Update

copyleft.md

@@ -14,6 +14,6 @@ In the great debate of copyleft vs permissive free licenses we, as technological
 
 - By adopting copyleft one is **embracing and supporting the copyright laws and perpetuating the [capitalist](capitalism.md) ways** ("marrying the lawyers") because copyleft relies on and uses copyright laws. Copyleft chooses to play along with the capitalist bullshit [intellectual property](intellectual_property.md) game and threatens to use force and bullying in order to enforce *correct* usage of information.
 - In a way it is **[bloat](bloat.md)**. Copyleft introduces **legal complexity**, [friction](friction.md) and takes programmers' [head space](head_space.md), especially when copyleft is probably mostly ineffective as **detecting its violation and actual legal enforcement is difficult, expensive and without a guaranteed positive outcome** ([FSF](fsf.md) encourages programmers to hand over their copyright to them so they can defend their programs which just confirms existence and relevance of this issue). Sure, corporations can probably "abuse" permissive (non-copyleft) software easier, but we argue that this is a problem whose roots lie in the broken basic principles of our society ([capitalism](capitalism.md)) and so the issue should be addressed by improving our socioeconomic system rather than by bullshit legal techniques that just imperfectly and many times completely ineffectively try to cure the symptoms.
-- **The scope of copyleft is highly debatable** (which is why we have different kind of copyleft such as *strong*, *weak*, *network* etc.). I.e. it can't be objectively said what exactly should classify as violation of copyleft AND increasing copyleft scope leads to copylefted software being practically unusable. Consider this **example**: [Linux](linux.md) is copylefted which means we can't create a proprietary version of Linux, nevertheless we can create a proprietary operating system of which Linux is part (e.g. [Android](android.md) in which its proprietary app store makes it de-facto owned by [Google](google.md)), and so Linux is effectively used as a part of proprietary software -- the copyleft is bypassed. One might try to increase the copyleft scope here by saying *"everything Linux ever touches has to be free software"* which would however render Linux unusable on practically any computer as most computers contain at least some small proprietary software and hardware. The restriction would be too great.
+- **The scope of copyleft is highly debatable** (which is why we have different kind of copyleft such as *strong*, *weak*, *network* etc.). I.e. it can't be objectively said what exactly should classify as violation of copyleft AND increasing copyleft scope leads to copylefted software being practically unusable. You may say "so what", but in law clarity is extremely important, it may also discourage people because they don't really know what they sign up for, commercial use may also be discouraged by this for the same reason which may have a similar effect to a non-free license that downright disallows commercial use. Consider this **example**: [Linux](linux.md) is copylefted which means we can't create a proprietary version of Linux, nevertheless we can create a proprietary operating system of which Linux is part (e.g. [Android](android.md) in which its proprietary app store makes it de-facto owned by [Google](google.md)), and so Linux is effectively used as a part of proprietary software -- the copyleft is bypassed. One might try to increase the copyleft scope here by saying *"everything Linux ever touches has to be free software"* which would however render Linux unusable on practically any computer as most computers contain at least some small proprietary software and hardware. The restriction would be too great.
-- In practice, **copyleft licenses have to be complex and ugly** because they have to strictly describe the copyleft scope and include lots of legal [boilerplate](boilerplate.md) in order to make them well defendable in court -- and as we know, complexity comes with bugs, vulnerabilities and other burden. Indeed, we see this in practice: the only practically used copyleft licenses are the various versions of GPL of which all are ugly and have historically shown many faults (which is again evident from e.g. looking at GPL v1 vs v2 vs v3). This introduces great license compatibility issues and similar bullshit. Permissive licenses on the other hand are simple, clear and well understandable.
+- In practice, **copyleft licenses have to be complex and ugly** because they have to strictly describe the copyleft scope and include lots of legal [boilerplate](boilerplate.md) in order to make them well defendable in court (copyleft is really about preparing for a legal war) -- and as we know, complexity comes with bugs, vulnerabilities, it makes it incomprehensible to common people and imposes many additional burdens. Indeed, we see this in practice: the only practically used copyleft licenses are the various versions of GPL of which all are ugly and have historically shown many faults (which is again evident from e.g. looking at GPL v1 vs v2 vs v3). This introduces great license compatibility issues, headaches for programmers who should rather be spending time programming and other similar bullshit. Permissive licenses on the other hand are simple, clear and well understandable, they aren't as much preparing for a court battle as trying to give other hackers a peace of mind and make them free of legal worries.
 - **Copyleft prevents not only inclusion in proprietary software but also in permissive FREE software.** I.e. as a consequence of denying code to corporations collateral damage is done by also denying code to ethical free software that wishes to be distributed without copyleft conditions. Similarly to how proprietary software forces free software programmers to reinvent wheels by rewriting software as free, copyleft forces permissive free software programmers to reinvent wheels and rewrite copylefted code as permissive.

free_will.md

@@ -8,6 +8,6 @@ Free will is a logically erroneous egocentric belief that humans (and possibly o
 
 Free will is usually discussed in relation to **[determinism](determinism.md)**, an idea of everything (including human thought and behavior) being completely predetermined from the start of the universe. Determinism is the most natural and most likely explanation for the working of our universe; it states that laws of nature dictate precisely which state will follow from current state and therefore everything that will every happen is only determined by the initial conditions (start of the universe). As human brain is just matter like any other, it is no exception to the laws of nature. Determinism doesn't imply we'll be able to make precise predictions (see e.g. [chaos](chaos.md) or [undecidability](undecidability.md)), just that everything is basically already set in stone as a kind of unavoidable fate. Basically the only other possible option is that there would be some kind true [randomness](randomness.md), i.e. that laws of nature don't specify an exact state to follow from current state but rather multiple states out of which one is "taken" at random -- this is proposed by some [quantum](quantum.md) physicists as quantum physics seems to be showing the existence of inherent randomness. Nevertheless **quantum physics may still be deterministic**, see the theory of hidden variables and [superdeterminism](superdeterminism.md) (no, Bell test didn't disprove determinism). But **EVEN IF the universe is non deterministic, free will still CANNOT exist**. Therefore this whole debate is meaningless.
 
-**Why is there no free will?** Because it isn't logically possible, just like e.g. the famous omnipotent God (could he make a rock so heavy he wouldn't be able to lift it?). Either the universe is deterministic and your decisions are already predetermined, or there exists an inherent randomness and your decisions are determined by a mere dice roll (which no one can call a free will more than just making every decision in life based on a coin toss). In either case your decisions are made for you by something "external". Even if you follow a basic definition of free will as "acting according to one's desires", you find that your decisions are DETERMINED by your desires, i.e. something you did not choose (your desires) makes decisions for you. There is no way out of this unless you reject logic itself.
+**Why is there no free will?** Because it isn't logically possible, just like e.g. the famous omnipotent God (could he make a toast so hot he wouldn't be able to eat it?). Either the universe is deterministic and your decisions are already predetermined, or there exists an inherent randomness and your decisions are determined by a mere dice roll (which no one can call a free will more than just making every decision in life based on a coin toss). In either case your decisions are made for you by something "external". Even if you follow a basic definition of free will as "acting according to one's desires", you find that your decisions are DETERMINED by your desires, i.e. something you did not choose (your desires) makes decisions for you. There is no way out of this unless you reject logic itself.
 
-For some reason retards (basically everyone) don't want to accept this, as if accepting it changed anything, stupid [capitalists](capitalism.md) think that it would somehow belittle their "achievements" of what? Basically just like the people who used to let go of geocentrism. This is ridiculous, they hold on to the idea of their "PRECIOOOOUUUSS FREE WILL" to the death, then they go and consume whatever a TV tells them to consume. Indeed one of the most retarded things in the universe. 
+For some reason retards (basically everyone) don't want to accept this, as if accepting it changed anything, stupid [capitalists](capitalism.md) think that it would somehow belittle their "achievements" or what? Basically just like the people who used to let go of geocentrism. This is ridiculous, they hold on to the idea of their "PRECIOOOOUUUSS FREE WILL" to the death, then they go and consume whatever a TV tells them to consume. Indeed one of the most retarded things in the universe. 

lgbt.md

@@ -8,6 +8,6 @@ Note that **not all gay people support LGBT**, even though LGBT wants you to thi
 
 LGBT works towards establishing [newspeak](newspeak.md) and [though crime](though_crime.md), their "pride" parades are not unlike military parades, they're meant to establish fear of their numbers. LGBT targets children and young whom their propaganda floods every day with messages like *"being gay makes you cool and more interesting"* so that they have a higher probability of developing homosexuality to further increase their ranks in the future. They also push the idea of children having same sex parents for the same reason.
 
-They oppose [straight](straight.md) people as they solely focus on gaining more and more rights and power only for their approved orientations. They also highly bully other, unpopular sexual orientations such as [pedophiles](pedophilia.md) (not necessarily child rapists), [necrophiles](necro.md) and [zoophiles](zoophilia.md), simply because supporting these would hurt their popularity and political power. They label the non-approved orientations a "disorder", they push people of such orientations to [suicide](suicide.md) and generally just do all the bad things that society used to do to gay people in the past -- the fact that these people are often gay people who know what it's like to be bullied like that makes it this even much more sad and disgusting. To them it doesn't matter you never hurt anyone, if they find some [loli](loli.md) images on your computer, you're gonna get lynched mercilessly.
+LGBT oppose [straight](straight.md) people as they solely focus on gaining more and more rights and power only for their approved orientations. They also highly bully other, unpopular sexual orientations such as [pedophiles](pedophilia.md) (not necessarily child rapists), [necrophiles](necro.md) and [zoophiles](zoophilia.md), simply because supporting these would hurt their popularity and political power. They label the non-approved orientations a "disorder", they push people of such orientations to [suicide](suicide.md) and generally just do all the bad things that society used to do to gay people in the past -- the fact that these people are often gay people who know what it's like to be bullied like that makes it this even much more sad and disgusting. To them it doesn't matter you never hurt anyone, if they find some [loli](loli.md) images on your computer, you're gonna get lynched mercilessly.
 
-In the world of technology they are known for supporting [toxic](toxic.md) [codes of conduct](coc.md) in [FOSS](foss.md) projects (so called [tranny software](tranny_sw.md)), they managed to push them into most mainstream projects, even [Linux](linux.md) etc. Generally they just killed [free speech](free_speech.md) online as well as [in real life](irl.md), every platform now has some kind of surveillance and censorship justified by "offensive speech". They canceled [Richard Stallman](rms.md) for merely questioning a part of their gospel. They also managed to establish things like "diversity" quotas in Hollywood that only allow Oscars to be given to movies made by specific number of gays, lesbians etc. xD Apparently in the software development industry it is now standard to pretend to be a tranny on one's resume so as to greatly increase the chance of being hired xD WTF if I didn't live in this shitty world I wouldn't believe that's even possible, in a dystopian horror movie this would feel like crossing the line of believability too far [lmao](lmao.md).
+In the world of technology they are known for supporting [toxic](toxic.md) [codes of conduct](coc.md) in [FOSS](foss.md) projects (so called [tranny software](tranny_sw.md)), they managed to push them into most mainstream projects, even [Linux](linux.md) etc. Generally they just killed [free speech](free_speech.md) online as well as [in real life](irl.md), every platform now has some kind of surveillance and censorship justified by "offensive speech". They cancelled [Richard Stallman](rms.md) for merely questioning a part of their gospel. They also managed to establish things like "diversity" quotas in Hollywood that only allow Oscars to be given to movies made by specific number of gays, lesbians etc., and they started to insert gay characters into fairy tales and movies for children (Toy Story etc.) xD This is literally the same kind of cheap but effective propaganda Nazi Germany employed on children. Apparently in the software development industry it is now standard to pretend to be a tranny on one's resume so as to greatly increase the chance of being hired for diversity quotas xD WTF if I didn't live in this shitty world I wouldn't believe that's even possible, in a dystopian horror movie this would feel like crossing the line of believability too far [lmao](lmao.md).

optimization.md

@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ These are mainly for [C](c.md), but may be usable in other languages as well.
 - **[Early branching](early_branching.md) can create a speed up** (instead of branching inside the loop create two versions of the loop and branch in front of them). This is a kind of space-time tradeoff.
 - **Division can be replaced by multiplication by [reciprocal](reciprocal.md)**, i.e. *x / y = x * 1/y*. The point is that multiplication is usually faster than division. This may not help us when performing a single division by variable value (as we still have to divide 1 by *y*) but it does help when we need to divide many numbers by the same variable number OR when we know the divisor at compile time; we save time by precomputing the reciprocal before a loop or at compile time. Of course this can also easily be done with [fixed point](fixed_point.md) and integers!
 - **Consider the difference between logical and bitwise operators!** For example [AND](and.md) and [OR](or.md) boolean functions in C have two variants, one bitwise (`&` and `|`) and one logical (`&&` and `||`) -- they behave a bit differently but sometimes you may have a choice which one to use, then consider this: bitwise operators usually translate to only a single fast (and small) instruction while the logical ones usually translate to a branch (i.e. multiple instructions with potentially slow jumps), however logical operators may be faster because they are evaluated as [short circuit](short_circuit_eval.md) (e.g. if first operand of OR is true, second operand is not evaluated at all) while bitwise operators will evaluate all operands.
+- **Consider the pros and cons of using indices vs pointers**: When working with arrays you usually have the choice of using either pointers or indices, each option has advantages and disadvantages; working with pointers may be faster and produce smaller code (fewer instructions), but array indices are portable, may be smaller and safer. E.g. imagine you store your game sprites as a continuous array of images in RAM and your program internally precomputes a table that says where each image starts -- here you can either use pointers (which say directly the memory address of each image) or indices (which say the offset from the start of the big image array): using indices may be better here as the table may potentially be smaller (an index into relatively small array doesn't have to be able to keep any possible memory address) and the table may even be stored to a file and just loaded next time (whereas pointers can't because on next run the memory addresses may be different), however you'll need a few extra instructions to access any image (adding the index to the array pointer), which will however most definitely be negligible.
 - **Reuse variables to save space**. A warning about this one: readability may suffer, mainstreamers will tell you you're going against "good practice", and some compilers may do this automatically anyway. Be sure to at least make this clear in your comments. Anyway, on a lower level and/or with dumber compilers you can just reuse variables that you used for something else rather than creating a new variable that takes additional RAM; of course a prerequisite for "merging" variables is that the variables aren't used at the same time.
 - **To save memory use [compression](compression.md) techniques.** Compression doesn't always have to mean you use a typical compression algorithm such as [jpeg](jpg.md) or [LZ77](lz77.md), you may simply just throw in a few compression techniques such as [run length](run_length.md) or word dictionaries into your data structures. E.g. in [Anarch](anarch.md) maps are kept small by consisting of a small dictionary of tile definitions and map cells referring to this dictionary (which makes the cells much smaller than if each one held a complete tile definition).
 - **What's fast on one platform may be slow on another**. This depends on the instruction set as well as on compiler, operating system, available hardware, [driver](driver.md) implementation and other details. In the end you always need to test on the specific platform to be sure about how fast it will run. A good approach is to optimize for the weakest platform you want to support -- if it runs fasts on a weak platform, a "better" platform will most likely still run it fast.