so and there exist random access memories that don't serve as the main working memory. Similarly confusing is the fact that RAM is often opposed to [ROM](rom.md) (read only memory) -- again, it is true that many computers use RAM as main working memory and ROM as the "other" kind of memory used for static data so in practice these two complement each other, but it is entirely possible for random access memory to be read-only (so RAM can also be ROM) and so on. Nevertheless, though it's imprecise, in this articles we WILL conform to the established terminology a lot -- implicitly we will see RAM as meaning a **[volatile](volatile.md) random access read/write memory serving as a working memory** (volatile meaning it's erased on power off).
RAM is one of the main components of a computer, it closely cooperates with the [CPU](cpu.md); in fact CPU without RAM would be basically useless; RAM serves the CPU as a "scratchpad" where it keeps intermediate results to perform more complex calculations. RAM, being a relatively fast memory, is also often used to temporarily load parts of bigger [data](data.md) for faster access, sometimes it may also store the instructions of the program being executed by the CPU. For this RAM is, along with the CPU, one of the two components which can never be missing in a computer. A computer can work without a [hard disk](hdd.md), without keyboard, mouse and monitor, but it can never meaningfully work without RAM.
*Not to be confused with [pseudorandomess](pseudorandomness.md).*
*Not to be [confused](often_confused.md) with [pseudorandomess](pseudorandomness.md).*
Randomness means unpredictability, lack of patterns, and/or behavior without cause. Random events can only be predicted imperfectly using [probability](probability.md) because there is something present that's subject to chance, something we don't know; events may be random to us either because they are inherently random (i.e. they really have no cause, pattern etc.) or because we just lack knowledge or practical ability to perfectly predict the events. Randomness is one of the most basic, yet also one of the most difficult concepts to understand about our [Universe](universe.md) -- it's a phenomenon of uttermost practical importance, we encounter it every second of our daily lives, but it's also of no lesser interest to science, philosophy, art and religion. Whole libraries could be filled just with books about this topic, here we will be able to only scratch the surface of it by taking a look at the very basics of randomness, mostly as related to [programming](programming.md) and [math](math.md).
*Not to be [confused](often_confused.md) with [rule 34](rule43.md) xD*
Rule 110 is a specific [cellular automaton](cellular_automaton.md) (similar to e.g. [Game of Life](game_of_life.md)) which shows a very interesting behavior -- it is one of the simplest [Turing complete](turing_completeness.md) (computationally most powerful) systems with a balance of stable and [chaotic](chaos.md) behavior. In other words it is a system in which a very complex and interesting properties emerge from extremely simple rules. The name *rule 110* comes from [truth table](truth_table.md) that defines the automaton's behavior. Its **extreme simplicity** combined with full computational power is what makes rule 110 of great interest -- for example it can relatively easily be implemented as a [mechanical computer](mechanical.md) using only marbles and a very simple maze (there's a video somewhere on the Internet).
*Not to be [confused](often_confused.md) with [soyence](soyence.md)*.
Science (from Latin *scientia*, knowledge or understanding) in a wide sense means systematic gathering, inference and organization of knowledge, in a more strict, "western" sense this process has to be kept rational by obeying some specific strict rules and adhering to whatever principles of objectivity are currently set: nowadays for example the [scientific method](scientific_method.md) or mathematical [proof](proof.md). Sciences in the strict sense include [mathematics](math.md) (so called formal science), [physics](physics.md), biology, chemistry, [computer science](computer_science.md), as well as "soft sciences" such as [psychology](psychology.md), sociology etc. **The beauty of science is you don't have to trust anyone**: science is just about discovering ideas that work, ideas which anyone can test himself that work, so there is no place for preachers, reviewers, judges of "trustworthiness" or "credibility"; people do not matter at all in science, only ideas do. For this science is not to be confused not only with [pseudoscience](pseudoscience.md) (such as [numerology](numerology.md) or [astrology](astrology.md)) but especially with **[soyence](soyence.md)** (political propaganda masked as "science", e.g. [gender studies](gender_studies.md), sponsored "science" of big pharma etc.) -- it must be remembered that **when science can no longer be questioned, it seizes to be science**, as asking questions and examining EVERYTHING are the very basic premises of a true science: this means that anything prohibited to be questioned, by law or [otherwise](de_facto.md) (e.g. by [cancel culture](cancel_culture.md)), such as the [Holocaust](holocaust.md) (forbidden to be denied in many countries such as Germany), [COVID](covid.md) vaccines, [racial](race.md) differences (prohibited on grounds of "[hate speech](hate_speech.md)") and similar topics CANNOT be seen as scientifically established, but rather politically established. Any shift towards establishing principles of trust, belief and "[moderation](moderation.md)", such as nowadays standard [peer censorship](peer_review.md), turns science into religion. In the wider sense science may include anything that involves systematic intellectual research, e.g. [Buddhists](buddhism.md) often say their teaching is science rather than religion, that it is searching for objective truths, and it really is true -- a western fedora atheist will shit himself in rage hearing such claim, however that's all he can really do.
@ -6,4 +6,4 @@ Steve Jobs (also Steve Jewbs) was the prototypical evil [CEO](ceo.md) and co-fou
{ LOL how come in the American movies the villain is always some rich boss of a huge corporation clearly resembling Steve Jobs, doing literally the same things, it's almost as if the average American actually somehow KNOWS and feels deep inside these people are pure evil, but suddenly outside of a Hollywood movie their brain switches to "aaaaah, that guy is amazing" and they just eat all his bullshit. I just can't comprehend this. ~drummyfish }
Jobs was born on February 24, 1955 and later was adopted which may have contributed to his development of psychopathy. He was already very stupid as a little child, he never really learned programming and was only interested in achieving what he wanted by crying and pressuring other people to do things for him. This translated very well to his adult life when he quit school to pursue money. He manipulated and abused his schoolmate [Steve Wozniak](wozniak.md), a [hacker](hacker.md), to make computers for him. They started [Apple](apple.md) in 1976 and started producing one of the first personal computers: Apple I and Apple II with which he won the [capitalist](capitalism.md) lottery and unfortunately succeeded on the market. Apple became a big ass company, however Jobs was such [shit](shit.md) CEO that **Apple fired him** lol. He went to do some other shit like NeXT. Then a bunch of things happened (TODO) and then, to the relief of the whole world, he died on October 5, 2011 from cancer. { LRS never wishes for anyone's death, here we only state the simple fact that the world is a better place without Jobs in it. ~drummyfish }
Jobs was born on February 24, 1955 and later was adopted which may have contributed to his development of psychopathy. He was already very stupid as a little child, he never really learned programming and was only interested in achieving what he wanted by crying and pressuring other people to do things for him. This translated very well to his adult life when he quit school to pursue money. He manipulated and abused his schoolmate [Steve Wozniak](wozniak.md), a [hacker](hacker.md), to make computers for him. They started [Apple](apple.md) in 1976 and started producing one of the first personal computers: Apple I and Apple II with which he won the [capitalist](capitalism.md) lottery and unfortunately succeeded on the market. Apple became a big ass company, however Jobs was such [shit](shit.md) CEO that **Apple fired him** lol. He went to do some other shit like NeXT. Then a bunch of things happened (TODO) and then, to the relief of the whole world, he died on October 5, 2011 from cancer. { LRS never wishes for anyone's death, here we only state the simple fact that the world is a better place without Jobs in it. ~drummyfish } Some cause joy wherever they go, others whenever they go.
@ -20,19 +20,22 @@ Details such as to what extent/extreme this minimalism ("doing only one thing")
**Simple example**: maybe the most common practical example that can be given is [piping](pipe.md) small [command line](cli.md) utility programs; in Unix there exist a number of small programs that do *only one thing but do it well*, for example the [`cat`](cat.md) program that only concatenates and outputs the content of selected files, the [`grep`](grep.md) program that searches for patterns in text etc. In a command line we may use so called [pipes](pipe.md) to chain some of these simple programs into more complex processing pipelines by redirecting one program's output stream to another one's input. Let's say we want to for example automatically list all first and second level headings on given webpage and write them out alphabetically sorted. We can do it with a command such as this one:
In the command the pipes (`|`) chain multiple programs together so that the output of one becomes the input of the next. The first command, [`curl`](curl.md), downloads the [HTML](html.md) content of the webpage and passes it to the second command, [`grep`](grep.md), which filters the text and only prints lines with headings, this is passed to [`sed`](sed.md) that removes the HTML code and the result is passed to `sort` that sorts the lines alphabetically -- as this is the last command, the result is then printed out. This is fast, powerful and very flexible way of processing data for anyone who knows the Unix tools. Notice the relative simplicity of each command and how each one works as a **[text](text.md) [filter](filter.md)**; text is a universal communication interface and behaving as a filter makes intercommunication easy and efficient. A filter simply takes an input stream of data and outputs another stream of data; it ideally works on-the-go (without having to load whole input in order to produce the output), which has great many advantages, for example requiring only a small amount of memory (which may become significant when we are running many programs at once in the pipeline) and decreasing [latency](latency.md) (the next pipe stage may start processing the data before the previous stage finishes). When you're writing a program, such as for example a [compression](compression.md) tool, make it work like this.
In the command the pipes (`|`) chain multiple programs together so that the output of one becomes the input of the next. The first command, *[wget](wget.md)*, downloads the [HTML](html.md) content of the webpage and passes it to the second command, *[grep](grep.md)*, which filters the text and only prints lines with headings (using so called [regular expressions](regex.md)), this is passed to *[sed](sed.md)* that removes the HTML code and the result is passed to *sort* that sorts the lines alphabetically -- as this is the last command, the result is then printed out, but we could also e.g. add ` > output.txt` at the end to save the result into a text file instead. We also use [flags](flag.md) to modify the behavior of the programs, for example `-i` tells *grep* to work in case-insensitive mode, `-q` tells *wget* to be silent and not print things such as download progress. [This whole wiki](lrs_wiki.md) is basically made on top of a few scripts like this (compare e.g. to [MediaWiki](mediawiki.md) software), so you literally see the manifestation of these presented concepts as you're reading this. This kind of "workflow" is a fast, powerful and very flexible way of processing data for anyone who knows the Unix tools. Notice the relative simplicity of each command and how each one works as a **[text](text.md) [filter](filter.md)**; text is a universal communication interface and behaving as a filter makes intercommunication easy and efficient, utilizing the principle of a [pipeline](pipeline.md). A filter simply takes an input stream of data and outputs another stream of data; it ideally works on-the-go (without having to load whole input in order to produce the output), which has numerous advantages, for example requiring only a small amount of memory (which may become significant when we are running many programs at once in the pipeline, imagine e.g. a server with 10000 users, each one running his own commands like this) and decreasing [latency](latency.md) (the next pipe stage may start processing the data before the previous stage finishes). When you're writing a program, such as for example a [compression](compression.md) tool, make it work like this.
Compare this to the opposite [Windows philosophy](windows_philosophy.md) in which combining programs into collaborating units is not intended, is possibly even purposefully prevented and therefore very difficult, slow and impractical to do -- such programs are designed for manually performing some predefined actions, mostly using [GUI](gui.md), e.g. painting pictures with a mouse, but aren't made to collaborate or be automatized, they can rarely be used in unintended, inventive ways needed for powerful [hacking](hacking.md). Getting back to the example of a compression tool, on Windows such a program would be a large GUI program that requires a user to open up a file dialog, manually select a file to compress, which would then probably go on to load the whole file into memory, perform compression there, and the write the data back to some other file. Need to use the program on a computer without graphical display? Automatize it to work with other programs? Run it from a script? Run it 10000 at the same time with 10000 other similar programs? Bad luck, Windows philosophy doesn't allow this.
{ Though legally there are no collaborators -- I do my best to ensure I stay far away from the line of someone's copyrightable work making it here -- there are people who helped me with the wiki in a way that's practically significant, for example those who sent me interesting links, donations, corrected my errors, commented on something, suggested jokes and so on. I would like to thank them from my whole heart <3Asitmayberiskyforanyonetoassociatewithme,Iwillimplicitlynotnameanyone,butifyouwouldwantyournameornickhere,letmeknow.~drummyfish}
{ Though legally there are no other collaborators in terms of copyright -- I do my best to ensure I stay far away from the line of someone's copyrightable work making it here -- there are people who helped me with the wiki in a way that's practically significant, for example those who sent me links, donations, corrected my errors, commented on something or simply supported me in doing what I do. I would like to thank them from my whole heart <3Asitmayberiskyforanyonetoassociatewithme,Iwillimplicitlynotnameanyone,butifyouwouldwantyournameornickhere,letmeknow.~drummyfish}
Special thanks goes to my email friend Ramon who heavily proofreads the wiki, sends me interesting findings, links and amazing ideas for [jokes](jokes.md).
@ -4,6 +4,6 @@ World of Warcraft (WoW) is an AAA [proprietary](proprietary.md) [game](game.md)
There is a [FOSS](foss.md) implementation of WoW server called [MaNGOS](mangos.md) (now having some [forks](fork.md)) that's used to make private servers. The client is of course proprietary and if you dare make a popular server Blizzard (or whatever it's called now, it's probably merged with [Micro$oft](microfost.md) or something now) will just rape you.
The classic WoW (mostly the vanilla but we can possibly extend this to the end of WOTLK) lied somewhere in the middle between good old and shitty [modern](modern.md) games, it had many great things like the iconic awesome [low poly](low_poly.md) hand painted stylized graphics, big open world, amazing PvP and PvE, but the modern poison was already creeping in. The WoW of today is of course 100% pure [shit](shit.md), it's [bloated](blot.md) beyond any imagination, the graphics is absolutely ruined (semi realistic style with the retarded shit like character outlines), it's extremely [censored](censorship.md) and [politically correct](political_correctness.md) (you can literally change gender of your character at barbershop lol, they did this out of fear of [LGBT](lgbt.md), they also removed the *spit* emote because it was "offensive" -- yes, a game that's all about [war](war.md) and killing and literally has war in its name must restrain you from hurting someone's feelings by spitting on the ground). You can also make any weapon or armor make look like any other weapon or armor ("transmog"), that just kills the whole point of an RPG, some players also see a different world than others ("phasing") and so on. Also basically every race can now be any class, even if it doesn't make any sense, like Tauren rogue (in the past this used to be a [joke](joke.md) but today jokes are made into reality) -- otherwise it would be [racism](racism.md) or something. The game has about 1 billion expansions while the lore writers had already ran out of any ideas after like 5 of them, so they now just started to mess around with time travel and alternative timelines (resorting to time rape is always that desperate last resort move which signifies the work has been dead for a long time by then). The game is so bad Blizzard even started running official vanilla, no expansion servers ("classic WoW"), which is the only thing holding it above the water now. Of course before this they nuked all the popular unofficial private vanilla servers with legal threats so they could force a [monopoly](monopoly.md) -- this destroyed great many communities but Blizzard is a corporation so they could do anything they want.
The classic WoW (mostly the vanilla but we can possibly extend this to the end of WOTLK) lied somewhere in the middle between good old and shitty [modern](modern.md) games, it had many great things like the iconic awesome [low poly](low_poly.md) hand painted stylized graphics, big open world, amazing PvP and PvE, but the modern poison was already creeping in. The WoW of today is of course 100% pure [shit](shit.md), it's [bloated](blot.md) beyond any imagination, the graphics is absolutely ruined (semi realistic style, everything looks like a cheap plastic toy, with the retarded shit like character outlines, it looks much worse and is also 10000x heavier on the GPU), it's extremely [censored](censorship.md) and [politically correct](political_correctness.md) (you can literally change gender of your character at barbershop lol, they did this out of fear of [LGBT](lgbt.md), they also removed the *spit* emote because it was "offensive" -- yes, a game that's all about [war](war.md) and killing and literally has war in its name must restrain you from hurting someone's feelings by spitting on the ground). You can also make any weapon or armor make look like any other weapon or armor ("transmog"), that just kills the whole point of an RPG, some players also see a different world than others ("phasing") and so on. Also basically every race can now be any class, even if it doesn't make any sense, like Tauren rogue (in the past this used to be a [joke](joke.md) but today jokes are made into reality) -- otherwise it would be [racism](racism.md) or something. The game has about 1 billion expansions while the lore writers had already ran out of any ideas after like 5 of them, so they now just started to mess around with time travel and alternative timelines (resorting to time rape is always that desperate last resort move which signifies the work has been dead for a long time by then). The game is so bad Blizzard even started running official vanilla, no expansion servers ("classic WoW"), which is the only thing holding it above the water now. Of course before this they nuked all the popular unofficial private vanilla servers with legal threats so they could force a [monopoly](monopoly.md) -- this destroyed great many communities but Blizzard is a corporation so they could do anything they want.
{ For me the peak of Warcraft was [Warcraft III:TFT](warcraft.md), it was perfect in every way (except for being proprietary and bloated of course). As a great fan of Warcraft III, seeing WoW in screenshots my fantasy made it the best game possible to be created. When I actually got to playing it it was really good -- some of my best memories come from that time -- nevertheless I also remember being disappointed in many ways. Especially with limitation of freedom (soulbound items, forced grinding, effective linearity of leveling, GMs preventing hacking the game in fun ways etc.) and here and there a lack of polish (there were literally visible unfinished parts of the map, also visual transitions between zones too fast and ugly and the overall world design felt kind of bad), laziness and repetitiveness of the design. I knew how the game could be fixed, however I also knew it would never be fixed as it was in hands of a corporation that had other plans with it. That was the time I slowly started to see things not being ideal and the possibility of a great thing going to shit. ~drummyfish }
