Update

art.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ Art is an endeavor that seeks discovery and creation of [beauty](beauty.md) and
 
 **Good art always needs time**, usually a lot of time, and you cannot predict how much time it will need, **art cannot be made on schedule** or as a product. By definition creating true art is never a routine (though it requires well trained skills in routine tasks), it always invents something new, something no one has done before (otherwise it's just copying that doesn't need an artist) -- in this sense the effort is the same as that of research and science or exploring previously unwalked land, you can absolutely never know how long it will take you to invent something, what complications you will encounter or what you will find in an unknown land. You simply do it, fail many times, mostly find nothing, you repeat and repeat until you find the good thing. For this art also requires a lot of effort -- yes, there are cases of masterpieces that came to be very casually, but those are as rare as someone finding a treasure by accident. Art is to a great degree a matter of chance, trial and error, the artist himself doesn't understand his own creation when he makes it, he is only skilled at searching and spotting the good, but in the end he is just someone who invests a lot of time into searching, many times blindly.
 
-Mastery of art comes with **transcending the tool** in the sense of no longer being focused on the tools as well as no longer being its [slave](tool_slave.md). An amateur is obsessed with his tools, he keeps [hopping](hopping.md) editors, [languages](programming_language.md), distros, keyboards, headphones, drills, clothes, he says he can't work without his specific tools; a master comes and creates the art -- if he has no paintbrush, he does it with a pencil and if he doesn't have a pencil, he draws it in the sand. Master is only thinking about art and he can achieve it with most tools he can get his hands on. Chess master doesn't need a chessboard, football master can play barefoot, master climber doesn't need climbing equipment, master drummer can play with a stick he picks from the ground. This means a mastery of art is a form of [freedom](freedom.md).
+Mastery of art comes with **transcending the tool** in the sense of no longer being focused on the tools as well as no longer being its [slave](tool_slave.md). An amateur is obsessed with his tools, he keeps [hopping](hopping.md) editors, [languages](programming_language.md), distros, keyboards, headphones, drills, clothes, he says he can't work without his specific tools; a master comes and creates the art -- if he has no paintbrush, he does it with a pencil and if he doesn't have a pencil, he draws it in the sand. Master is only thinking about art and he can achieve it with most tools he can get his hands on. Chess master doesn't need a chessboard, football master can play barefoot, master climber doesn't need climbing equipment, master drummer can play with a stick he picks from the ground. Great composers, such as Bedrich Smetana, kept composing the best music even after they went deaf and lost what might seem like the most essential tool for composing: that of hearing the music; and yet a "composer" of the [21st century](21st_century.md) finds the audacity to call himself a "professional" while at the same time being unable to compose music without his favorite [DAW](daw.md) at hand. By eliminating the [dependency](dependency.md) on specific tools a mastery of art can be seen as a form of [freedom](freedom.md).
 
 **Art is discovered**, not made. The author of art is merely a discoverer of some beautiful pattern of nature, he may not even fully comprehend or understand that which he discovered, he must in no way be its owned or arbiter (as capitalism wants to make it with bullshit such as [copyright](copyright.md)). Author has no higher authority in interpretation of his art than anyone else.
 

c_tutorial.md

@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ X is not greater than 10.
 And it is also smaller than 5.
 ```
 
-About **conditions** in C: a condition is just an expression (variables/functions along with arithmetic operators). The expression is evaluated (computed) and the number that is obtained is interpreted as *true* or *false* like this: **in C 0 (zero) means false, 1 (and everything else) means true**. Even comparison operators like `<` and `>` are technically arithmetic, they compare numbers and yield either 1 or 0. Some operators commonly used in conditions are:
+About **conditions** in C: a condition is just an expression (variables/functions along with arithmetic operators). The expression is evaluated (computed) and the number that is obtained is interpreted as *true* or *false* like this: **in C 0 ([zero](zero.md)) means false, 1 (and everything else) means true**. Even comparison operators like `<` and `>` are technically arithmetic, they compare numbers and yield either 1 or 0. Some operators commonly used in conditions are:
 
 - `==` (equals): yields 1 if the operands are equal, otherwise 0.
 - `!=` (not equal): yields 1 if the operands are NOT equal, otherwise 0. 
@@ -376,7 +376,7 @@ Functions are similar to but **NOT the same as mathematical functions**. Mathema
 
 **Why are function so important?** Firstly they help us divide a big problem into small subproblems and make the code better organized and readable, but mainly they help us respect the [DRY](dry.md) (*Don't Repeat Yourself*) principle -- this is extremely important in programming. Imagine you need to solve a [quadratic equation](quadratic_equation.md) in several parts of your program; you do NOT want to solve it in each place separately, you want to make a function that solves a quadratic equation and then only invoke (call) that function anywhere you need to solve your quadratic equation. This firstly saves space (source code will be shorter and compiled program will be smaller), but it also makes your program manageable and eliminates bugs -- imagine you find a better (e.g. faster) way to solving quadratic equations; without functions you'd have to go through the whole code and change the algorithm in each place separately which is impractical and increases the chance of making errors. With functions you only change the code in one place (in the function) and in any place where your code invokes (calls) this function the new better and updated version of the function will be used.
 
-Besides writing programs that can be directly executed programmers write **[libraries](library.md)** -- collections of functions that can be used in other projects. We have already seen libraries such as *stdio*, *standard input/output library*, a standard (official, bundled with every C compiler) library for input/output (reading and printing values); *stdio* contains functions such as `puts` which is used to printing out text strings. Examples of other libraries are the standard *math* library containing function for e.g. computing [sine](sine.md), or [SDL](sdl.md), a 3rd party multimedia library for such things as drawing to screen, playing sounds and handling keyboard and mouse input.
+Besides writing programs that can be directly executed programmers also write so called **[libraries](library.md)** -- collections of functions (and possibly similar things like macros etc.) that can be used in other projects. We have already seen libraries such as *stdio*, *standard input/output library*, a standard (official, should be bundled with every C compiler) library for input/output (reading and printing values); *stdio* contains functions such as `puts` which is used to printing out text strings. Examples of other libraries are the standard *math* library containing function for e.g. computing [sine](sine.md), or [SDL](sdl.md), a 3rd party multimedia library for such things as drawing to screen, playing sounds and handling keyboard and mouse input.
 
 Let's see a simple example of a function that writes out a temperature in degrees of Celsius as well as in Kelvin:
 
@@ -611,7 +611,7 @@ void work(void)
   printMoney();
 }
 
-int main()
+int main(void)
 {
   work();
   playLottery();
@@ -705,7 +705,7 @@ void printDecorated2(int x, int fancy)
   putchar('<');
 }
 
-int main()
+int main(void)
 {
   printDecorated1(10,1);
   putchar('\n'); // newline
@@ -847,11 +847,11 @@ Some programmers simplify this whole process further so that they don't even nee
 
 As a bonus, let's see a few useful compiler flags:
 
-- `-O1`, `-O2`, `-O3`: Optimize for speed (higher number means better optimization). Adding `-O3` normally instantly speeds up your program. This is recommended.
+- `-O1`, `-O2`, `-O3`: Optimize for speed (higher number means better optimization). Adding `-O3` normally instantly speeds up your program (but slows down compilation, so you may want to choose higher optimization only for releases etc.). This is recommended (watch out though: your program may grow in size).
-- `-Os`: Optimize for size, the same as above but the compiler will try to make as small executable as possible.
+- `-Os`: Optimize for size, the same as above but the compiler will try to make as small executable as possible (this may be on detriment of execution speed).
-- `-Wall -Wextra -pedantic`: The compiler will write more warnings and will be more strict. This can help spot many bugs.
+- `-Wall -Wextra -pedantic`: The compiler will write more warnings and will be more strict. This can help spot many bugs. It's highly recommended to always set these!
 - `-c`: Compile only (generate object files, do not link).
-- `-g`: Include debug symbols, this will be important for [debugging](debugging.md).
+- `-g`: Include debug symbols, this will be important for [debugging](debugging.md). For non-release builds it's good to always turn this on.
 
 ## Advanced Data Types And Variables (Structs, Arrays, Strings)
 
@@ -921,7 +921,7 @@ int main(void)
   putchar('\n'); // newline
 
   /* compute vector length with
-     pythagoren theorem: */
+     pythagorean theorem: */
 
   float sum = 0;
 
@@ -1118,7 +1118,7 @@ void printArray(void)
     printf("%d ",array[i]);
 }
 
-int main()
+int main(void)
 {
   fillArray();
   printArray();
@@ -1137,7 +1137,7 @@ Macros can optionally take parameters similarly to functions. There are no data
 
 #define MEAN3(a,b,c) (((a) + (b) + (c)) / 3) 
 
-int main()
+int main(void)
 {
   int n = MEAN3(10,20,25);
 
@@ -1149,7 +1149,7 @@ int main()
 
 `MEAN3` computes the mean of 3 values. Again, it's just text replacement, so the line `int n = MEAN3(10,20,25);` becomes `int n = (((10) + (20) + (25)) / 3);` before code compilation. Why are there so many brackets in the macro? It's always good to put brackets over a macro and all its parameters because the parameters are again a simple text replacement; consider e.g. a macro `#define HALF(x) x / 2` -- if it was invoked as `HALF(5 + 1)`, the substitution would result in the final text `5 + 1 / 2`, which gives 5 (instead of the intended value 3).
 
-You may be asking why would we use a macro when we can use a function for computing the mean? Firstly macros don't just have to work with numbers, they can be used to generate parts of the source code in ways that functions can't. Secondly using a macro may sometimes be simpler, it's shorter and will be faster to execute because the is no function call (which has a slight overhead) and because the macro expansion may lead to the compiler precomputing expressions at compile time. But beware: macros are usually worse than functions and should only be used in very justified cases. For example macros don't know about data types and cannot check them, and they also result in a bigger compiled executable (function code is in the executable only once whereas the macro is expanded in each place where it is used and so the code it generates multiplies).
+You may be asking why would we use a macro when we can use a function for computing the mean? Firstly macros don't just have to work with numbers, they can be used to generate parts of the source code in ways that functions can't. Secondly using a macro may sometimes be simpler, it's shorter and will be faster to execute because there is no function call (which has a slight overhead) and because the macro expansion may lead to the compiler precomputing expressions at compile time. But beware: macros are usually worse than functions and should only be used in very justified cases. For example macros don't know about data types and cannot check them, and they also result in a bigger compiled executable (function code is in the executable only once whereas the macro is expanded in each place where it is used and so the code it generates multiplies).
 
 Another very useful directive is `#if` for conditional inclusion or exclusion of parts of the source code. It is similar to the C `if` command. The following example shows its use:
 
@@ -1171,7 +1171,7 @@ void printNumber(int x)
   printf("%d\n",x);
 }
 
-int main()
+int main(void)
 {
   printNumber(3);
   printNumber(100);

chess.md

@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Many however see [go](go.md) as yet a more [beautiful](beauty.md) game: a more m
 
 Chess as a game is not and cannot be [copyrighted](copyright.md), but **can chess games (moves played in a match) be copyrighted?** Thankfully there is a pretty strong consensus and precedence that say this is not the case, even though [capital worshippers](capitalism.md) try to play the intellectual property card from time to time (e.g. 2016 tournament organizers tried to stop chess websites from broadcasting the match moves under "trade secret protection", unsuccessfully).
 
-**Chess and [IQ](iq.md)/intelligence**: there is a debate about how much of a weight general vs specialized intelligence, IQ, memory and pure practice have in becoming good at chess. It's not clear at all, everyone's opinion differs. A popular formula states that *highest achievable Elo = 1000 + 10 * IQ*, though its accuracy and validity are of course highly questionable. All in all this is probably very similar to language learning: obviously some kind of intelligence/talent is needed to excel, however chess is extremely similar to any other sport in that putting HUGE amounts of time and effort into practice (preferably from young age) is what really makes you good -- without practice even the biggest genius in the world will be easily beaten by a casual chess amateur, and even a relatively dumb man can learn chess very well under the right conditions (just like any dumbass can learn at least one language well); many highest level chess players admit they sucked at math and hated it. As one starts playing chess, he seems to more and more discover that it's really all about studying and practice more than anything else, at least up until the highest master levels where the genius gives a player the tiny nudge needed for the win -- at the grandmaster level intelligence seems to start to matter more. Intelligence is perhaps more of an accelerator of learning, not any hard limit on what can be achieved, however also just having fun and liking chess (which may be just given by upbringing etc.) may have similar accelerating effects on learning. Really the very basics can be learned by literally ANYONE, then it's just about learning TONS of concepts and principles (and automatizing them), be it tactical patterns (forks, pins, double check, discovery checks, sacrifices, smothered mates, ...), good habits, positional principles (pawn structure, king safety, square control, piece activity, ...), opening theory (this alone takes many years and can never end), endgame and mating patterns, time management etcetc.
+**Chess and [IQ](iq.md)/intelligence** (a quite comprehensive summary of the topic is available here: http://www.billwallchess.com/articles/IQ.htm): there is a debate about how much of a weight general vs specialized intelligence, IQ, memory and pure practice have in becoming good at chess. It's not clear at all, everyone's opinion differs. A popular formula (Levitt equation) states that *highest achievable Elo = 1000 + 10 * IQ*, though its accuracy and validity are of course highly questionable. All in all this is probably very similar to language learning: obviously some kind of intelligence/talent is needed to excel, however chess is extremely similar to any other sport in that putting HUGE amounts of time and effort into practice (preferably from young age) is what really makes you good -- without practice even the biggest genius in the world will be easily beaten by a casual chess amateur, and even a relatively dumb man can learn chess very well under the right conditions (just like any dumbass can learn at least one language well); many highest level chess players admit they sucked at math and hated it. As one starts playing chess, he seems to more and more discover that it's really all about studying and practice more than anything else, at least up until the highest master levels where the genius gives a player the tiny nudge needed for the win -- at the grandmaster level intelligence seems to start to matter more. Intelligence is perhaps more of an accelerator of learning, not any hard limit on what can be achieved, however also just having fun and liking chess (which may be just given by upbringing etc.) may have similar accelerating effects on learning. Really the very basics can be learned by literally ANYONE, then it's just about learning TONS of concepts and principles (and automatizing them), be it tactical patterns (forks, pins, double check, discovery checks, sacrifices, smothered mates, ...), good habits, positional principles (pawn structure, king safety, square control, piece activity, ...), opening theory (this alone takes many years and can never end), endgame and mating patterns, time management etcetc.
 
 { NOTE (speculative): I think I've heard some research suggested that it's not so much the spatial/visual part of the brain that's responsible for playing chess but rather the language part, it really seems like learning chess might be more similar to learning a foreign language -- it takes about the same time to become "fluent" at chess and the key to being good at it is starting at young age. I.e. the relationship of chess and intelligence is probably similar to that of language learning and intelligence. ~drummyfish }
 
@@ -46,11 +46,11 @@ A single game of chess is seen as consisting of three stages: **opening** (start
 
 The study of chess openings is called **opening theory** or just *theory*. Playing the opening stage is special by being based on memorization of this theory, i.e. hundreds or even thousands of existing opening lines that have been studied and analyzed by computers, rather than by performing mental calculation (logical "thinking ahead" present in middlegame and endgame). Some see this as weakness of chess that makes players spend extreme energy on pure memorization. One of the best and most famous players, Bobby Fischer, was of this opinion and has created a chess variant with randomized starting position that prevents such memorization, so called *chess 960*.
 
-**[Elo](elo.md) rating** is a mathematical system of numerically rating the performance of players (it is used in many sports, not just chess); Elo basically assigns players a rating number that says how skilled the player is. Given two players with Elo rating it is possible to compute the probability of the game's outcome (e.g. white has 70% chance of winning etc.). The FIDE set the parameters so that the rating is roughly this: < 1000: beginner, 1000-2000: intermediate, 2000-3000: master (currently best humans rate close to 3000). More advanced systems have also been created, namely the Glicko system, however these are often quite [bloated](bloat.md) and complicated, so Elo stays the most commonly used rating system. **Alternative ways** of determining player skills also exist, for example so called accuracy, which says how closely one played to the perfect play according to some strong engine such as stockfish. The advantage here is that to rate a player we don't need too much data like with Elo (which needs to see many games of the player against other already rated players) -- it may be enough to let the player play a few games against a computer to determine his skill. A disadvantage however lies in how exactly to compute accuracy because that gets a little complicated by other factors, for example many times finding the best move is trivial (like retaking a queen in an exchange) while in others gets much more difficult, or the fact that humans often DON'T want to play the mathematically best move but rather a bit weaker, more comfortable one, so even grandmasters often choose a weaker move even though they know the theoretically best move. Another idea may be to use a standard set of puzzles, basically like an [IQ](iq.md) test. Yet another idea is for example to compute so called [Erdos number](erdos_number.md), i.e. the minimum length of a chain of victories from the world's best player, i.e. for example rating player A with number 3 says he defeated someone who defeated someone who defeated the world's best. A guy called tom7 devised a method for measuring performance of weak chess engines by basically mixing stockfish (the strongest chess engine) with a random move bot in certain ratios -- i.e. making an engine that with certain probability (given by the mixture ratio) plays either a move by stockfish or a random move -- and then determining the mixture ratio at which this monstrosity becomes indistinguishable from the tested engine (i.e. we can say "the tested engine is a mixture of stockfish and random moves in this ratio"). Along these lines we may similarly try to compute how much of a different kind of handicap -- let's say material or time -- we have to give to the strong engine for it to become on par with the tested entity (i.e. the ratio of wins and losses is about 1).
+**[Elo](elo.md) rating** is a mathematical system of numerically rating the performance of players (it is used in many sports, not just chess); Elo basically assigns players a rating number that says how skilled the player is. Given two players with Elo rating it is possible to compute the probability of the game's outcome (e.g. white has 70% chance of winning etc.). The FIDE set the parameters so that the rating is roughly this: < 1000: beginner, 1000-2000: intermediate, 2000-3000: master (currently best humans rate close to 3000). More advanced systems have also been created, namely the Glicko system, however these are often quite [bloated](bloat.md) and complicated, so Elo stays the most commonly used rating system. **Alternative ways** of determining player skills also exist, for example so called accuracy, which says how closely one played to the perfect play according to some strong engine such as stockfish. The advantage here is that to rate a player we don't need too much data like with Elo (which needs to see many games of the player against other already rated players) -- it may be enough to let the player play a few games against a computer to determine his skill. A disadvantage however lies in how exactly to compute accuracy because that gets a little complicated by other factors, for example many times finding the best move is trivial (like retaking a queen in an exchange) while in others gets much more difficult, or the fact that humans often DON'T want to play the mathematically best move but rather a bit weaker, more comfortable one, so even grandmasters often choose a weaker move even though they know the theoretically best move. Another idea may be to use a standard set of puzzles, basically like an [IQ](iq.md) test. Yet another idea is for example to compute so called [Erdos number](erdos_number.md), i.e. the minimum length of a chain of victories from the world's best player, i.e. for example rating player A with number 3 says he defeated someone who defeated someone who defeated the world's best. A guy called tom7 devised a method for measuring performance of weak chess engines by basically mixing stockfish (the strongest chess engine) with a random move bot in certain ratios -- i.e. making an engine that with certain probability (given by the mixture ratio) plays either a move by stockfish or a random move -- and then determining the mixture ratio at which this monstrosity becomes indistinguishable from the tested engine (i.e. we can say "the tested engine is a mixture of stockfish and random moves in this ratio"). Along these lines we may similarly try to compute how much of a different kind of handicap -- let's say material or time (or, with humans, amount of alcohol) -- we have to give to the strong engine for it to become on par with the tested entity (i.e. the ratio of wins and losses is about 1).
 
 The rules of chess are quite simple ([easy to learn, hard to master](easy_to_learn_hard_to_master.md)) and can be found anywhere on the Internet. In short, the game is played on a 8x8 board by two players: one with **[white](white.md)** men, one with **[black](black.md)** (LOL IT'S [RACIST](racism.md) :D). Each man has a way of moving and capturing (eliminating) enemy men, for example bishops move diagonally while pawns move one square forward and take diagonally. The goal is to **checkmate** the opponent's king, i.e. make the king attacked by a man while giving him no way to escape this attack. There are also lesser known rules that noobs often miss and ignore, e.g. so called en-passant or the 50 move rule that declares a draw if there has been no significant move for 50 moves.
 
-At the competitive level **clock** (so called *time control*) is used to give each player a limited time for making moves: with unlimited move time games would be painfully long and more a test of patience than skill. Clock can also nicely help balance unequal opponent by giving the stronger player less time to move. Based on the amount of time to move there exist several formats, most notably **correspondence** (slowest, days for a move), **classical** (slow, hours per game), **rapid** (faster, tens of minutes per game), **blitz** (fast, a few seconds per move) and **bullet** (fastest, units of seconds per move).
+At the competitive level **clock** (so called *time control*) is used to give each player a limited time for making moves: with unlimited move time games would be painfully long and more a test of patience than skill. Clock can also nicely help balance unequal opponent by giving the stronger player less time to move. Based on the amount of time to move there exist several formats, most notably **correspondence** (slowest, days for a move), **classical** (slow, hours per game), **rapid** (faster, tens of minutes per game), **blitz** (fast, a few seconds per move) and **bullet** (fastest, units of seconds per move). There is also a category called cyborg or centaur chess in which computer assistance is allowed (which would normally be seen as [cheating](cheating.md)) -- this category usually greatly overlaps with correspondence chess.
 
 Currently the best player in the world -- and probably best player of all time -- is pretty clearly Magnus Carlsen (born 1990), a [white](white.md) man from Norway with Elo rating 2800+. He just keeps beating all the other top players effortlessly, he was winning the world championship over and over before giving up the title out of boredom.
 
@@ -58,11 +58,11 @@ During [covid](covid.md) chess has experienced a small boom among normies and [Y
 
 **White is generally seen as having a slight advantage over black** (just like in [real life](irl.md) lol). It is because he always has the first move -- statistics also seems to support this as white on average wins a little more often. This doesn't play such as big role in beginner and intermediate games but starts to become apparent in master games. How big the advantages is is a matter of ongoing debate, most people are of the opinion there exists a slight advantage for the white (with imperfect play, i.e. that white plays easier, tolerates slightly less accurate play), though most experts think chess is a draw with perfect play (pro players can usually quite safely play for a draw and secure it if they don't intend to win; world championships mostly consist of drawn games as really one player has to make a mistake to allow the other one to win). Minority of experts think white has theoretical forced win. Probably only very tiny minority of people think white doesn't have any advantage. Some people argue black has some advantages over white, as it's true that sometimes the obligation to make a move may be a disadvantage. Probably no one thinks black has a forced win, though that's not disproved yet so maybe someone actually believes it.
 
-**Blindfold play**: it's quite impressive that very good players can play completely blindfold, without any actual chessboard, and some can even play many games simultaneously this way. This is indeed not easy to do and playing blindfold naturally decreases one's strength a bit (it seems this is more of a case on lower level of play though). It is however not the case that only an exceptional genius could play this way, probably anyone can learn it, it's just a matter of training. Probably all masters (above FIDE ELO 2000) can play blindfold. They say the ability comes naturally just by playing countless games. How to learn playing blindfold then? Just play a lot of chess, it will come naturally -- this is the advice probably most often given. However if you specifically wish to learn blindfold play, you may focus on it, e.g. by training blindfold against very weak computer. Some software chess boards offer a mode in which one can see the position and color of all men but not which type they are -- this may perhaps be a good start.
+**Blindfold play**: it's quite impressive that very good players can play completely blindfold, without any actual chessboard, and some can even play many games simultaneously this way. This is indeed not easy to do and playing blindfold naturally decreases one's strength a bit (it seems this is more of a case on lower level of play though). It is however not the case that only an exceptional genius could play this way, probably anyone can learn it, it's just a matter of training (it's a matter of developing an efficient mental representation of the board rather than actually exactly remembering the whole board -- in psychology called *chunking*). Probably all masters (above FIDE ELO 2000) can play blindfold. They say the ability comes naturally just by playing countless games. How to learn playing blindfold then? Just play a lot of chess, it will come naturally -- this is the advice probably most often given. However if you specifically wish to learn blindfold play, you may focus on it, e.g. by training blindfold against very weak computer. Some software chess boards offer a mode in which one can see the position and color of all men but not which type they are -- this may perhaps be a good start. It may possibly also be done very gradually -- for example start by covering just part of the board and every week cover yet more squares; eventually you'll have them all covered.
 
 On **perfect play**: as stated, chess is unlikely to be ever solved so it is unknown if chess is a theoretical forced draw or forced win for white (or even win for black), however many simplified endgames and some simpler chess variants have already been solved. Even if chess was ever solved, it is important to realize one thing: **perfect play may be unsuitable for humans** and so even if chess was ever solved, it might have no significant effect on the game played by humans. Imagine the following: we have a chess position in which we are deciding between move *A* and move *B*. We know that playing *A* leads to a very good position in which white has great advantage and easy play (many obvious good moves), however if black plays perfectly he can secure a draw here. We also know that if we play *B* and then play perfectly for the next 100 moves, we will win with mathematical certainty, but if we make just one incorrect move during those 100 moves, we will get to a decisively losing position. While computer will play move *B* here because it is sure it can play perfectly, it is probably better to play *A* for human because human is very likely to make mistakes (even a master). For this reason humans may willingly choose to play mathematically worse moves -- it is because a slightly worse move may lead to a safer and more comfortable play for a human.
 
-Fun fact: there seem to be **almost no black people in [chess](chess.md)** :D the strongest one seems to be Pontus Carlsson which rates number 1618 in the world; even [women](woman.md) seem to be much better at chess than black people. But how about black women? [LMAO](lmao.md), it seems like there haven't even been any black female masters :'D The web is BLURRY on these facts, but there seems to be a huge excitement about one black female, called Rochelle Ballantyne, who at nearly 30 years old has been sweating for a decade to reach the lowest master rank (the one which the nasty oppressive white boys get at like 10 years old) and MAYBE SHE'LL DO IT, she seems to have with all her effort and support of the whole Earth overcome the 2000 rating, something that thousands of amateurs on the net just causally do every day without even trying too much. But of course, it's cause of the white male oppression =3 lel { anti-disclaimer :D Let's be reminded [we](lrs.md) love all people, no matter skin color or gender. We are simply stating facts about nature, which don't always respect political correctness. ~drummyfish }
+Fun fact: there seem to be **almost no black people in [chess](chess.md)** :D the strongest one seems to be Pontus Carlsson which rates number 1618 in the world; even [women](woman.md) seem to be much better at chess than black people. [This](http://www.billwallchess.com/articles/Black%20chess%20players.htm) website says that as of 2015 there were only 3 black grandmasters in the whole world. But how about black women? [LMAO](lmao.md), it seems like there haven't even been any black female masters :'D The web is BLURRY on these facts, but there seems to be a huge excitement about one black female, called Rochelle Ballantyne, who at nearly 30 years old has been sweating for a decade to reach the lowest master rank (the one which the nasty oppressive white boys get at like 10 years old) and MAYBE SHE'LL DO IT, she seems to have with all her effort and support of the whole Earth overcome the 2000 rating, something that thousands of amateurs on the net just causally do every day without even trying too much. But of course, it's cause of the white male oppression =3 lel { anti-disclaimer :D Let's be reminded [we](lrs.md) love all people, no matter skin color or gender. We are simply stating facts about nature, which don't always respect political correctness. ~drummyfish } EDIT: We seem to have missed Tuduetso Sabure who became a WOMAN grandmaster (i.e. NOT a regular grandmaster) in 2005, however her peak rating is merely 2075, which is quite low, seems very sus.
 
 ## Chess And Computers
 
@@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ Chess stats are pretty [interesting](interesting.md). Thanks a lot e.g. to Liche
 
 Similarly the **number of possibly reachable positions** (position for which so called *proof game* exists) is not known exactly, it is estimated to at least 10^40 and 10^50 at most. Numbers of possible positions by plies is 20 after 1, 400 after 2, 5362 after 3, 72078 after 4, 822518 after 5, and 726155461002 after 11.
 
-**Shortest possible checkmate** is by black on ply number 4 (so called *fool's mate*). As of 2022 the **longest known forced checkmate** is in 549 moves -- it has been discovered when computing the Lomonosov Tablebases. EDIT: now it seems there is one in 584 moves. Please note this: there most likely exist much longer forced mates, these are just the KNOWN ones. Consider e.g. that if black blunders a queen in the opening, the game is very likely a theoretical win for white since then, i.e. a forced mate, and with perfect play black can probably resist for very long. However such situations are too complex to explore fully.
+**Shortest possible checkmate** is by black on ply number 4 (so called *fool's mate*); in fact there are 8 different games that can end like this. As of 2022 the **longest known forced checkmate** is in 549 moves -- it has been discovered when computing the Lomonosov Tablebases. EDIT: now it seems there is one in 584 moves. Please note this: there most likely exist much longer forced mates, these are just the KNOWN ones. Consider e.g. that if black blunders a queen in the opening, the game is very likely a theoretical win for white since then, i.e. a forced mate, and with perfect play black can probably resist for very long. However such situations are too complex to explore fully.
 
 Average game of chess lasts 40 (full) moves (80 plies). **Average [branching factor](branching_factor.md)** (number of possible moves at a time) is around 33. **Maximum number of possible moves in a position** seems to be 218 (FEN: `R6R/3Q4/1Q4Q1/4Q3/2Q4Q/Q4Q2/pp1Q4/kBNN1KB1 w - - 0 1`).
 

debugging.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Debugging
 
-Debugging is a term predominantly related to [computer](computer.md) technology (but at times extended beyond it) where it signifies the practice of actively searching for [bugs](bug.md) (errors, design flaws, defects, ...) and fixing them; most typically it occurs as part of software [programming](programming.md), but we may also talk about debugging [hardware](hardware.md) etc. Debugging is notoriously tedious and stressful, it can even take majority of the programmer's time and some bugs are extremely hard to track down, however systematic approaches can be applied to basically always succeed in fixing any bug. Debugging is sometimes humorously defined as "replacing old bugs with new ones".
+Debugging is a term predominantly related to [computer](computer.md) [technology](tech.md) (but at times extended beyond it) where it signifies the practice of actively searching for [bugs](bug.md) (errors, design flaws, defects, ...) and fixing them; most typically it occurs as part of software [programming](programming.md), but we may also talk about debugging [hardware](hardware.md) etc. Debugging is notoriously tedious and stressful, it can even take majority of the programmer's time and some bugs are extremely hard to track down, however systematic approaches can be applied to basically always succeed in fixing any bug. Debugging is sometimes humorously defined as "replacing old bugs with new ones".
 
 [Fun](fun.md) fact: the term *debugging* allegedly comes from the old times when it meant LITERALLY getting rid of bugs that broke computers by getting stuck in the relays.
 

drummyfish.md

@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ In 2012 drummyfish fell into deep [depression](depression.md) and became convinc
 
 **What is drummyfish's fucking problem?** The biggest burden for drummyfish -- the one that he has always struggled with (even if he realized this very late in his life) and which will be with him until death -- is that he is simply extremely, extremely alone. NO, not "alone" in the [incel](incel.md) sense, and not alone in the "[geeky](geek.md)" way, not alone as in being introverted and shy or hated, missing sex or company or attention or compassion, not at all. He has been struggling his whole life to find a HUMAN, a true human being like himself -- of perhaps we should rather say human subspecies of which drummyfish is and always will be the only member. He feels much closer to animals than to people. On the Internet he found a considerable number of "followers" through [LRS](lrs.md) (many of them working at CIA), the expression of his life philosophy, but he never really met a being of the same human subspecies as he is himself. He is alien in a sense -- people exist around him, even what would be called "friends", supporters, "fans", but he has never met a single true human being of the same kind as himself, someone to find absolute mutual understanding with and someone to have a true admiration for. { The closest is probably my mom, only her I ever really admired and felt the closest bond with. I think no one else ever came closer to understanding me and loving me like that. This is probably nothing surprising though. ~drummyfish } A feeling perhaps similar to what the last member of a species that is dying out must feel, except that he doesn't even have any ancestors to think of, it is a feeling of being absolutely alone in the whole Universe, the whole timespace. Hell, he is so lonely he created a whole virtual world, lore, ideology and Internet community with huge ass [wiki](lrs_wiki.md) where he is still the only participant and where he basically just keeps talking to himself. { Also please don't try to fix me or comfort me by saying nice things like "I was like this too, you will find someone", it just pisses me off, you don't know what's going on. I know your intentions are good but don't do it cause it's no use. ~drummyfish } But the feeling of loneliness is only part of the whole tragedy -- it would even be bearable, however the worst part is that drummyfish LOOKS LIKE a normal human so others treat him so, they try to apply things that normally work on people on drummyfish, like talking to him or thanking him or keeping him in company of other people because apparently "humans are social animals" or whatever, and it's just fucking killing him. It's as if you try to treat literal fish like a human, trying to keep it out of water because humans dislike breathing water, trying to feed it human food, put it in human clothes -- you're just going to torture the animal to death.
 
-**Is drummyfish [egocentric](egoism.md)?** Maybe yes, he was not once told so, and he admits he is prone to being a shitty being, a disgrace to what he preaches -- yes, he sees it, regrets it and suffers from it, and it's no excuse for behaving so -- he is a bad, bad, faulty and shitty man. He is also a huge cocksucker that chases away any potential friend he could make. Humans are weak, shitty and inevitably have evil in them, sometimes too big to overcome completely. We all carry the heavy burden of self interest, greed and egocentrism in us, it's imprinted by evolution, sometimes it's too strong to not let it show. Please remember LRS argues to not glorify anyone and even drummyfish wishes to not ever be praised or glorified, he only wishes for you to take the ideas he offers, think about them and take the good you find. Drummyfish tries to be good but inevitably he won't always succeed -- what matters are ideas, not people.
+**Is drummyfish arrogant and [egocentric](egoism.md)?** Maybe yes, he was not once told so, and he admits he is prone to being a shitty being, a disgrace to what he preaches -- yes, he sees it, regrets it and suffers from it, and it's no excuse for behaving so -- he is a bad, bad, faulty and shitty being. He is also a huge cocksucker that chases away any potential friend he could make, that's just a trait of his broken personality. Humans are weak, shitty and inevitably have evil in them, sometimes too big to overcome completely, some days you are good, other days you're too tired and the evil shows. We all carry the heavy burden of self interest, greed and egocentrism cast upon us by evolution, it's imprinted in our brains, sometimes it's too strong to not let it show. Please remember LRS argues to not glorify anyone -- partly for said reasons -- and by that drummyfish never wishes to praised or glorified, he only wishes for you to take the ideas he offers, think about them and take the good you find. Drummyfish tries to be good but inevitably he won't always succeed -- what matters are ideas, not people.
 
 Drummyfish will probably [kill himself](suicide.md) one day -- likely not that soon (who knows), but it's planned, after all there is nothing worse than living under [capitalism](capitalism.md), death sounds like such a relief. There are still some [projects](needed.md) he wants to finish first; unless something triggers him and he just randomly jumps under a train one day or gets nuked by Putin, he is planning to finish some of the projects to leave something behind. The current plan is to try to live somehow, outside or on the edge of society, minimize contact with people, do good and avoid evil as much as possible. Once closest relatives are gone, then with no more ties to the current [shitty place](czechia.md), he will walk on foot towards the Mediterranean sea, a place that has always attracted him more than anywhere else, and there he will simply die either of illness, injury or hunger, or he will simply swim for the sunset and never return. That's a death one can even look forward to. There, at his beloved sea, drummyfish will meet his fate and find his final resting place and the peace he so much desired and struggled for through his whole life. Hopefully his body will feed a few hungry fish.
 

feminism.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ Let us start by prefacing the feminist motto:
 
 A quite nice article on feminism can also be found on the [incel](incel.md) wiki at https://incels.wiki/w/Feminism. { A friend also recommended a text called *Counter-Advice From The Third Sex*, possibly check it out. ~drummyfish }
 
-If anything's clear, then that feminism is not at all about gender equality but about hatred towards men and female superiority. Firstly feminism is not called *gender equality movement* but *feminism*, i.e. for-female, literally "womanism", and as we know, [name plays a huge role](name_is_important.md). Imagine this: if you asked feminists if they could right now implement matriarchy in society, i.e. female ruling over man, how many of them do you think would answer "no"? There is not even a shadow of a doubt a vast majority would absolutely answer "yes", we may at best argue about if it would be 85% or 99% of them. So the question of feminist goals is absolutely clearly answered, there is no point in trying to deny it. To a feminist a man is what a [jew](jew.md) was to the Nazi or what the Christian was to the Romans who famously hunted Christians down and fed them to the lions because they refused to bow to their polytheist ideology (nowadays analogous to e.g. refusing to practice [political correctness](political_correctness.md)). The whole story is repeated again, we have yet again not learned a bit from our [history](history.md). Feminism is exactly the same as [Nazism](nazism.md), just replace "Aryan race" with "woman gender", "jew" with "man" and Nazi uniforms with pink hair. 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. If the wage gap became reversed, i.e. women earned on average more than men, do you think a Feminist wouldn't be happy? No answer is needed. And of course, when men establish "men rights" movements, suddenly feminists see those as "fascist", "toxic" and "violent" and try to destroy such movements.
+If anything's clear, then that feminism is not at all about gender equality but about hatred towards men and female superiority. Firstly feminism is not called *gender equality movement* but *feminism*, i.e. for-female, literally "womanism", and as we know, [name plays a huge role](name_is_important.md). Imagine this: if you asked feminists if they could right now implement matriarchy in society, i.e. female ruling over man, how many of them do you think would answer "no"? There is not even a shadow of a doubt a vast majority would absolutely answer "yes", we may at best argue about if it would be 85% or 99% of them. So the question of feminist goals is absolutely clearly answered, there is no point in trying to deny it. To a feminist a man is what a [jew](jew.md) was to the Nazi or what the Christian was to the Romans who famously hunted Christians down and fed them to the lions because they refused to bow to their polytheist ideology (nowadays analogous to e.g. refusing to practice [political correctness](political_correctness.md)). The whole story is repeated again, we have yet again not learned a bit from our [history](history.md). Feminism is exactly the same as [Nazism](nazism.md), just replace "Aryan race" with "woman gender", "jew" with "man" and Nazi uniforms with pink hair. 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, committing significantly more suicides or much more often (over 70%) being homeless etc. -- feminism cares about women, not equality. If the wage gap became reversed, i.e. women earned on average more than men, do you think a Feminist wouldn't be happy? No answer is needed. And of course, when men establish "men rights" movements, suddenly feminists see those as "fascist", "toxic" and "violent" and try to destroy such movements.
 
 Closing gaps is not how you achieve equality -- on the contrary it's only how you stir up hostility and physically reshape women into men (by closing the height gap, boob size gap, penis length gap, brain size gap and any kind of gap that may potentially have any significance in sports, art or culture at all). [Making gaps not matter](less_retarded_society.md) is how you truly achieve equality. but Feminists won't go that way exactly because they are against equality.
 

island.md

@@ -44,7 +44,9 @@ This is the [freedom](freedom.md) island where [we](less_retarded_society.md) li
 
 SUPER WORK IN PROGRESS
 
-{ NOTE: Obviously this is fantasy, not everything could probably work like this in practice -- not in current times anyway -- I know that, OK? I know next to nothing about many specialized subjects like farming or keeping animals and I may be making up unrealistic bullshit here, however I still think as a whole the fantasy is very useful to guide us, practical problems are in the end just details that can almost always be solved by human ingenuity. Still I try to keep this borderline realistic, after all quite similar, more or less isolated communities exist all around the world. It's just a thinking exercise, you may try to follow along. ~drummyfish }
+{ NOTE: Obviously this is fantasy, not everything could probably work like this in practice -- not in current times anyway -- I know that, OK? I know next to nothing about many specialized subjects like farming or keeping animals and I may be making up unrealistic bullshit here, however I still think as a whole the fantasy is very useful to guide us, practical problems are in the end just details that can almost always be solved by human ingenuity. Still I try to keep this borderline realistic, after all quite similar, more or less isolated communities exist all around the world. It's just a thinking exercise, you may try to follow along.
+
+Also the image of this place is not necessarily what fully established LRS would look like, it's more of a fantasy of a very early LRS community established at current time, to where people can escape from the dystopia. World wide LRS would be far future, it would be more high tech than living in caves, we'd have "normal" houses, technology that wasn't even discovered yet and generally more comfortable living that described here. ~drummyfish }
 
 **Houses and shelters** are the easiest issue to solve, given the hot tropical climate. No heating or heat isolation is needed, houses can be very simple, built manually only from wood and stones. It suffices to have a roof protecting against rain and a few walls allowing some intimacy and personal space, although [privacy](privacy.md) is not really a thing here, even sex and defecation is commonly seen in public, it's a natural thing. No door locks are needed of course. The sea, caves and natural pools and waterfalls of sweet water in the jungle allow calming ourselves on very hot days, and they serve to maintain hygiene as well, we need no showers or toilets in most houses.
 

smallchesslib.md

@@ -29,6 +29,6 @@ PGN: 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5 3. dxe5 dxe4 4. Qxd8+ Kxd8 5. f3 exf3 6. Nxf3 Ke8 7. Nc3
 
 *"Screenshot" of smolchess in action, playing against itself.*
 
-Technical details: it's no [stockfish](stockfish.md), simplicity is favored over strength. Evaluation function is hand-made with 16 bit integer score (no [float](float.md)!). Board is represented as an [array](array.md) of bytes (in fact it's an array of [ASCII](ascii.md) characters that can conveniently be printed right out). AI uses basic [recursive](recursion.md) minimax and alpha-beta pruning, with quiescence handled by extending search for exchanges and checks. For simplicity there is no move ordering, transposition table, opening book or similar fanciness, so the performance isn't great, but it manages to play some intermediate moves. Xboard is supported.
+Technical details: it's no [stockfish](stockfish.md), simplicity is favored over strength. Evaluation function is hand-made with 16 bit integer score (no [float](float.md)!). Board is represented as an [array](array.md) of bytes (in fact it's an array of [ASCII](ascii.md) characters that can conveniently be printed right out). AI uses basic [recursive](recursion.md) minimax and alpha-beta pruning, with quiescence handled by extending search for exchanges and checks. For simplicity there is no transposition table, opening book or similar fanciness, so the performance isn't great, but it manages to play some intermediate moves. Xboard is supported.
 
 While there are many high level engines focusing on maximizing playing strength, there are almost no seriously simple ones focusing on other points -- smallchesslib/smolchess tries to change this. It can be used as an educational tool, a basis for other engines, a simple engine runnable on weak devices, a helper for processing standard chess formats etc.

transsexual.md

@@ -31,7 +31,12 @@ Hopefully that's enough examples to demonstrate the difference. Really you must
 
 So the question is rather: why are you NOT a transsexual yet?
 
-For good lulz and drama see also transsexuals in sports.
+Some questions regarding transsexualism still stand unanswered, such as:
+
+- **Why are people so disproportionately depressed over sex/gender compared to other aspects of their bodies?** Why are there suddenly billions of transsexuals, but not people who are for example extremely depressed over not having been born as a turtle? Why aren't there masses of people who are depressed over the fact that they don't have wings and can't fly or breathe under water or that they only have two eyes instead of three, commiting mass suicides and creating flags and [pride](pride.md) months and all the usual business that angry minorities do? Does this perhaps suggest that transsexualism has anything to do with culture, upbringing, seeing other people have something they don't? Dare we say transsexualism may be acquired through nurture, rather than being born with? That perhaps parents, fashion, media and similar influences play the key role? Maybe a bit similarly to how the Japanese during the war were so influenced by their surroundings they would rather commit a ritual suicide than cast upon themselves what was perceived as shame, such as being captured alive by the enemy? Maybe it was just a coincidence that people born in the area of Japan during the time of war were born with a disorder very convenient for soldiers to have?
+- **So does sex/gender exist or not?** [Gender studies](gender_studies.md) experts say sex/gender is 100% social and cultural construct independent of anything physical and that it's purely a matter of choice what sex/gender one is, but on the other hand they claim it is of uttermost importance and priority that we make people be able to choose AND physically transform and switch sex/genders because, apparently, it plays a key role in one's life, seemingly more important than anything else that exists in the Universe. So -- does sex/gender exist or not? Some of the biggest brain gender studies [PhDs](phd.md) tried to resolve this paradox by making a distinction between "sex" and "gender", the former being physical, the latter mental -- however this distinction can no longer be made because once people switched to using terms such as "biological woman", gender studies experts called this oppression and said there is no such thing, that someone simply either is a man or a woman or whatever, solely depending on his mental choice, so by this we conclude sex and gender are simply the same thing, no distinction between physical and mental can be made on the grounds of "oppression". So then it's a purely mental choice, but also gender surgeries and hormone therapies must exist because it's also about physical form. So -- the paradox still stands? Resolving it will indeed almost guarantee a Nobel prize in the field of gender studies.
+
+For good lulz and drama see also transsexuals in [sports](sports.md).
 
 ## See Also
 

wiki_stats.md

@@ -3,9 +3,9 @@
 This is an autogenerated article holding stats about this wiki.
 
 - number of articles: 602
-- number of commits: 911
+- number of commits: 912
-- total size of all texts in bytes: 4509876
+- total size of all texts in bytes: 4518162
-- total number of lines of article texts: 34058
+- total number of lines of article texts: 34080
 - number of script lines: 294
 - occurrences of the word "person": 9
 - occurrences of the word "nigger": 98
@@ -26,8 +26,8 @@ longest articles:
 - [3d_model](3d_model.md): 40K
 - [woman](woman.md): 40K
 - [internet](internet.md): 36K
-- [bloat](bloat.md): 36K
 - [main](main.md): 36K
+- [bloat](bloat.md): 36K
 - [raycasting](raycasting.md): 36K
 - [history](history.md): 32K
 - [random_page](random_page.md): 32K
@@ -36,59 +36,76 @@ longest articles:
 top 50 5+ letter words:
 
 - which (2526)
-- there (1948)
+- there (1952)
-- people (1782)
+- people (1791)
-- example (1529)
+- example (1532)
-- other (1405)
+- other (1409)
 - number (1264)
-- about (1240)
+- about (1242)
-- software (1208)
+- software (1209)
 - program (995)
-- because (975)
+- because (976)
-- their (957)
+- their (959)
-- would (925)
+- would (929)
-- being (870)
+- being (871)
 - something (864)
-- things (856)
+- things (858)
 - called (853)
 - language (849)
 - numbers (809)
-- simple (798)
+- simple (799)
 - computer (782)
-- without (754)
+- without (756)
 - programming (733)
 - function (717)
 - different (712)
-- however (709)
+- however (710)
 - these (707)
 - system (666)
-- world (659)
+- world (664)
-- doesn (640)
+- doesn (642)
-- should (638)
+- should (640)
-- while (628)
+- while (629)
 - point (617)
 - games (615)
-- still (603)
+- still (607)
-- drummyfish (599)
+- drummyfish (601)
-- society (596)
+- society (599)
-- simply (579)
+- simply (584)
+- possible (576)
 - using (575)
-- possible (574)
 - though (555)
-- https (549)
+- https (551)
-- course (545)
+- course (547)
-- similar (541)
+- similar (542)
+- always (533)
 - memory (531)
-- always (530)
 - basically (521)
-- probably (519)
+- probably (520)
 - value (513)
+- really (513)
 - technology (512)
-- really (511)
 
 latest changes:
 
 ```
+Date:   Mon Oct 28 15:53:35 2024 +0100
+  art.md
+  chess.md
+  cyberbullying.md
+  dramatica.md
+  drummyfish.md
+  idiot_fallacy.md
+  island.md
+  jokes.md
+  main.md
+  random_page.md
+  science.md
+  stereotype.md
+  transsexual.md
+  usa.md
+  wiki_pages.md
+  wiki_stats.md
 Date:   Sat Oct 26 19:38:41 2024 +0200
   anarch.md
   app.md
@@ -110,23 +127,6 @@ Date:   Sat Oct 26 19:38:41 2024 +0200
   pride.md
   random_page.md
   stereotype.md
-  usa.md
-  wiki_pages.md
-  wiki_stats.md
-Date:   Fri Oct 25 00:41:24 2024 +0200
-  capitalism.md
-  elo.md
-  english.md
-  faq.md
-  ioccc.md
-  jokes.md
-  lrs_wiki.md
-  main.md
-  oop.md
-  random_page.md
-  stereotype.md
-  transsexual.md
-  wiki_pages.md
 ```
 
 most wanted pages:
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ most popular and lonely pages:
 - [capitalism](capitalism.md) (255) 
 - [c](c.md) (231) 
 - [bloat](bloat.md) (220) 
-- [free_software](free_software.md) (187) 
+- [free_software](free_software.md) (188) 
 - [suckless](suckless.md) (144) 
 - [game](game.md) (144) 
 - [proprietary](proprietary.md) (128) 
@@ -173,17 +173,17 @@ most popular and lonely pages:
 - [programming](programming.md) (94) 
 - [linux](linux.md) (94) 
 - [shit](shit.md) (89) 
+- [bullshit](bullshit.md) (88) 
 - [hacking](hacking.md) (87) 
 - [fight_culture](fight_culture.md) (87) 
-- [bullshit](bullshit.md) (87) 
+- [less_retarded_society](less_retarded_society.md) (84) 
-- [less_retarded_society](less_retarded_society.md) (82) 
+- [free_culture](free_culture.md) (83) 
-- [free_culture](free_culture.md) (82) 
+- [art](art.md) (83) 
-- [art](art.md) (82) 
 - [public_domain](public_domain.md) (81) 
 - [corporation](corporation.md) (81) 
 - [woman](woman.md) (79) 
+- [chess](chess.md) (78) 
 - [programming_language](programming_language.md) (77) 
-- [chess](chess.md) (77) 
 - ...
 - [body_shaming](body_shaming.md) (5) 
 - [bilinear](bilinear.md) (5)