@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ Capitalist brainwashing is pretty sophisticated -- unlike with centralized oppre
- *"Capitalism is freedom."* -- This is of course a complete twist of the word freedom: capitalism promotes freedom of market which goes against the freedom of people. I.e. the freedom enabled by capitalism is the freedom to abuse others; the freedom to restrict freedoms of others, which is of almost the polar opposite of genuine freedom.
- *"In capitalism everyone can make it if he only works hard."* -- This is firstly of course not even logically possible, it's just as claiming that everyone can win the Olympic games; to reach the top in an extremely competitive system not only do you have to work hard, you also have to be born with the right talent, in the right place, to the right family, and be immensely lucky to be in right places in right times and make correct guess decisions in situations in which it is impossible to know the correct decision. Even if you work 24/7 without sleep, there will be thousands of others who do the same, your success is a pure bet on lottery. **Capitalist fairy tales make heavy use of the [survivorship bias](survivorship_bias.md)** -- you will see movies only about the successful people who are asked how they achieved success and who answer along the lines "I just worked hard". Indeed they did, but this doesn't imply that anyone working hard will succeed, this is the same as taking an advice from a lottery winner; if you ask a lottery winner how he won the lottery, he will simply say "I bet all I had on a random number". Following such advice is of course just about the worse decision you can make. If everyone can make it, why doesn't everyone do it, why don't we have a wold consisting exclusively of billionaires?
- *"Capitalism just works, capitalism is natural, capitalism means progress etc."* -- **Capitalism doesn't work, it's just hard to get rid of.** If it "works and is natural", then it works and is natural natural in the same way as for example cancer or wars. This doesn't mean we should support it or see it as something positive. Most of other similar lies are discussed in sections above.
- *"Capitalism just works, capitalism is natural, capitalism means progress etc."* -- **Capitalism doesn't work, it's just hard to get rid of.**Progress isn't dependent on capitalism, progress can't be stopped and will be here even without capitalism. If it "works and is natural", then it works and is natural natural in the same way as for example cancer or wars. This doesn't mean we should support it or see it as something positive. Most of other similar lies are discussed in sections above.
- Fairy tales about about the rich capitalist altruist: you will hear stories about famous capitalists that paint them as nice guys who give to poor for free, who do manual work despite not having to etc. This is just part of cult of personality propaganda and applying cheap populist tricks to deceive masses. A rich guy giving $100 to a poor kid on camera is an extreme powerful marketing that costs $100, which for a billionaire is of course a laughable cost. The fact is that every billionaire is the best player of the most dirty game humanity has invented and researching any such guy reveals, basically in 100% of cases, that he was in fact the worst imaginable psychopath -- Edison killed animals with electric current as part of marketing, the owner of McDonald's stole the idea and know-how from McDonald brothers ALONG WITH their own name, similar thing happened with KFC, Steve Jobs was infamous for his psychological pressure on workers equating torture, the working condition's in Ford's factories were basically the same as those for black African slaves, etcetc. **Trying to find a rich man that's good is like trying to find a shark who's a vegetarian.**
- *"Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best system we know."*: complete [bullshit](bullshit.md), capitalism is probably the worst system that there ever was. See this whole article.
- *"Successful capitalists are the most intelligent people."*: on the contrary, mostly the stupidest people become successful -- success in capitalism depends mostly on luck and lack of moral obstacles, i.e. doing whatever it takes to succeed such as stabbing friends in the back, public lying, exploitation of workers etc. High intelligence is actually a disadvantage in this manner as it makes one see all the negative consequences of his behavior, a smart man sees that by engaging in capitalism he is not just hurting and even killing other people, but even e.g. working towards destruction of art, culture, living environment and possibly life itself. Being a successful businessman in capitalism is like steering a plane full of people, including oneself, towards ground -- only an idiot can do it.
@ -10,11 +10,13 @@ Great nerds read encyclopedias linearly from start to finish just like a normal
**Similar terms:** encyclopedias, which also used to be called **cyclopedias** in the past, are similar to **dictionaries** and these types of books often overlap (many encyclopedias call themselves dictionaries); the main difference is that a dictionary focuses on providing linguistic information and generally has shorter term definitions, while encyclopedias have longer articles (which however limits their total number, i.e. encyclopedias will usually prefer quality over quantity). Encyclopedias are also a subset of so called **reference works**, i.e. works that serve to provide [information](information.md) and reference to it (other kinds of reference works being e.g. world maps, tabulated values or [API](api.md) references). A **universal/general** encyclopedia is one that focuses on human knowledge at wide, as opposed to an encyclopedia that focuses on one specific field of knowledge. **Compendium** can be seen almost as a synonym to encyclopedia, with encyclopedias perhaps usually being more general and extensive. **Almanac** is also similar to encyclopedia, more focusing on tabular data. **Micropedia** is another term, sometimes used to denote a smaller encyclopedia (one edition of Britannica came with a micropedia as well as a larger macropedia).
**What is the best letter in an encyclopedia?** If you are super nerdy, you may start to search for your favorite starting letter -- this if [fun](fun.md) and may also help you e.g. decide which volume of your encyclopedia to take with you when traveling. Which letter is best depends on many things, e.g. the language of the encyclopedia, its size, your area of interest and so on. Assuming [English](english.md) and topics that would be interesting to the readers of [LRS wiki](lrs_wiki.md), the best letter is most likely C -- it is the second most common starting letter in dictionaries, has a great span and includes essential and interesting terms such as [computer](computer.md), [C](c.md) programming language, [cat](cat.md), [communism](communism.md), [capitalism](capitalism.md), [chess](chess.md), [christianity](christianity.md), [collapse](collpase.md), [CPU](cpu.md), [color](color.md), [culture](culture.md), [copyleft](copyleft.md), [compiler](compiler.md), [creative commons](creative_commons.md), [cryptography](cryptography.md), [copyright](copyright.md), [car](car.md), [cancer](cancer.md), [cellular automata](cellular_automaton.md), [consumerism](consumerism.md), [cosine](cosine.md), [Chomsky](chomsky.md), [CIA](cia.md), [cybernetics](cybernetics.md), [cracking](cracking.md), [chaos](chaos.md), [carbon](carbon.md), [curvature](curvature.md), [chemistry](chemistry.md), [censorship](censorship.md) and others. As close second comes S, the most frequent letter in dictionaries, with terms such as [Stallman](rms.md), [science](science.md), [shader](shader.md), [semiconductor](semiconductor.md), [silicon](silicon.md), [software](software.md), [sound](sound.md), [socialism](socialism.md), [state](state.md), [selflessness](selflessness.md), [speech recognition](speech_recognition.md), [steganography](steganography.md), [square root](square_root.md), [sudoku](sudoku.md), [suicide](kys.md), [speedrun](speedrun.md), [space](space.md), [star](star.md), [Sun](sun.md), [sine](sin.md), [Soviet union](ussr.md), [schizophrenia](schizo.md), [set](set.md), [suckless](suckless.md), [shit](shit.md), [sex](sex.md) and others. { This is based on a list I made where I assigned points to each letter. The letters that follow after C and S are P, M, A, E, T, L, R, F, D, G, I, B, H, U, N, W, V, J, O, K, Q, Z, Y, X. ~drummyfish }
## Notable/Nice Encyclopedias
Here is a list of notable encyclopedias, focused on general knowledge English language ones that are preferrably publicly available (or easy to get).
Here is a list of notable encyclopedias, focused on general knowledge English language ones.
{ See also https://wikiindex.org/. ~drummyfish }
@ -27,7 +29,7 @@ Here is a list of notable encyclopedias, focused on general knowledge English la
| Collier's New Encyclopedia | 1921 | PD (old) | 10 vol. | | NOT TO BE CONFUSED with Collier's Encyclopedia (different one), digitized on Wikisource (txt) |
| Columbia Encyclopedia |1935...| proprietary | 1 vol. ~3Kp | ~50K | high quality, lots of information { Read the 1993 edition, it's super nice. ~drummyfish } |
|[Conservaedia](conservapedia.md)|2006...| proprietary | online | 52K | American fascist wiki, has basic factual errors |
| Desk Reference Encyclopedia | 1995 | proprietary | 1 vol. 800p | 200K? | by James Hughes, nice illustrations, quality general overviews { I bought this, it's nice. ~drummyfish } |
| Larousse Desk Reference Enc. | 1995 | proprietary | 1 vol. 800p | 200K? | by James Hughes, nice illustrations, quality general overviews { I bought this, it's nice. ~drummyfish } |
| Encyclopedia Americana |1820...| PD (old) | ~30 vol. | | longer articles, part of "Big Three", several editions (1906, 1920) partially digitized on Wikisource |
| Encyclopedia Dramatica |2004...| PD (CC0) | online | 15K | informal/fun/"offensive" but valuable info (on society, tech, ...), basically no censorship, no propaganda |
@ -51,5 +53,4 @@ Here is a list of notable encyclopedias, focused on general knowledge English la
| World Almanac and Book of Facts|1868...| some PD (old) | 1 vol. | | interesting and useful information, data and facts from old to new age, US-centered |
| The World Book |1917...| proprietary | 22 vol. | 17K | best selling print enc., large, probably high quality |
| The World Book 1917 |1917 | PD (old) | 8 vol. | 3K | nicely readable |
Feminism is a [fascist](fascism.md) [terrorist](terrorism.md) [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) movement aiming for the establishing female as the superior gender, for social revenge on men and gaining political power, e.g. that over [language](political_correctness.md). Similarly to [LGBT](lgbt.md), feminism is violent, [toxic](toxic.md) and [harmful](harmful.md), based on [brainwashing](brainwashing.md), mass hysteria, [bullying](bullying.md) (e.g. the [metoo](metoo.md) campaign) and [propaganda](propaganda.md).
[LMAO](lmao.md), this just sums up the feminist ways: **a supposed woman writer who won 1 million euro prize turned out to actually be three men writers**, see Carmen Mola :)
If anything's clear, then that feminism is not at all about gender equality but about hatred towards men. Firstly feminism is not called *gender equality movement* but *feminism*, i.e. for-female, and as we know, [name plays a huge role](name_is_important.md). To a feminist man is what a [jew](jew.md) was to the Nazi; the whole story is repeated again, we have yet again not learned a bit from our history. Indeed, women have historically been oppressed and needed support, but once women reach social equality -- which has basically already happened a long time ago now -- feminist movement will, if only by [social inertia](social_inertia.md), keep pursuing more advantages for women (what else should a movement called *feminism* do?), i.e. at this point the new goal has already become female superiority. In the age of capital no one is going to just dissolve a movement because it has already reached its goal, such a movement present political capital one will simply not throw out of window, so feminists will forever keep saying they're being oppressed and will forever keep inventing new bullshit issues to keep [fighting](fight_culture.md). Note for example that feminists care about things such as wage gap but of course absolutely don't give a damn about opposite direction inequality, such as men dying on average much younger than women etc. -- feminism cares about women, not equality. And of course, when men establish "men rights" movements, suddenly feminists see those as "fascist", "toxic" and "violent" and try to destroy such movements.
Part of the success of feminism is also [capitalism](capitalism.md) -- women with priviledges, e.g. those of not having to work as much as men, are not accepted under capitalism; everyone has to be exploited as much as possible, everyone has to be a work slave. Therefore capitalist propaganda promotes ideas such as "women not having to work is oppression by men and something a woman should be ashamed of", which is of course laughable, but with enough brainwashing anything can be established, even the most ridiculous and obvious bullshit.
A finished [project](project.md) is completed, working and doesn't need regular [maintenance](maintenance.md), it serves its users and doesn't put any more significant burden of development cost on anyone. A finished project is not necessarily perfect and [bugless](bug.md), it is typically just working as intended, greatly [stable](stable.md), usable, well [optimized](optimization.md) and [good enough](good_enough.md). In a sane society (such as [lrs](less_retarded_society.md)) when we start a project, we are deciding to invest some effort into it with the promise of one day finishing it and then only benefiting from it for evermore; however under [capitalist's](capitalism.md) [update culture](update_culture.md) nothing really gets finished, projects are started with the goal of developing them forever so as to enslave more and more people (or, as capitalists put it, "create jobs" for them), which is extremely [harmful](harmful.md). Finished project often have the [version number](version_numbering.md) 1.0, however under capitalist update culture this just a checkpoint towards implementing basic features which doesn't really imply the project is finished (after 1.0 they simply aim for 2.0, 3.0 etc.). **Always aim for projects that will be finished** (even if potentially not by you); sure, even in a good society SOME projects may be "perpetual" in nature -- for example an [encyclopedia](encyclopedia.md) that's updated every 5 years with new knowledge and discoveries -- however this should only be the case where NECESSARY and the negative effects of this perpetual nature should be minimized (for example with the encyclopedia we should make the update span as large as possible, let's say 5 years as opposed to 1 year, and we should yield a nice and tidy release after every update).
Examples of projects that have been finished are:
- [Collapse OS](collapse_os.md)
- [Anarch](anarch.md)
- Old [video games](game.md), especially those for game consoles distributed on physical media such as cartridges or CDs. When for example a [GameBoy](gameboy.md) game was released back then, it had to work as the user would buy the cartridge whose content couldn't be updated over the [Internet](internet.md), if there was a bug, it was there forever.
- ...
**How to make greatly finishable projects?**
- Make a plan and stick to it, have a goal for what the project should look like when finished, have a [roadmap](roadmap.md) (even if only in your head). I.e. don't aim for "creating a good text editor", aim for "creating a text editor with features X, Y, Z that's written in under N lines of code".
- Only use time-tested [suckless](suckless.md)/[LRS](lrs.md) [future proof](future_proof.md) technology that's itself finished, for example the [C99](c.md) language.
- [Keep it simple](kiss.md), minimize [dependencies](dependency.md) (there are often the cause for the need of [maintenance](maintenance.md)), adhere to extreme [minimalism](minimalism.md). See also [portability](portability.md).
Infinity (from Latin *in* and *finis*, *without end*) is a quantity so unimaginably large that it has no end. It plays a large role especially in [mathematics](math.md) and [philosophy](philosophy.md). As a "largest imaginable quantity" it is sometimes seen as the opposite to the number [zero](zero.md), the "smallest possible quantity", though other "opposites" can be though of too, such as minus infinity or an infinitely small non-zero number ([infinitesimal](infinitesimal.md)). The symbol for infinity is *lemniscate*, the symbol 8 turned 90 degrees ([unicode](unicode.md) U+221E). Keep in mind that mere lack of boundaries doesn't imply infinity -- a [circle](circle.md) has no end but is not infinite; an infinity implies there is always more, no matter how much we get.
Infinity (from Latin *in* and *finis*, *without end*) is a quantity so unimaginably large that it has no end. It plays a prominent role especially in [mathematics](math.md) and [philosophy](philosophy.md). As a "largest imaginable quantity" it is sometimes seen to be the opposite of the number [zero](zero.md), the "smallest possible quantity", though other "opposites" can be though of too, such as minus infinity or an infinitely small non-zero number ([infinitesimal](infinitesimal.md)). The symbol for infinity is *lemniscate*, the symbol 8 turned 90 degrees ([unicode](unicode.md) U+221E). Keep in mind that mere lack of boundaries doesn't imply infinity -- a [circle](circle.md) has no end but is not infinite; an infinity implies there is always more, no matter how much we get.
The concept of infinity came to firstly be explored by philosophers -- as an abstract concept (similar to those of e.g. [zero](zero.md) or negative numbers) it took a while for it to evolve, be explored and accepted. We can't say who first "discovered" infinity, civilizations often had concepts similar to it that were connected for example to their gods. Zeno of Elea (5th century BC) was one of the earliest to tackle the issue of infinity mathematically by proposing [paradoxes](paradox.md) such as that of Achilles and the tortoise.
The term *infinity* has two slightly distinct meanings:
- **potential infinity**: The unboundedness, lack of upper limit. For example the sequence of odd numbers 1, 3, 5, ... is potentially infinite. This is the less problematic kind of infinity as we know what's going on: we simply lack any limit and can keep going on forever.
- **actual infinity**: Infinity as an actual "object" (for example a number) that's somehow "endlessly large", larger beyond any limits, largest possible etc. This type of infinity poses more issues as we don't know anything like this from [real life](irl.md), we lack experience and intuition about it, we don't know how such an object should behave and we encounter [paradoxes](paradox.md). For example if we have the largest object possible, what happens if we put two of such objects together, will we get yet larger object or not? How about two infinities minus one infinity -- is that an infinity or zero?
- **actual infinity**: Infinity as an actual "object" (for example a number) that's somehow "endlessly large", larger beyond any limits, largest possible etc. This type of infinity poses more issues as we don't know anything like this from [real life](irl.md), we lack experience and intuition about it, we don't know how such an object should behave and we encounter [paradoxes](paradox.md). For example if we have the largest object possible, what happens if we put two of such objects together, will we get yet larger object or not? How about two infinities minus one infinity -- is that an infinity or zero? What if we shrink infinity to half, what size will it have?
It could be argued that potential infinity is really the reason for the existence of true, high level mathematics as we know it, as that is concerned with constructing mathematical [proofs](proof.md) -- such proofs are needed anywhere where there exist infinitely many possibilities, as if there was only a finite number of possibilities, we could simply enumerate and check them all without much thinking (e.g. with the help of a [computer](computer.md)). For example to confirm [Fermat's Last Theorem](fermats_last_theorem) ("for whole numbers and *n > 2* the equation *a^n + b^n = c^n* doesn't have a solution") we need a logical proof because there are infinitely many numbers; if there were only finitely many numbers, we could simply check them all and see if the theorem holds. So infinity, in a sense, is really what forces mathematicians to think.
@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ Our society is **[anarcho pacifist](anpac.md) and [communist](communism.md)**, m
- **If you say it's possible, why wasn't it done before?** Firstly small scale communities working on anarchist and peaceful principles have existed for a long time in environments that allow it, e.g. those that have abundance of resources. Globally society couldn't reach this state because only until recently we lacked the technology to provide such an ideal environment globally or even on a scale of a whole country, i.e. only until recently we have been forced by the nature to compete for basic resources such as food and space to live. However with computers, factories, high level of automation and other technology and knowledge we posses, we now have, for the first time in history, the capability to establish an environment with abundance of resources for everyone on the planet. Nowadays only social inertia in the form of [capitalism](capitalism.md) is ARTIFICIALLY keeping scarcity and social competition in place -- getting rid of this obsolete system is now needed to allow establishment of our ideal society. Part of the answer to this question may also be that reaching such an advanced state of society requires long development, technological, cultural and intellectual, just as many other things (things like abolishment of death sentence or even accepting the existence of irrational numbers all required a long time of cultural development).
- **How will you make people work?** We won't, in an ideal society people don't have to work, all work is done by machines -- that's the point of creating machines in the first place. In practice there may in a foreseeable future be the need for small amounts of human work such as overlooking the machines, but the amount of work can be so small that volunteers will easily handle it -- especially with people having no burden of working day jobs there should be no shortage of volunteers. Remember that by abandoning the current system 99% of "bullshit work" (marketing, lawyers, bureaucracy, fashion, ...) will disappear.
- **Does elimination of bullshit jobs mean my favorite activity will disappear?!** Unless your hobby is something like killing people for fun, we don't aim to force anyone quitting anything he likes to do, on the contrary we aim exactly to establish the freedom to do anything one desires. So if you like e.g. designing clothes, you are free to do so as a form of art, we just argue against e.g. socially forced necessity to follow fashion in clothing and making capitalist business out of it, which is what we call "bullshit". We believe most bullshit activities that were invented by capitalism, such as marketing, will simply naturally disappear once capitalism ends -- there is no need to force disappearance of something that dies out naturally.
- **How will society make progress?** Just as it always had: by science, curiosity, necessity, accidental discoveries, pursuit of creating art etc.
- **How will society make progress?** Just as it always had: by science, curiosity, necessity, accidental discoveries, pursuit of creating art etc. It is a mistake to think we need capitalism or anything similar in order to make progress; progress cannot be stopped no matter what, it will always be here as long as humans exist.
- **How do you prevent natural human selfish and violent behavior?** Violent and selfish behavior is natural in us just as peaceful and altruistic behavior, we have two sides and which one shows is mostly determined by the conditions in which we live, by our upbringing and people we see as role models. Nowadays we think people are extremely selfish and violent because we live in society that highly fuels the "evil" side in us, when we're forced to fight for basic living and grow up in a highly competitive environment, it's no surprise most adapt to this and grow up to be "dicks". If we're forced to fight for food and brainwashed since birth that "life is a [fight](fight_culture.md)", we will be selfish and violent, just as wild wolves are violent while pet dogs whose needs are secured and who were raised peacefully are mostly completely peaceful. If we have abundance and grow up in a society that naturally rejects any violence, we will grow up to solve conflicts peacefully and think of others, just as nowadays we e.g. naturally learn to wear clothes because simply everyone does it and there is little reason not to. If we make resources abundant, there will be no need for selfishness -- do you see anyone stealing air from others out of selfishness? No, because there is no need for it, air is abundant. By changing the environment people live and grow up in we will make 99.99% of people abandon violence and selfish interests (note the remaining natural need for selfishness and competition can be satisfied e.g. with games).
- **How will you prevent chaos without laws or rules for the people?** We don't say there should be no rules, we are just against complicated written law that no one can even comprehend (even lawyers don't know all laws nowadays) and that has so little in common with morality. Our society works on the basis of moral rules that all stem from the common goal of well being of living beings and that are derived and taught by people themselves -- for example one moral rule that all people would learn would be that money is bad for society (along with the reasons why it is so) and even though there would be no police "enforcing" this rule, the rule would be effective by the fact that absolute majority of people would simply refuse to use money -- in a society where most people know capitalism is bad for them capitalism can't work. Note the importance of the fact that people wouldn't just be taught to memorize such rules as "facts set in stone" (as is our current law), emphasis would be put on people deriving their moral code and understanding how their behavior affects others, people would learn and teach by example.
- **How will you prevent criminality such as stealing, murder and mafia organizations?** In a society with abundance for all which works for the good of all criminality simply won't make sense, i.e. we will eliminate criminality by solving the root cause of it, not by curing the symptoms (building prisons etc.). People have no reason to revolt against a system that benefits them or attack other people if there is no conflict between them. Large criminal organizations also cannot exist if most population rejects them, for example there cannot arise a capitalist corporation (or a similar mafia organization) if most population is educated and refuses to engage in capitalism. In addition to this a more mature, educated and responsible society will naturally minimize genetic predisposition to things such as aggressivity and self interest by natural selection as females will choose to rather have offspring with good people (unlike today), making genes associated with bad behavior go extinct. Of course, we probably won't eliminate criminality 100%, but that's not possible under any other system -- even in your current society with prisons and other punishments there still exist criminality. Of course in practice, until we achieve our ideal, we will likely need to keep some anti-criminality precautions as a necessary evil, but generally we will be able to greatly relax them (reduce police numbers, abandon death penalty, ...) as we move towards the ideal society. For example in an intermediate state of our society dangerous criminals won't be killed but only immobilized and they won't be put in prisons as a punishment but only sent to e.g. a remote island so as to be isolated, without punishing them by restricting their freedom within the island.
@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ The definition here is not strict but rather [fuzzy](fuzzy.md), it is in a form
- Being [free culture](free_culture.md), i.e. LRS programs are free as a whole, including art assets, data etc.
- Minimizing [dependencies](dependency.md), even those such as standard library or relying on OS concepts such as files or threads, even indirect ones such as build systems and even non-software ones (e.g. avoiding [floating point](float.md), GPU, 64bit etc.).
- Very portable, non-discriminating, i.e. being written in a portable language (C, [comun](comun.md) etc.), using as little resources as possible (RAM, CPU, ...) and so on.
- [Future-proof](future_proof.md), [self-contained](self_contained.md), not controlled by anyone (should follow from other points). This may even include attributes such as physical durability and design that maximizes the devices life.
- [Future-proof](future_proof.md), [self-contained](self_contained.md), [finished](finished.md) as much as possible, not controlled by anyone (should follow from other points). This may even include attributes such as physical durability and design that maximizes the devices life.
- [Hacking](hacking.md) friendly and inviting to improvements and customization, highly adhering to [hacker culture](hacking.md).
- Built on top of other LRS technology such as the [C99](c.md) language, Unix OS, our own libraries etc.
- Simple permissive licensing (being suckless legally) with great preference of [public domain](public_domain.md), e.g. with [CC0](cc0.md) + patent [waivers](waiver.md).
@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ If you contribute, add yourself to [wiki authors](wiki_authors.md)! You can also
- The style of this wiki is inspired by the classic hacker culture works such as the [WikiWikiWeb](wikiwikiweb.md) and [Jargon File](jargon_file.md).
- **Writing style should be relaxed and in many parts informal**. Formality is used where it is useful (e.g. definitions), most of other text can benefit from being written as a tech conversation among friends.
- **Depth/complexity/level of articles**: Articles shouldn't try to go to unnecessary depth, but also shouldn't be shallow. This is written mainly for programmers of [less retarded society](less_retarded_society.md), the complexity should follow from that. Again, start simple and go more into depth later on in the article, very complex things should rather be explained intuitively, no need for complex proofs etc.
- **The wiki is kind of a dirty idea dump**, it may contain TODOs, WIPs, errors, ugliness etc., it is not a [finished](finished.md) beautiful and tidy encyclopedia. Remember this wiki is kind of a temporary (though long term) project that's meant to host, communicate and spread ideas that should direct us towards better society, it is a vehicle that should get us somewhere else and will potentially be replaced by something else once we are there. Therefore aims for perfection and beauty shouldn't stand in way of just communicating ideas (i.e. do not delete content for its ugliness if that content is still potentially useful).
- **Political incorrectness, slurs and "offensive speech" are highly encouraged**. Avoid the use of the word "person" (use "man", "guy", "human", "one" etc., possibly "individual" at worst). Of course this is not to "offend" anyone, this helps people unlearn being offended.
- **Images**: for now don't embed images. [ASCII art](ascii_art.md) can be used in many places instead of an image. Thousand words are worth a picture. Non-embedding links to images may be okay.
- **You can leave comments right in the text of articles**, e.g. like this: { I disagree with this [shit](shit.md). ~drummyfish }.
