Update

antivirus_paradox.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 
 { I think this paradox must have had another established name even before antiviruses, but I wasn't able to find anything. If you know it, let me know. ~drummyfish }
 
-Antivirus paradox is the paradox of someone who's job it is to eliminate certain undesirable phenomenon actually having an interest in keeping this phenomenon existing so as to keep his job. A typical example is an [antivirus](antivirus.md) company having an interest in the existence of dangerous [viruses](virus.md) and malware so as to keep their business running; in fact antivirus companies themselves secretly create and release viruses and malware.
+Antivirus paradox is the paradox of someone who's job it is to eliminate certain undesirable phenomenon actually having an interest in keeping this phenomenon existing so as to keep his [job](work.md). A typical example is an [antivirus](antivirus.md) company having an interest in the existence of dangerous [viruses](virus.md) and [malware](malware.md) so as to keep their business running; in fact antivirus companies themselves secretly create and release viruses and malware.
 
-Cases of this behavior are common, e.g. the bind-torture-kill serial killer used to work as a seller of home security alarms who installed alarms for people who were afraid about being invaded by the bind-torture-killer, and then used his knowledge of the alarms to break into the houses -- a typical capitalist business. It is also a known phenomenon that many firefighters are passionate arsonists because society simply rewards them for [fighting](fight_culture.md) fires (as opposed to rewarding them for the lack of fires).
+Cases of said behavior are common, e.g. the bind-torture-kill serial killer used to work as a seller of home security alarms who installed alarms for people who were afraid of being invaded by the bind-torture-killer, and then used his knowledge of the alarms to break into the houses -- a typical capitalist business. It is also a known phenomenon that many firefighters are passionate arsonists because society simply praises them for [fighting](fight_culture.md) fires (as opposed to rewarding them for the lack of fires).
 
-In [capitalism](capitalism.md) and similar systems requiring people to have jobs this paradox prevents progress, i.e. actual elimination of undesirable phenomena, hence capitalism and similar systems are anti-progress. And not only that, the system pressures people to artificially creating new undesirable phenomena (e.g. lack of [women](woman.md) in tech and similar [bullshit](bs.md)) just to create new [bullshit jobs](bs_job.md) that "[fight](fight_culture.md)" this phenomena. In a truly good society where people are not required to have jobs and in which people aim to eliminate [work](work.md) this paradox largely disappears.
+In [capitalism](capitalism.md) and similar systems requiring people to have jobs this paradox prevents [progress](progress.md), that is to say actual elimination of undesirable phenomena, hence capitalism and similar systems are anti-progress. And not only that, the system pressures people to artificially creating new undesirable phenomena (like a "lack of [women](woman.md) in tech" and similar [bullshit](bs.md)) just to create new [bullshit jobs](bs_job.md) that "[fight](fight_culture.md)" this phenomena. In a truly good society where people are not required to have jobs and in which people aim to eliminate [work](work.md) this paradox largely disappears.

byte.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 # Byte
 
-Byte (symbol: B) is a basic unit of [information](information.md), nowadays practically always consisting of 8 [bits](bit.md) (in which case it is also called an **octet**), which allow it to store 2^8 = 256 distinct values (for example a number in range 0 to 255). It is usually the smallest unit of memory a [CPU](cpu.md) is able to operate on, and memory addresses are assigned by one byte steps. We use bytes to measure the size of [memory](memory.md) and derive higher memory [units](memory_units.md) from it, such as a kilobyte (kB, 1000 bytes), kibibyte (KiB, 1024 bytes), megabyte (MB, 10^6 bytes) etc. In [programming](programming.md) a one byte [variable](variable.md) is nowadays seen as very small and used if we are really limited by memory constraints (e.g. [embedded](embedded.md)) or to mimic older 8bit computers ("[retro](retro.md) games" etc.): one byte can be used to store very small numbers (while in mainstream processors numbers nowadays mostly have 4 or 8 bytes), text characters ([ASCII](ascii.md), ...), very primitive colors (see [RGB332](rgb332.md), [palettes](palette.md), ...) etc.
+Byte (symbol: B) is a basic unit of [information](information.md), nowadays already practically always consisting of 8 [bits](bit.md) (for which it's also called an **octet**), that allow it to store 2^8 = 256 distinct values (for example a number in range 0 to 255). It is commonly the smallest unit of computer memory a [CPU](cpu.md) is able to operate on; memory addresses are assigned by steps of one byte. We use bytes to measure the size of [memory](memory.md) and derive higher memory [units](memory_units.md) such as a kilobyte (kB, 1000 bytes), kibibyte (KiB, 1024 bytes), megabyte (MB, 10^6 bytes) and so forth. In conventional [programming](programming.md) a one byte [variable](variable.md) is seen as very small and used if we are really limited by memory constraints (e.g. [embedded](embedded.md)) or to mimic older 8bit computers ("[retro](retro.md) games" etc.): one byte can be used to store very small numbers (while in mainstream processors numbers nowadays mostly have 4 or 8 bytes), text characters ([ASCII](ascii.md), ...), very primitive [colors](color.md) (see [RGB332](rgb332.md), [palettes](palette.md), ...) etc.
 
-Historically *byte* was used to stand for the basic addressable unit of memory that could store one text character or another "basic value" and could therefore have a different size than 8 bits: e.g. ASCII machines might have had a 7bit byte, 16bit machines a 16bit byte etc.; in [C](c.md) (standard 99) `char` is the "byte" data type, its byte size is always 1 (`sizeof(char) == 1`), though its number of bits (`CHAR_BIT`) can be greater or equal to 8; if you need an exact 8bit byte use types such as `int8_t` and `uint8_t` from the standard `stdint` library. From now on we will implicitly talk about 8bit bytes.
+Historically *byte* was used to stand for the basic addressable unit of memory capable of storing one text character or another "basic value" and could therefore have a different size than 8 bits: for example ASCII machines might have had a 7bit byte, 16bit machines a 16bit byte etc.; in [C](c.md) (standard 99) `char` is the "byte" data type, its byte size is always 1 (`sizeof(char) == 1`), though its number of bits (`CHAR_BIT`) can be greater or equal to 8; if you need an exact 8bit byte use types such as `int8_t` and `uint8_t` from the standard `stdint` library. From now on we will implicitly talk about 8bit bytes.
 
 **Value of one byte can be written exactly with two [hexadecimal](hexadecimal.md) digits** with each digit always corresponding to higher/lower 4 bits, making mental conversions very easy; this is very convenient compared to [decimal](decimal.md) representation, so programmers prefer to write byte values in hexadecimal. For example a byte whose binary value is *11010010* is *D2* in hexadecimal (*1101* is always *D* and *0010* is always *2*), while in decimal we get 210.
 

c.md

@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ Firstly let's sum up some of the reasons why C is so good:
 - **It is [old](old.md), written only by white male [hackers](hacking.md), at times when [capitalism](capitalism.md) was weaker**: No [women](woman.md) were probably involved in the development (of course we aren't racists or sexists, it's just a fact that white men are best at programming), the development was largely part of genuine research, at the time when computers weren't mainstream and computer technology wasn't being raped as hard as today. C developers didn't even think of embedding any political message in the language. Times like this will never be repeated.
 - ...
 
-Now let's admit that nothing is [perfect](perfect.md), not even C; it was one of the first relatively higher level languages and even though it has showed to have been designed extremely well, some things didn't age great, or were simply bad from the start. We still prefer this language as usually the best choice, but it's good to be aware of its downsides or smaller issues, if only for the sake of one day designing a better language. Keep in mind all here are just suggestions, they made of course be a subject to counter arguments and further discussion. Here are some of the **bad things** about the language:
+Now let's admit that nothing is [perfect](perfect.md), not even C; it was one of the first relatively higher level languages and even though it has showed to have been designed extremely well, some things didn't age great, or were simply bad from the start. We still prefer this language as usually the best choice, but it's good to be aware of its downsides or smaller issues, if only for the sake of one day designing a better language. Please bear in mind all here are just suggestions, they made of course be a subject to counter arguments and further discussion. Here are some of the **bad things** about the language:
 
 - **C specification (the ISO standard) is [proprietary](proprietary.md)** :( The language itself probably can't be copyrighted, nevertheless this may change in the future, and a proprietary specs lowers C's accessibility and moddability (you can't make derivative versions of the spec).
 - **The specification is also long as fuck** (approx. 500 pages, our of that 163 of the pure language), indicating [bloat](bloat.md)/complexity/obscurity. A good, free language should have a simple definition. It could be simplified a lot by simplifying the language itself as well as dropping some truly legacy considerations (like [BCD](bcd.md) systems?) and removing a lot of undefined behavior.

cheating.md

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 # Cheating
 
-Cheating means circumventing or downright violating rules, usually while trying to keep this behavior secret. You can cheat on your partner, in [games](game.md), in [business](business.md) etc., however despite cheating seeming like purely immoral behavior at first, it may be relatively harmless or even completely moral, e.g. in [computer graphics](graphics.md) we sometimes "cheat" our sense of sight and fake certain visual phenomena which leads to efficient rendering [algorithms](algorithm.md). In [capitalism](capitalism.md) cheating is demonized and people are brainwashed to take part in **cheater witch hunts** as part of [fear culture](fear_culture.md), arbitrary drama in [fight](fight_culture.md) for attention, trying to monopolize game platforms with [bloat monopoly](bloat_monopoly.md) "anti cheat" systems etc. These so called "anti cheat" systems introduce unimaginable [bloat](bloat.md) and [bullshit](bullshit.md) and provide excuse for things like [spying](surveillance.md) (e.g. monitoring OS processes) and [proprietary](proprietary.md) technology (so that "cheaters can't study the system to trick it").
+Cheating means circumventing or downright violating rules, usually while trying to keep such behavior secret. You can cheat on your partner, in [games](game.md), in [business](business.md) and so forth, however despite cheating seeming like purely immoral behavior at first glance, it may be relatively harmless or even completely [moral](morality.md), for instance in [computer graphics](graphics.md) we occasionally "cheat" our sense of sight and fake certain visual phenomena which leads to efficient rendering [algorithms](algorithm.md). In [capitalism](capitalism.md) cheating is demonized and people are brainwashed to partake in **cheater witch hunts** as part of [fear culture](fear_culture.md), arbitrary [drama](drama.md) in [fight](fight_culture.md) for attention, trying to monopolize game platforms with [bloat monopoly](bloat_monopoly.md) "anti cheat" systems etc. These so called "anti cheat" systems introduce unimaginable [bloat](bloat.md) and [bullshit](bullshit.md) and provide excuse for things like [spying](surveillance.md) (e.g. monitoring OS processes) and [proprietary](proprietary.md) technology (so that "cheaters can't study the system to trick it").
 
-The truth is that **cheating is only an issue in a shitty society** that's driven by [competition](competition.md). In such society there is a huge motivation for cheating (sometimes literally physical survival) as well as potentially disastrous consequences of it. Under the tyranny of capitalism we are led to worship [heroes](hero_culture.md) and high achievers and everyone gets pissed when we get fooled. Corporations go "OH NOES our multi billion dollar entertainment industry is going to go bankrupt if consoomers get annoyed by cheaters! People are gonna lose their bullshit jobs! Someone is going to get money he doesn't deserve! Our customers may get butthurt!!!" (as if corporations themselves weren't basically just stealing money and raping people lol). So they start a huge brainwashing propaganda campaign, a cheater witch hunt. States do the same, communities do the same, everyone wants to stone cheaters to death but at the same time the society pressures all of us to compete to death with others or else we'll starve. We reward winners and torture the losers, then bash people who try to win -- and no, many times there is no other choice than to cheat, the top of any competition is littered with cheaters, most just don't get caught, so in about 99% of cases the only way to the top is to cheat and try to not get caught, just to have a shot at winning against others. It is proven time after time, legit looking people in the top leagues of sports, business, science and other areas are constantly being revealed as cheaters, usually by pure accident (i.e. the number of actual cheater is MANY times higher). Take a look e.g. at the [Trackmania](trackmania.md) cheating scandal in which after someone invented a replay analysis tool he revealed that a great number or top level players were just cheaters, including possibly the GOAT of Trackmania [Riolu](riolu.md) (who just ragequit and never showed again lol). Of course famous cases like Neil Armstrong don't even have to be mentioned. { I just randomly found out that in the world of Pokemon tournaments cheating at top level also showed to be a huge issue lol. ~drummyfish } Cheater detection systems are (and always will be) imperfect and try to minimize [false positives](false_positive.md), so only the cheaters who REPEATEDLY make MANY very OBVIOUS mistakes get caught, the smart cheaters stay and take the top places in the competitive system, just as surely as natural selection leads to the evolution of organisms that best adapt to the environment. Even if perfect cheat-detection systems existed, the problem would just shift from cheating to immoral unsportmanship, i.e. abuse of rules that's technically not cheating but effectively presents the same kind of problems. How to solve this enormously disgusting mess? We simply have to stop desperately holding to the system itself, we have to ditch it.
+The truth is that **cheating is only an issue in a [shitty](shit.md) society** that is driven by [competition](competition.md). Indeed, in such society there is a huge motivation for cheating (sometimes literally physical survival) as well as potentially disastrous consequences of it. Under the tyranny of capitalism we are led to worship [heroes](hero_culture.md) and high achievers and everyone gets pissed when we get fooled. Corporations go "OH NOES our multi billion dollar entertainment industry is going to go bankrupt if consoomers get annoyed by cheaters! People are gonna lose their bullshit jobs! Someone is going to get money he doesn't deserve! Our customers may get butthurt!!!" (as if corporations themselves weren't basically just stealing money and raping people lol). So they start a huge brainwashing propaganda campaign, a cheater witch hunt. States do the same, communities do the same, everyone wants to stone cheaters to death but at the same time the society pressures all of us to compete to death with others or else we'll starve. We reward winners and torture the losers, then bash people who try to win -- and no, many times there is no other choice than to cheat, the top of any competition is littered with cheaters, most just don't get caught, so in about 99% of cases the only way to the top is to cheat and try to not get caught, just to have a shot at winning against others. It is proven time after time, legit looking people in the top leagues of sports, business, [science](science.md) and other areas are constantly being revealed as cheaters, usually by pure accident (i.e. the number of actual cheater is MANY times higher). Take a look for instance at the [Trackmania](trackmania.md) cheating scandal in which after someone invented a replay analysis tool he revealed that a great number or top level players were just cheaters, including possibly the GOAT of Trackmania [Riolu](riolu.md) (who just ragequit and never showed again lol). Of course famous cases like Neil Armstrong don't even have to be mentioned. { I just randomly found out that in the world of Pokemon tournaments cheating at top level also showed to be a huge issue lol. ~drummyfish } Cheater detection systems are (and always will be) imperfect and try to minimize [false positives](false_positive.md), so only the cheaters who REPEATEDLY make MANY very OBVIOUS mistakes get caught, the smart cheaters stay and take the top places in the competitive system, just as surely as natural selection leads to the evolution of organisms that best adapt to the environment. Even if perfect cheat-detection systems existed, the problem would just shift from cheating to immoral unsportmanship, i.e. abuse of rules that's technically not cheating but effectively presents the same kind of problems. How to solve this enormously disgusting mess? We simply have to stop desperately holding to the system itself, we have to ditch it.
 
-In a good society, such as [LRS](less_retarded_society.md), cheating is not an issue at all, there's no motivation for it (people don't have to prove their worth by their skills, there are no money, people don't worship heroes, ...) and there are no negative consequences of cheating worse than someone [ragequitting](ragequit.md) an online game -- which really isn't an issue of cheating anyway but simply a consequence of unskilled player facing a skilled one (whether the pro's skill is natural or artificial doesn't play a role, the nub will ragequit anyway). In a good society cheating can become a mild annoyance at worst, and it can really be a positive thing, it can be [fun](fun.md) -- seeing for example a skilled pro face and potentially even beat a cheater is a very interesting thing. If someone wants to win by cheating, why not let him? Valid answers to this can only be given in the context of a shit society that creates cults of personality out of winners etc. In a good society choosing to cheat in a game is as if someone chooses to fly to the top of a mountain by helicopter rather than climbing it -- the choice is everyone's to make.
+In a good society, such as [LRS](less_retarded_society.md), cheating is not an issue at all, there's no incentive for it (people don't have to prove their worth by their skills, there are no money, people don't worship heroes, ...) and there are no negative consequences of cheating worse than someone [ragequitting](ragequit.md) an online game -- which really isn't an issue of cheating anyway but simply a consequence of unskilled player facing a skilled one (whether the pro's skill is natural or artificial doesn't play a role, the nub will ragequit anyway). In a good society cheating can become a mild annoyance at worst, and it can really be a positive thing, it can be [fun](fun.md) -- seeing for example a skilled pro face and potentially even beat a cheater is a very interesting thing. If someone wants to win by cheating, why not let him? Valid answers to this can only be given in the context of a shit society that creates cults of personality out of winners etc. In a good society choosing to cheat in a game is as if someone chooses to fly to the top of a mountain by helicopter rather than climbing it -- the choice is everyone's to make.
 
-The fact that cheating isn't really an issue is supported by the hilariously vastly different double standards applied e.g. by chess platforms in this matter, on one hand they state in their TOS they have absolutely 0% tolerance of any kind of cheating/assistance and will lifeban players for the slightest suspicion of cheating yelling "WE HAVE TO [FIGHT](fight.md) CHEATING", on the other hand they allow streamers literally cheat on a daily basis on live stream where everyone is seeing it, of course because streamers bring them money -- ALL top chess streamers (chessbrah, Nakamura, ...), including the world champion Magnus Carlsen himself, have videos of themselves getting advice on moves from the chat or even from high level players present during the stream, Magnus Carlsen is filmed taking over his friend's low rated account and winning a game which is the same as if the friend literally just used an engine to win the game, and Magnus is also filmed getting an advice from a top grandmaster on a critical move in a tournament that won him the game and granted him a FINANCIAL PRIZE. **World chess champion is literally filmed winning money by cheating and no one cares** because it was done as part of a highly lucrative stream "in a fun/friendly mood". Chessbrah streams frequently consist of many people in the room just giving advice on moves to the one who is currently playing, of course they censor all comments that try to bring up the fact that this is 100% cheating directly violating the platform's TOS. People literally have no brains, they only freak out about cheating when they're told to by the industry, when cheating is good for business people are told to shut up because it's okay and indeed they just shut up and keep consuming.
+The fact that cheating isn't after all such an issue is supported by the hilariously vastly different double standards applied e.g. by chess platforms in this matter, on one hand they state in their TOS they have absolutely 0% tolerance of any kind of cheating/assistance and will lifeban players for the slightest suspicion of cheating yelling "WE HAVE TO [FIGHT](fight.md) CHEATING", on the other hand they allow streamers literally cheat on a daily basis on live stream where everyone is seeing it, of course because streamers bring them money -- ALL top chess streamers (chessbrah, Nakamura, ...), including the world champion Magnus Carlsen himself, have videos of themselves getting advice on moves from the chat or even from high level players present during the stream, Magnus Carlsen is filmed taking over his friend's low rated account and winning a game which is the same as if the friend literally just used an engine to win the game, and Magnus is also filmed getting an advice from a top grandmaster on a critical move in a tournament that won him the game and granted him a FINANCIAL PRIZE. **World chess champion is literally filmed winning money by cheating and no one cares** because it was done as part of a highly lucrative stream "in a fun/friendly mood". Chessbrah streams ordinarily consist of many viewers in the room just giving advice on moves to the one who is currently playing, of course they censor all comments that try to bring up the fact that this is 100% cheating directly violating the platform's TOS. People literally have no brains, they only freak out about cheating when they're told to by the industry, when cheating is good for business people are told to shut up because it's okay and indeed they just shut up and keep consuming.

chess.md

@@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ WORK IN PROGRESS, pls send me more tips :)
 - OTB (over the board) only:
   - Turn your knights to face backwards or in another weird way (always face the opponent's king etc.). Also place the pieces unevenly on the squares to piss off opponents with OCD and autism.
   - Behave weird, make weird faces, walk extremely far away from the board and walk in circles (or just get up and stand up directly behind your opponent in a completely upright position staring into the distance without moving at all like a robot lol), constantly sneeze (try to sneeze every time the opponent touches a piece), make very long unbroken eye contact with the opponent while smiling as if you know what he's thinking, call the referee constantly, go to the toilet after every move, pretend to fall asleep from boredom etc. Overeat on beans before the game so you fart a lot and always try to fart as loud as possible. Wear nice clothes but right before the game go sweat to the gym so that you smell like a pig and distract the opponent with toxic fume. If you're a [wimmin](woman.md) behave sexually, keep grabbing your boobs, lick your lips and opponent's captured pieces and silently moan sometimes as if you're having an orgasm, pretend to masturbate under the table; if your opponent is male he is almost definitely smarter than you, you gotta use your woman weapons, but it will probably work easily on the chess virgins.
-  - In a tournament change play based on opponent's race or sex, for example play only one opening against white people and another opening against black people, see if anyone notices the pattern :D
+  - In a tournament change play based on opponent's [race](race.md) or sex, for example play only one opening against white people and another opening against black people, see if anyone notices the pattern :D
   - Outside tournament take advantage of the fact that you can do whatever the fuck you want: have one hand constantly on the clock and play with the other hand (considered rude and often forbidden), touch and knock over your opponent's pieces, take back your moves, ... and of course when you're losing, "accidentally" knock over the whole board and be like "oops, let's consider it a draw then" :D
   - Trash talk the referee.
   - Correct the opponent's pronunciation of *en passant*, insist it's pronounced "en peasant".

computer.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 # Computer
 
-The word *computer* can be defined in many ways and can also take many different meanings; a somewhat common definition may be this: computer is a machine that automatically performs mathematical computations. We can also see it as a machine for processing [information](information.md), manipulating symbols or, very generally, as any tool that helps computation, in which case one's fingers or even a [mathematical](math.md) formula itself can be considered a computer. Here we are of course mostly concerned with electronic [digital](digital.md) computers.
+The word *computer* may be defined in countless ways and can also adopt many different meanings; a somewhat common definition may be this: computer is a machine that automatically performs mathematical computations. We can also see it as a machine for processing [information](information.md), manipulating symbols or, very generally, as any tool that helps computation, in which case one's fingers or even a [mathematical](math.md) formula itself can be considered a computer. Here we are of course mostly concerned with electronic [digital](digital.md) computers.
 
-Electronic digital computer turned out to be one of the greatest [technological](tech.md) inventions in [history](history.md) for many reasons -- firstly computers allowed creation of many other things which previously required too complex calculations, such as highly complex planes, space rockets and undreamed of factories (and, of course, yet more powerful computers which is why we've seen the exponential growth in computer power), they also allow us to crunch extreme volumes of data and accelerate [science](science.md); secondly they offered extremely advanced work tools like [robots](robotics.md), virtual 3D visualizations, [artificial intelligence](ai.md) and physics simulators, and they also gave us high quality, cheap [multimedia](multimedia.md) and entertainment like [games](game.md) -- with computers anyone can shoot video, record music, carry around hundreds of movies in his pocket or fly a virtual plane. Most important however is probably the fact that computers enabled the [Internet](internet.md) -- by this they forever changed the world.
+Electronic digital computer turned out to be one of the greatest [technological](tech.md) inventions in [history](history.md) for numerous reasons -- firstly computers allowed creation of many other things which previously required too complex calculations, such as highly complex planes, space rockets and undreamed of factories (and, of course, yet more powerful computers which is why we've seen the exponential growth in computer power), they also allow us to crunch extreme volumes of data and accelerate [science](science.md); secondly they offered extremely advanced work tools like [robots](robotics.md), virtual 3D visualizations, [artificial intelligence](ai.md) and physics simulators, and they also gave us high quality, cheap [multimedia](multimedia.md) and entertainment like [games](game.md) -- with computers anyone can shoot video, record music, carry around hundreds of movies in his pocket or fly a virtual plane. Most important however is probably the fact that computers enabled the [Internet](internet.md) -- by this they forever changed the world.
 
 We can divide computers based on many attributes, e.g.:
 
@@ -42,11 +42,11 @@ Computers are theoretically studied by [computer science](compsci.md). The kind
 
 **The power of computers is mathematically limited**, [Alan Turing](turing.md) mathematically proved that there exist problems that can never be completely solved by any [algorithm](algorithm.md), i.e. there are problems a computer (including our [brain](brain.md)) will never be able to solve (even if solution exists). This is related to the fact that the power of mathematics itself is limited in a similar way (see [Godel's theorems](incompleteness_theorems.md)). Turing also invented the theoretical model of a computer called the [Turing machine](turing_machine.md). Besides the mentioned theoretical limitation, many solvable problems may take too long to compute, at least with computers we currently know (see [computational complexity](computational_complexity.md) and [P vs NP](p_vs_np.md)).
 
-And let's also mention some [interesting](interesting.md) **statistics** and facts about computers as of 2024. The fist computer in modern sense of the word is frequently considered to have been the Analytical Engine designed in 1837 by an Englishman Charles Babbage, a general purpose [mechanical computer](mechanical_computer.md) which he however never constructed. After this the computers such as the Z1 (1938) and Z3 (1941) of a German inventor Konrad Zuse are considered to be the truly first "modern" computers. Shortly after the year 2000 the number of US households that had a computer surpassed 50%. The fastest [supercomputer](supercomputer.md) of today is Frontier (Tennessee, [USA](usa.md)) which achieved computation speed of 1.102 exaFLOPS (that is over 10^18 [floating point](float.md) operations per second) with power 22.7 MW, using the [Linux](linux.md) kernel (like all top 500 supercomputers). Over time transistors have been getting much smaller -- there is the famous **[Moore's law](moores_law.md)** which states that number of transistors in a chip doubles about every two years. Currently we are able to manufacture [transistors](transistor.md) as small as a few nanometers and chips have billions of them. { There's some blurriness about exact size, apparently the new "X nanometers" labels are just [marketing](marketing.md) lies. ~drummyfish }
+And let's also mention some [curious](interesting.md) **statistics** and facts about computers as of the year 2024. The fist computer in modern sense of the word is frequently considered to have been the Analytical Engine designed in 1837 by an Englishman Charles Babbage, a general purpose [mechanical computer](mechanical_computer.md) which he however never constructed. After this the computers such as the Z1 (1938) and Z3 (1941) of a German inventor Konrad Zuse are considered to be the truly first "modern" computers. Shortly after the year 2000 the number of US households that had a computer surpassed 50%. The fastest [supercomputer](supercomputer.md) of today is Frontier (Tennessee, [USA](usa.md)) which achieved computation speed of 1.102 exaFLOPS (that is over 10^18 [floating point](float.md) operations per second) with power 22.7 MW, using the [Linux](linux.md) kernel (like all top 500 supercomputers). Over time transistors have been getting much smaller -- there is the famous **[Moore's law](moores_law.md)** which states that number of transistors in a chip doubles about every two years. Currently we are able to manufacture [transistors](transistor.md) as small as a few nanometers and chips have billions of them. { There's some blurriness about exact size, apparently the new "X nanometers" labels are just [marketing](marketing.md) lies. ~drummyfish }
 
 ## Typical Computer
 
-Computers we normally talk about in daily conversations are [electronic](electronics.md) [digital](digital.md) mostly personal computers such as [desktops](desktop.md) and [laptops](laptop.md), possibly also [cell phones](phone.md), [tablets](tablet.md) etc.
+Computers we ordinarily talk about in everyday conversations are [electronic](electronics.md) [digital](digital.md) mostly personal computers such as [desktops](desktop.md) and [laptops](laptop.md), possibly also [cell phones](phone.md), [tablets](tablet.md) etc.
 
 Such a computer consists of some kind of [case](case.md) (chassis), internal [hardware](hardware.md) plus [peripheral devices](peripheral.md) that serve for [input and output](io.md) -- these are for example a [keyboard](keyboard.md) and [mouse](mouse.md) (input devices), a [monitor](monitor.md) (output device) or [harddisk](hdd.md) (input/output device). The internals of the computer normally include:
 

demoscene.md

@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
 # Demoscene
 
-Demoscene is a [hacker](hacking.md) [art](art.md) subculture revolving around making so called [demos](demo.md), programs that produce rich and interesting audiovisual effects which are sometimes limited by strict size constraints (so called [intros](intro.md)). The scene originated in northern [Europe](europe.md) sometime in 1980s (even though things like screen hacks existed long before) among groups of [crackers](cracker.md) who were adding small signature effect screens into their cracked software (popularly likened to "digital graffiti"); [programming](programming.md) of these cool effects later became an art of its own and started to have their own competitions (sometimes with high financial prizes), so called *[compos](compo.md)*, at dedicated real life events called *[demoparties](demoparty.md)* (which themselves evolved from *[copyparties](copyparty.md)*, real life events focused on [piracy](piracy.md)). The community is still centered mostly in the [Europe](europe.md) (primarily Finland, in some countries demoscene was even officially added to the cultural heritage), it is underground, out of the mainstream; [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) says that by 2010 its size was estimated to 10000 people (such people are called *demosceners*).
+Demoscene is a [hacker](hacking.md) [art](art.md) subculture revolving around making so called [demos](demo.md), programs that produce rich and highly [curious](interesting.md) and intriguing audiovisual effects which are sometimes limited by strict size constraints (so called [intros](intro.md)). The scene originated in northern [Europe](europe.md) sometime in 1980s (although things like screen hacks existed long before) among groups of [crackers](cracker.md) who were adding small signature effect screens into their cracked software (popularly likened to "digital graffiti"); [programming](programming.md) of these cool effects later became an art of its own and started to have their own competitions (sometimes with high financial prizes), so called *[compos](compo.md)*, at dedicated real life events called *[demoparties](demoparty.md)* (which themselves evolved from *[copyparties](copyparty.md)*, real life events focused on [piracy](piracy.md)). The community is still centered mostly in the [Europe](europe.md) (primarily Finland, in some countries demoscene was even officially added to the cultural heritage), it is underground, out of the mainstream; [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) says that by 2010 its size was estimated to 10000 people (such people are called *demosceners*).
 
-Demoscene is a bittersweet topic: on one side it's awesome, full of beautiful hacking, great ideas and minimalism, on the other side there are secretive people who don't share their source code (most demos are [proprietary](proprietary.md)) and ugly unportable programs that exploit quirks of specific platforms. Common platforms are [DOS](dos.md), [Commodore 64](c64.md), [Amiga](amiga.md) or [Windows](windows.md). These guys simply try to make the coolest visuals and smallest programs, with all good and bad that comes with it. Please strive to take only the good of it.
+Demoscene is a bit of a bittersweet topic: on one side it's awesome, full of beautiful hacking, great ideas and minimalism, on the other side there are secretive people who don't share their source code (most demos are [proprietary](proprietary.md)) and ugly unportable programs that exploit quirks of specific platforms. Common platforms are [DOS](dos.md), [Commodore 64](c64.md), [Amiga](amiga.md) or [Windows](windows.md). These guys simply try to make the coolest visuals and smallest programs, with all good and bad that comes with it. Please strive to take only the good of it.
 
-Besides "digital graffiti" the scene is also perhaps a bit similar to the culture of street rap in its underground and competitive nature, but of course it differs by lack of improvisation and in centering on groups rather than individuals. Nevertheless the focus is on competition, originality, style etc. But demos should show off technological skills as the highest priority -- trying to "win by content" rather than programming skills is sometimes frowned upon. Individuals within a demogroup have roles such as a [programmer](programmer.md), visual artist, music artist, director, even [PR](pr.md) etc. The whole mindset and relationship to technology within demoscene is much different from the mainstream; for example it's been stated that while mainstream sees computers just as a tool that should just make happen what we imagine, a demoscener puts technology first, he doesn't see computing platforms in terms of better or worse e.g. for its raw computational power, he rather sees a rich world of unique computing platforms, each one with specific personality and feel, kind of like a visual artist sees different painting styles.
+Besides "digital graffiti" the scene is also perhaps a bit remotely similar to the culture of street rap in its underground and competitive nature, but of course it differs by lack of improvisation and in centering on groups rather than individuals. Nevertheless the focus is on competition, originality, style etc. But demos should show off technological skills as the highest priority -- trying to "win by content" rather than programming skills is sometimes frowned upon. Individuals within a demogroup have roles such as a [programmer](programmer.md), visual artist, music artist, director, even [PR](pr.md) etc. The whole mindset and relationship to technology within demoscene is much different from the mainstream; for example it's been stated that while mainstream sees computers just as a tool that should just make happen what we imagine, a demoscener puts technology first, he doesn't see computing platforms in terms of better or worse e.g. for its raw computational power, he rather sees a rich world of unique computing platforms, each one with specific personality and feel, kind of like a visual artist sees different painting styles.
 
-A demo isn't a video, it is a non-[interactive](interactive.md) [real time](real_time.md) executable that produces the same output on every run (even though categories outside of this may also appear). [Viznut](viznut.md) has noted that this "static nature" of demos may be due to the established culture in which demos are made for a single show to the audience. Demos themselves aren't really limited by resource constraints (well, sometimes a limit such as 4 MB is imposed), it's where the programmers can show off all they have. However compos are often organized for **intros**, demos whose executable size is limited (i.e. NOT the size of the source code, like in [code golfing](golf.md), but the size of the compiled binary). The main categories are 4Kib intros and 64Kib intros, rarely also 256Kib intros (all sizes are in [kibibytes](memory_units.md)). Apparently even such categories as 256 [byte](byte.md) intro appear. Sometimes also platform may be specified (e.g. [Commodore 64](c64.md), [PC](pc.md) etc.). The winner of a compo is decided by voting.
+A demo isn't a [video](video.md), it is a non-[interactive](interactive.md) [real time](real_time.md) executable that produces the same output on every run (even though categories outside of this may also appear). [Viznut](viznut.md) has noted that this "static nature" of demos may be due to the established culture in which demos are made for a single show to the audience. Demos themselves aren't really limited by resource constraints (well, sometimes a limit such as 4 MB is imposed), it's where the programmers can show off all they have. However compos are often organized for **intros**, demos whose executable size is limited (i.e. NOT the size of the source code, like in [code golfing](golf.md), but the size of the compiled binary). The main categories are 4Kib intros and 64Kib intros, rarely also 256Kib intros (all sizes are in [kibibytes](memory_units.md)). Apparently even such categories as 256 [byte](byte.md) intro appear. Sometimes also platform may be specified (e.g. [Commodore 64](c64.md), [PC](pc.md) etc.). The winner of a compo is decided by voting.
 
 Some of the biggest demoparties are or were Assembly (Finland), The Party (Denmark), The Gathering (Norway), Kindergarden (Norway) and Revision (Germany). A guy on https://mlab.taik.fi/~eye/demos/ says that he has never seen a demo [female](female.md) programmer and that females often have free entry to demoparties while men have to pay because there are almost no women anyway xD Some famous demogroups include Farbrausch (Germany, also created a tiny 3D shooter game [.kkrieger](kkrieger.md)), Future Crew (Finland), Pulse (international), Haujobb (international), Conspiracy (Hungary) and [Razor 1911](razor_1911.md) (Norway). { Personally I liked best the name of a group that called themselves *Byterapers*. ~drummyfish } There is an online community of demosceners at at https://www.pouet.net.
 

duke3d.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ The codebase (including Build engine) is roughly 100000 [LOC](loc.md) of [C](c.m
 
 The original system requirements were roughly following: 66 MHz [CPU](cpu.md), 16 MB [RAM](ram.md) and 30 MB storage space.
 
-Duke ran on **[Build](build.md) engine**, a legendary [software rendering](sw_rendering.md) [primitive 3D](pseudo_3d.md) engine that had limitations similar to those of [Doom](doom.md) engine, i.e. the camera could not truly rotate up or down (though it could fake this with kind of a "tilting") and things like rooms above other rooms in a level were allowed only in limited ways ([hacks](hacking.md) such as extra rendering passes or invisible teleports were used to allow this). The engine was similar to that of Doom, enemies and other objects were represented with 2D [sprites](sprite.md) and levels were based on the concept of sectors (a level was really made as a 2D map in which walls were assigned different heights and textures), however it had new features -- most notably [dynamic](dynamic.md) environment, meaning that levels could change on the fly without the need for [precomputation](precomputation.md), allowing e.g. destructible environments. How the fuck did they achieve this? Instead of [BSP](bsp.md) rendering (used by Doom) Build engine used **[portal rendering](portal_rendering.md)**: basically (put in a quite simplified way) there was just a set of sectors, some of which shared walls ("portals") -- rendering would first draw the sector the player stood in (from the inside of course) and whenever it encountered a portal wall (i.e. a wall that sees into another sector), it would simply [recursively](recursion.md) render that too in the same way -- turns out this was just fine. Other extra features of the engine included tilted floors and ceilings, fake looking up/down, 3rd person view etc. The Build engine was also used in many other games (most notably [Shadow Warrior](shadow_warrior.md) and [Blood](blood.md)) and later incorporated even more advanced stuff, such as [voxel](voxel.md) models, though these weren't yet present in Duke. Just like Doom, Build engine **only used [fixed point](fixed_point.md)**, no [float](float.md)! { Hmm, actually maybe there was a small exception, see the link below. ~drummyfish }
+Duke ran on **[Build](build.md) engine**, a legendary [software rendering](sw_rendering.md) [primitive 3D](pseudo_3d.md) engine that had limitations similar to those of [Doom](doom.md) engine, i.e. the camera could not genuinely rotate up or down (though it could fake this with kind of a "tilting") and things like rooms above other rooms in a level were allowed only in limited ways ([hacks](hacking.md) such as extra rendering passes or invisible teleports were used to allow this). The engine was not unsimilar to that of Doom, enemies and other objects were represented with 2D [sprites](sprite.md) and levels were based on the concept of sectors (a level was really made as a 2D map in which walls were assigned different heights and textures), however it had new features -- most notably [dynamic](dynamic.md) environment, meaning that levels could change on the fly without the need for [precomputation](precomputation.md), allowing e.g. destructible environments. How the fuck did they achieve this? Instead of [BSP](bsp.md) rendering (used by Doom) Build engine used **[portal rendering](portal_rendering.md)**: basically (put in a quite simplified way) there was just a set of sectors, some of which shared walls ("portals") -- rendering would first draw the sector the player stood in (from the inside of course) and whenever it encountered a portal wall (i.e. a wall that sees into another sector), it would simply [recursively](recursion.md) render that too in the same way -- turns out this was just fine. Other extra features of the engine included tilted floors and ceilings, fake looking up/down, 3rd person view etc. The Build engine was also used in many other games (most notably [Shadow Warrior](shadow_warrior.md) and [Blood](blood.md)) and later incorporated even more advanced stuff, such as [voxel](voxel.md) models, though these weren't yet present in Duke. Just like Doom, Build engine **only used [fixed point](fixed_point.md)**, no [float](float.md)! { Hmm, actually maybe there was a small exception, see the link below. ~drummyfish }
 
 { Here are some details on the engine internals from a guy who specializes on this stuff: https://fabiensanglard.net/duke3d/build_engine_internals.php. ~drummyfish }
 

internet.md

@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ Internet overtook the world thanks to having enabled great number of services to
 
 - **[books](book.md), [encyclopedias](encyclopedia.md), magazines, libraries, printed media, paper, film, ...**: Paper is an awesome medium, it's cheap and can hold quite a lot of information, both digital and analog, it can be used without a [computer](computer.md) but can still be combined with computers (e.g. [printers](printer.md), scanning and [OCR](ocr.md), [bar codes](bar_code.md), ...) and/or lower tech tools like [typewriters](typewriter.md) that may help manually copy books (see e.g. [samizdat](samizdat.md) that heavily utilized the ability of typewriters to produce several copies at once; in Antiquity books were copied by slaves with one reading the original out loud with others writing down many copies). Quality paper can be used for reliable [backups](backup.md) (source code, books, photos, even sound -- consider a high DPI print with each pixel recording one sample with its brightness). Posters can leave information for others to find. Books that have been written throughout history provide enormous amount of data and information, great part of which isn't even accessible through the Internet. Books are generally of much higher quality than websites, older ones are additionally free of modern propaganda and [censorship](censorship.md). Print encyclopedias can here and there be used instead of [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md), and they are extremely cheap (seek second hand book stores, no one wants them anymore). Books also provide entertainment, from traditional fiction, poetry etc. to entertaining reads such as the Guinness World Records book or even interactive [RPG](rpg.md) games (see [gamebooks](gamebook.md)). Making your own small library of quality books isn't expensive at all and can really greatly reduce your dependence on the Internet in many ways. **[Micrography](micrography.md)** (scaling down documents to fit many of them on a small film) can help maximize store quite large amounts of data on small media without computers.
 - **[sneakernet](sneakernet.md), [data mules](data_mule.md), [snail mail](snail_mail.md), avian carriers, arrows, messengers, [USB](usb.md) exchange, messages in bottle, ...**: Physically transforming messages is another historically tested option, travelers will always be around wanting to get from point A to point B and while at it they may also serve as information carriers -- information doesn't weight that much. When combined with traditional "modern" data storage media such as USB drives we call this the [sneakernet](sneakernet.md). Special case of this are so called *[data mules](data_mule.md)* -- imagine e.g. a bus that carries a computer with [wifi](wifi.md) and drives from village to village, exchanging data with local computers in each village just by getting in close proximity, carrying data not only between the villages but also between the village network and the "big Internet" once it reaches a city that has connection to it (existing example is e.g. [KioskNet](kiosknet.md)) -- with clever software people can do things like send and receive emails and download websites, just a bit slower than with conventional Internet. There exist volunteer organizations that distribute mail. People used to play correspondence [chess](chess.md) over snail mail, with enough dedication you could probably scale it up to some turn-based [MMORPG](mmorpg.md) game. Owing to the small weight, data can be transferred also by small animals such as pigeons (in some places with very bad Internet this is allegedly still the superior way even nowadays, in wars pigeons helped carry huge numbers of messages on microforms) or even just by "throwing", shooting an arrow with message on it, sending it down the river stream and so on. USB sticks are used by activists to send western propaganda to North Korea (e.g. small helium balloons carrying USB sticks with movies and books over the borders for the inhabitants to find). The disadvantage is high communication delay but even if it's orders of magnitude worse than what Internet offers us, bandwidth can still be excellent, sometimes even beating the Internet! Consider that a truck carrying 1000 1 terabyte harddrives arriving from start to its destination in a week achieves a bandwidth of about 1.6 gigabytes per second. That's pretty solid. Future inhabitants of Mars and other planets will inevitably have to deal with  [interplanetary Internet](interplanetary_internet.md) that's doomed by laws of physics to have high delays -- if they can get around the issue, so can we. An interesting concept might be a "slow" network of people who simply meet up once a week and exchange their USB sticks (or SD cards or diskettes or whatever) on which they pass files and messages to others, such as requests for files etc.
-- **leaving signs ([rocks](rock.md), sticks, leaves, messages in sand, bulletin boards, ...)**: Some forest people communicate by leaving signs for others e.g. by leaving tears on leaves or making shapes from sticks or rocks -- these can carry messages like "beware, dangerous animal around", "today I hunted down a monkey here" or "I have extra food, come take some". When improved, we could communicate whole text messages, numbers and any binary data this way -- imagine e.g. a small ["bulletin board"](bbs.md) on some frequently visited crossroads between villages where people leave latest news, offers, demands, requests for information from others, silly jokes etc. In some cities there exist book exchange booths where people just leave their old books for others to take -- this could be further improved by adding some sort of message board for communication.
+- **leaving signs ([rocks](rock.md), sticks, leaves, messages in sand, bulletin boards, ...)**: Some forest people communicate by leaving signs for others e.g. by leaving tears on leaves or making shapes from sticks or rocks -- these can carry messages like "beware, dangerous animal around", "today I hunted down a monkey here" or "I have extra food, come take some". When improved, we could communicate whole text messages, numbers and any binary data this way -- imagine e.g. a small ["bulletin board"](bbs.md) on some frequently visited crossroads between villages where people leave latest news, offers, demands, requests for information from others, silly jokes etc. In some cities there exist book exchange booths (often made from old phone booths) where people just leave their old books for others to take -- this could be further improved by adding some sort of message board for communication. Similarly networks such as *BookCrossing* work by people marking books with a tag and leaving them for others to find in some public place -- the books are traced on the Internet by their tags and may travel around the world.
 - **[intranet](intranet.md), [LAN](lan.md), [WAN](wan.md), ...**: Networks using basically the same technology as the Internet ([TCP](tcp.md)/[IP](ip.md), [ethernet](ethernet.md), [wifi](wifi.md), routers, ...), just on smaller scales -- the technology can actually be simpler: simpler routers can be used, no high performance backbone routers are needed, [Ronja](ronja.md) may be used instead of wifi, [DNS](dns.md) may be omitted and so on. There are many such networks, [military](military.md) has its own isolated networks, North Korea has its famous nation-wide isolated intranet ([Kwangmyong](kwangmyong.md)), Cuba has the famous [SNet](snet.md) -- "street net" that's used for pirating and games -- and so on. In Spain there is the famous [Guifi](guifi.md) network (with as of now nearly 40 thousand nodes) working in decentralized manner just on top of many interconnected wifi devices. The advantage is relative simplicity of implementation -- the technology is all there and quite cheap, you can set up your own network in the neighborhood and have complete control over it, government isn't gonna bully you for sharing movies, it won't spy on your communication (at least not so easily) etc.
 - **[radio](radio.md), [telegraph](telegraph.md)**: Plain FM/AM radio communication is a serious competition to Internet in terms of delay, bandwidth and distance of reach, while being very simple in comparison -- a skilled individual can construct or repair a radio with just some basic electronic components, which can't be said about digital computer networks that require extremely complex computer chips. Radio can relatively easily transfer analog information such as voice, but it can also send digital information. With [Morse code](morse_code.md) even the most primitive radio communication system can turn into something extremely powerful.
 - **[broadcast](broadcast.md) and alternative network topologies** (see also [world broadcast](world_broadcast.md)): broadcasts (one way communication towards many) can be implemented in many ways: with radio, audio, optically and so on. Broadcast only networks, such as [teletext](teletext.md), [TV](tv.md) or radio station broadcast, can be much simpler than a two way communication -- there don't have to be such complex protocols, there are no handshakes, devices can work on low power (as they're only receivers) and the broadcaster can't be overloaded by client requests. These can cover a great range of services such as news, weather forecast, time synchronization, geolocalization, work organization ("now we need you to produce this and this"), some forms of entertainment or providing generally useful data such as maps and books. If we do go for two way communication anyway, we should at least consider simpler network topologies -- with Internet we tend to think in mesh networks, i.e. "everyone connected to everyone", but that may be too complex to implement with other kinds of networks, it may be better to consider something like a ring network.

iq.md

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
 Please wear a hard hat when reading this page.
 ```
 
-IQ (intelligence quotient) is a non-perfect but [still kind of useful](good_enough.md) measure of one's intelligence, it is a numeric score one gets on a standardized test that tries to estimate his intellectual ability at different tasks ([logic](logic.md), [memory](memory.md), language skills, spatial skills, ...) and express them with a single number. The tests are standardized and the scoring is usually tuned so that the value 100 means average intelligence -- anything above means smarter than average, anything below dumber than average. IQ is a quite controversial topic because it shows intellectual differences between [races](race.md) and sexes and clashes with [political correctness](political_correctness.md), there is also a great debate about "what intelligence even is" (i.e. what the test should measure, what weight should be given to different areas of intelligence), if it is even reasonable to simplify "intelligence" down to a single number, how much of a cultural bias there is (do we really measure pure intellectual capacity or just familiarity with some concepts of our western culture?) and the accuracy of the tests is also highly debated (which can be an issue if we e.g. start using IQ tests to determine who should get higher education and who shouldn't) -- nevertheless it's unquestionable that IQ DOES correlate with intellectual abilities, IQ tests are a tool that really does something, the debates mostly revolve around how useful the tool is, how it should be used, what conclusions can we make with it and so on. Basically only people with the lowest IQ say that IQ is completely useless. The testing of IQ was developed only during 20th century, so we don't know IQs of old geniuses -- if you read somewhere Newton's IQ was 200, it's just someone's wild guess.
+IQ (intelligence quotient) is a non-perfect but [still kind of useful](good_enough.md) measure of one's intelligence, it is a numeric score one gets on a standardized test that tries to estimate his intellectual ability at different tasks ([logic](logic.md), [memory](memory.md), language skills, spatial skills, ...) and express them with a single number. The tests are standardized and the scoring is usually tuned so that the value 100 means average intelligence -- anything above means smarter than average, anything below dumber than average. IQ is a quite controversial topic because it shows intellectual differences between [races](race.md) and sexes and clashes with [political correctness](political_correctness.md), there is also a great debate about "what intelligence even is" (i.e. what the test should measure, what weight should be given to different areas of intelligence), if it is even reasonable to simplify "intelligence" down to a single number, how much of a cultural bias there is (do we really measure pure intellectual capacity or just familiarity with some concepts of our western culture?) and the accuracy of the tests is also highly debated (which can be an issue if we e.g. start using IQ tests to determine who should get higher education and who shouldn't) -- nevertheless it's unquestionable that IQ DOES correlate with intellectual abilities, IQ tests are a tool that really does something, the debates mostly revolve around how useful the tool is, how it should be used, what conclusions can we make with it and so on. Basically only people with the lowest IQ say that IQ is completely useless. The testing of IQ was developed only during 20th century, so we don't know IQs of old geniuses -- if you read somewhere (including this article) that Newton's IQ was 200, it's just someone's wild guess.
 
 IQ follows the normal [probability](probability.md) distribution, i.e. it is modeled by the [bell curve](bell_curve.md) that says how many people of the total population will fall into any given range of IQ score. Though this has been challenged too, one of the basic laws of human stupidity says that the probability that someone is stupid is independent of any other of his characteristics (education, profession, race, sanity, ...). There are various IQ scales, almost all use the Gaussian (bell) curve that's centered at 100 (i.e. 100 is supposed to mean the average intelligence) and have [standard deviation](standard_deviation.md) 15 (but other have been used as well) -- this is what we'll implicitly suppose in the article from now. This means that about 2/3rds of people will fall in the range 85 to 115 but no more than 1% will have IQ higher than 145 or lower than 55. Sometimes you may also encounter so called **percentile** which says what percentage of population is below your IQ.
 
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ TODO: more details, history, where to measure (web vs Mensa vs SAT etc.)
 
 **If you think you're smart, you are dumb**, see the infamous [Dunning Kruger](dunning_kruger.md) effect -- becoming smarter comes with feeling dumber and dumber, becoming more humble and less self confident as you just see all the new things you didn't even know you don't know -- Socrates, one of the greatest philosophers of all times and possibly the smartest man of his time, famously summed this up by saying "I know that I know nothing". A fool thinks he is close to knowing everything -- he admits he doesn't know everything, but he thinks he knows like 90% of what the smartest people on Earth know because he didn't even step over the borders of obtaining the basic knowledge, that border is as far as he can see and he doesn't know beyond it lies an infinitely large plain of knowledge into which some managed to get kilometers ahead of him, they are so far away he has no idea anyone can even get that far. It's similar to how the better we explore the space, the more we see how tiny we are -- not long ago we might have thought our galaxy was the whole Universe, now we know it's just a tiny speck in a cluster that's itself just a small speck in the observable Universe which is a nothing in the scale of the whole infinite Universe. Self confidence implies extreme stupidity. Also note that feeling dumb doesn't imply being smart but admitting retardedness is a prerequisite for being smart.
 
-**Is IQ a useful measure and if so, how important is the score?** This is the controversial question discussed over and over, modern "inclusive" society dismisses IQ as basically useless because it points out differences between [races](race.md) etc., some rightist are on the other hand obsessed with IQ too much as it creates a natural hierarchy assigning each man his rank among others. True significance of IQ as a measure seems to be somewhere in between the two extremes here. As it's always noted about IQ, we have to remember the term "intelligence" itself is fuzzy, there doesn't and cannot exist any universal definition of it, so we have trouble even grasping what we're measuring and however we define intelligence, it usually ends up hardly even correlating with "success" or "achievements" or anything similar, so firstly let's see IQ just as what it literally is: a score in some kind of game. Furthermore intelligence is extremely complex and multidimensional (there is spatial and visual intelligence, long and short term memory, language skills, social and emotional intelligence etc.), capturing all this with a single number is inevitably a simplification, the score is just a projected shadow of the intelligence with light cast from certain angle. IQ score definitely does say a lot about some specific kind of "mathematical" intelligence, though even if designed to be so, even in this narrow sense it isn't anywhere near a perfect measure -- though a minority, some mathematicians do score low on IQ tests (Richard Feynman, physics Nobel Prize laureate had famously a relatively low score of 125). It's perhaps good to keep the "IQ tests as a game" mindset -- intelligent people will be probably good at it but some won't, performance can be increased by training, there will be narrowly focused autists who excel at the game but are extremely dumb at everything else etc. Having IQ score predict what we normally understand to be "intelligence" is like having height, weight and age predict how good of a soldier someone will be -- there will be some good correlations, but not nearly perfect ones. Some general IQ range will be necessary for certain tasks such as [programming](programming.md), but rather than +5 on an IQ score things such as education and personality traits will play much more important roles in actually achieving something or creating something good; for example curiosity and determination, the habit of thinking about everything in depth, nonconformity, a skeptical mind, all these are much more important than being a human calculator -- remember, the cheapest calculator will beat the smartest man in multiplying numbers, would you say it is more intelligent?
+**Is IQ a useful measure and if so, how important is the score?** Firstly if you are insecure about your own IQ then just stop that shit -- you know yourself, you know if you're good at math or writing or whatever else you try to do, do you need a piece of paper padding you on the back or something? That's completely pointless, the only thing worth of discussion is IQ as some standardized tool of estimating intellectual abilities of other people on a bigger scale, e.g. as some kind of filter in education (with small groups you can really just interview the people and see if they're dumb or not, that's also more reliable than IQ tests). In this of course the question of the validity of IQ is a controversial one, discussed over and over. Modern "inclusive" society dismisses IQ as basically useless because it points out differences between [races](race.md) etc., some rightist are on the other hand obsessed with IQ too much as it creates a natural hierarchy assigning each man his rank among others. True significance of IQ as a measure seems to be somewhere in between the two extremes here. As it's always noted about IQ, we have to remember the term "intelligence" itself is fuzzy, there doesn't and cannot exist any universal definition of it, so we have trouble even grasping what we're measuring and however we define intelligence, it usually ends up hardly even correlating with "success" or "achievements" or anything similar, so firstly let's see IQ just as what it literally is: a score in some kind of game. Furthermore intelligence is extremely complex and multidimensional (there is spatial and visual intelligence, long and short term memory, language skills, social and emotional intelligence etc.), capturing all this with a single number is inevitably a simplification, the score is just a projected shadow of the intelligence with light cast from certain angle. IQ score definitely does say a lot about some specific kind of "mathematical" intelligence, though even if designed to be so, even in this narrow sense it isn't anywhere near a perfect measure -- though a minority, some mathematicians do score low on IQ tests (Richard Feynman, physics Nobel Prize laureate had famously a relatively low score of 125). It's perhaps good to keep the "IQ tests as a game" mindset -- intelligent people will be probably good at it but some won't, performance can be increased by training, there will be narrowly focused autists who excel at the game but are extremely dumb at everything else etc. Having IQ score predict what we normally understand to be "intelligence" is like having height, weight and age predict how good of a soldier someone will be -- there will be some good correlations, but not nearly perfect ones. Some general IQ range will be necessary for certain tasks such as [programming](programming.md), but rather than +5 on an IQ score things such as education and personality traits will play much more important roles in actually achieving something or creating something good; for example curiosity and determination, the habit of thinking about everything in depth, nonconformity, a skeptical mind, all these are much more important than being a human calculator -- remember, the cheapest calculator will beat the smartest man in multiplying numbers, would you say it is more intelligent?
 
 { Also consider this: even if you're average, or even a bit below average, you're still [homo](gay.md) sapiens, so as long as you're not a [feminist](feminism.md) or [capitalist](capitalism.md) you'll always be the absolute top organism in intelligence, a member of by far the absolutely most intelligent species that ever appeared on [Earth](earth.md), your intelligence greatly surpasses great majority of living organisms. If you are able to read this, you already possess the great genius, you mastered language and are among the top 0.1%, there's no need to compare yourself to others and aim to be in 0.01% instead of 0.02%. Rather think about what good to do with the gift of reason you've been given. ~drummyfish }
 

jargon_file.md

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 # Jargon File
 
-Jargon File (also Hacker's Dictionary) is a computer [hacker](hacking.md) dictionary/compendium that's been written and updated by a number of prominent hackers, such as [Richard Stallman](rms.md) and [Erik S Raymond](esr.md), since 1970. It is a greatly important part of hacker culture and has also partly inspired this very wiki.
+Jargon File (also Hacker's Dictionary) is a computer [hacker](hacking.md) dictionary/compendium that's been written and updated by a number of prominent hackers, such as [Richard Stallman](rms.md) and [Erik S Raymond](esr.md), since 1970. It is a chiefly important part of hacker culture and has also partly inspired [this very wiki](lrs_wiki.md).
 
 { A similar but smaller encyclopedia is at https://www.erzo.org/shannon/writing/csua/encyclopedia.html (originally and encyclopedia at soda.csua.berkeley.edu). ~drummyfish }
 
-It informally states that it's in the [public domain](pd.md) and some people have successfully published it commercially, however there is no standard [waiver](waiver.md) or [license](license.md) -- maybe because such waivers didn't really exist at the time it was started -- and so we have to suppose it is NOT formally [free as in freedom](free_culture.md). Nevertheless it is freely accessible e.g. at [Project Gutenberg](gutenberg.md) and no one will bother you if you share it around... we just wouldn't recommend treating it as true public domain.
+The work informally states it's in the [public domain](pd.md) and some people have successfully published it commercially, although there is no standard [waiver](waiver.md) or [license](license.md) -- maybe because such waivers didn't really exist at the time it was started -- and so we have to suppose it is NOT formally [free as in freedom](free_culture.md). Nevertheless it is freely accessible e.g. at [Project Gutenberg](gutenberg.md) and no one will bother you if you share it around... we just wouldn't recommend treating it as true public domain.
 
-It is pretty nicely written with great amount of humor and good old political incorrectness, you can e.g. find the definition of terms such as *[rape](rape.md)* and *clit mouse*. Some other nice terms include *smoke emitting diode* (broken diode), *notwork* (non-functioning [network](network.md)), [Internet Exploiter](internet_explorer.md), *binary four* (giving a finger in binary), *Kamikaze packet* or *Maggotbox* ([Macintosh](mac.md)). At the beginning the book gives some theory about how the hacker terms are formed (overgeneralization, comparatives etc.).
+It is fairly nicely written with high amount of humor and good old political incorrectness, you can for example successfully find the definition of terms such as *[rape](rape.md)* and *clit mouse*. Some other nice terms include *smoke emitting diode* (broken diode), *notwork* (non-functioning [network](network.md)), [Internet Exploiter](internet_explorer.md), *binary four* (giving a finger in binary), *Kamikaze packet* or *Maggotbox* ([Macintosh](mac.md)). At the beginning the book gives some theory about how the hacker terms are formed (overgeneralization, comparatives etc.).

jesus.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Jesus
 
-Jesus Christ (also Jesus of Nazareth, about 4 BC to 33 AD) was a [jewish](jew.md) carpenter preacher that was said to be the son of [God](god.md), whose life along with supposed miracles he performed is described by the [Bible](bible.md) (specifically its New Testament), and who is the center figure of [Christianity](christianity.md), the world's largest religion; as such he is probably the most famous of all men in [history](history.md) (probably followed by [Hitler](hitler.md), kind of his opposite). In fact we count our years more or less from his birth. He gained many followers as he preached that God has decided to change his laws a bit and accept all "well behaved" people into his heaven kingdom (i.e. not just [jews](jew.md) as was the case until then). For causing a great social disturbance by this he was later crucified, as he himself predicted -- according to the Bible he sacrificed himself by this to redeem the sins of all people, was resurrected after death and came up to the heaven to dwell by the God's side. Without subscribing to any mass religion or even having to believe in [god](god.md), our [LRS](lrs.md) is greatly aligned with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ, especially that of [non violence](non_violence.md), [love](love.md) of all people (even one's "enemies"), modesty, frugality etc.
+Jesus Christ (also Jesus of Nazareth, about 4 BC to 33 AD) was a [jewish](jew.md) carpenter preacher that was said to be the son of [God](god.md), whose life along with supposed miracles he performed is described by the [Bible](bible.md) (specifically its New Testament) and who is the center figure of [Christianity](christianity.md), the world's largest religion; as such he is arguably the most famous of all men in [history](history.md) (probably followed by [Hitler](hitler.md), kind of his opposite). Just one fact proving this claim is that we count our years more or less from his birth. He gained many followers as he preached that God has decided to change his laws a little and accept all "well behaved" people into his heavenly kingdom (that is not just [jews](jew.md) as was previously the case, established by the God of Old Testament). For having stirred up a social disturbance by this preaching he was later crucified, as he himself predicted -- according to the Bible he sacrificed himself by this act to redeem the sins of all people, was resurrected after death and came up to the heaven to dwell by the God's side. Without subscribing to any mass religion or even having to believe in [god](god.md), our [LRS](lrs.md) is highly aligned with much of the teaching of Jesus Christ, especially that of [non violence](non_violence.md), [love](love.md) of all people (even one's "enemies"), modesty, frugality and so forth.
 
 ```
        ..--..

minimalism.md

@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ Up until recently in history every engineer would tell you that *the better mach
 - [permacomputing](permacomputing_wiki.md)
 - [less is more](less_is_more.md)/[worse is better](worse_is_better.md)
 - [appropriate technology](appropriate_tech.md)
+- [neoluddism](neoluddism.md)
 - [reactionary software](reactionary_software.md) (bordering with [pseudominimalism](pseudominimalism.md))
 - [plan9](plan9.md), [openbsd](openbsd.md), KISS GNU/Linux and similar (however often obsessed with [bloatcryption](encryption.md), may contain [pseudominimalism](pseudominimalism.md))
 - [100rabbits](100rabbit.md) (beware of [SJW](sjw.md) poison)

modern.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 So called *modern* [software](software.md)/[hardware](hardware.md) and other *modern* [technology](technology.md) might as well be synonymous with [shitty](shit.md) [bloated](bloat.md) abusive technology. It's one of the most abused [buzzwords](buzzword.md) of today, relying (successfully) on the sheeple [shortcut thinking](shortcut_thinking.md) -- in a [capitalist](capitalism.md) [age](21st_century.md) when everything is getting progressively worse in terms of design, quality, ethicality, efficiency, etc., newer means worse, therefore modern (*newest*) means *the worst*. In other words *modern* is a term that stands for "as of yet best optimized for exploiting users". At [LRS](lrs.md) we see the term *modern* as **pejorative** -- for example whenever someone says "we work with modern technology", he is really saying "we are working with as of yet worst technology". Is it shit? Does it abuse you? Is useless? Doesn't matter, it's NEW!
 
-The word *modern* was similarly addressed e.g. by [reactionary software](reactionary_software.md) -- it correctly identifies the word as being connected to a programming orthodoxy of [current times](21st_century.md), the one that's obsessed with creating bad technology and rejecting good technology. { I only found reactionary software after this article has been written. ~drummyfish }
+Modern technology is also opposed by [neoluddists](neoluddism.md), a kind of anti-technology movements whose roots go back to 19th century. The word *modern* was similarly addressed e.g. by [reactionary software](reactionary_software.md) -- it correctly identifies the word as being connected to a programming orthodoxy of [current times](21st_century.md), the one that's obsessed with creating bad technology and rejecting good technology. { I only found reactionary software after this article has been written. ~drummyfish }
 
 Sometimes random people notice the issue, though there are very few. One blog (https://blog.ari.lt/b/modernism/) for example goes on to say that "modernism sucks" and the word *modern* is basically just an excuse for being [bloated](bloat.md). Those are indeed true words.
 

number.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ WIP
 
 { Sowwy I'm not a mathematician, please excuse if I'm wrong, lemme know if you spot something, thank u <3 ~drummyfish }
 
-Numbers are one of the most elementary [mathematical](math.md) objects, serving most often as quantitative values (i.e. telling count, size, length, order etc.), in higher math also used in much more [abstract](abstraction.md) ways which have only distant relationship to traditional counting. Examples of numbers are minus [one](one.md) half, [zero](zero.md), [pi](pi.md) or [i](i.md). Numbers are the basis and core of mathematics and as such they sit almost at the [lowest level](low_level.md) of it, i.e. most other things such as algebra, [functions](function.md) and [equations](equation.md) are built on top of numbers or require numbers to even be examined. In modern mathematics numbers themselves aren't on the absolute bottom though, they are themselves built on top of [sets](set.md), as set theory is most commonly used as a basis of whole mathematics, however for many purposes this is just a formalism that's of practical interest only to some mathematicians -- on the other hand numbers just cannot be avoided anywhere, by a mathematician or just a common folk. The word *number* may be the first that comes to our mind when we say *mathematics*. The area of [number theory](number_theory.md) is particularly focused on examining numbers (though it's examining almost exclusively integer numbers because these seem to have the deepest pattern related e.g. to divisibility).
+Numbers are one of the most elementary [mathematical](math.md) objects, building stones serving most often as quantitative values (that is: telling count, size, length, order etc.), in higher math also used in much more [abstract](abstraction.md) ways which have only distant relationship to traditional counting. Examples of numbers are minus [one](one.md) half, [zero](zero.md), [pi](pi.md) or [i](i.md). Numbers constitute the basis and core of mathematics and as such they sit almost at the [lowest level](low_level.md) of it, i.e. most other things such as algebra, [functions](function.md) and [equations](equation.md) are built on top of numbers or require numbers to even be examined. In modern mathematics numbers themselves aren't on the absolute bottom of the foundations though, they are themselves built on top of [sets](set.md), as set theory is most commonly used as a basis of whole mathematics, however for many purposes this is just a formalism that's of practical interest only to some mathematicians -- on the other hand numbers just cannot be avoided anywhere, by a mathematician or just a common folk. The word *number* may be the first that comes to our mind when we say *mathematics*. The area of [number theory](number_theory.md) is particularly focused on examining numbers (though it's examining almost exclusively integer numbers because these seem to have the deepest pattern related e.g. to divisibility).
 
 Let's not confuse numbers with digits or figures (numerals) -- a number is a purely abstract entity while digits serve as symbols for numbers so that we can write them down. One number may be written in many ways, using one of many [numeral systems](numeral_system.md) (Roman numerals, dots, Arabic numerals of different [bases](base.md) etc.), for example 4 stands for a number than can also be written as IV, four, 8/2, 16:4, 2^2, 4.00 or 0b100. There are also numbers which cannot exactly be captured within our traditional numeral systems, for some of them we have special symbols -- most famous example is of course [pi](pi.md) whose digits we cannot ever completely write down -- and there are even numbers for which we have no symbols at all, ones that are yet not well researched and are only described by equations to which they are the solution.
 
@@ -17,11 +17,89 @@ Here are some [fun](fun.md) facts about numbers:
 - There exist [illegal numbers](illegal_number.md), owing to the above mentioned fact that any information can be encoded as a number along with the fact that some information is illegal (see e.g. "[intellectual property](intellectual_property.md)").
 - ...
 
+```
+ quaternions                . imaginary line
+            projected       : (imaginary numbers)
+ projected   j line     2i ~+~ ~ ~ ~ ~+ 1 + 2i
+  k line       :            :         ,
+     ...        :_          :         ,             complex numbers
+        \___      \_ j      :         ,
+            \___    +_   i ~+~ ~ ~ ~ ~+ 1 + i
+                +___  \_    :         ,
+               k    \___\_  :         ,
+                        \_\_:         1         2         3         4
+  - - -~|~-~-~-~-~|~-~-~-~-~+~-~-|-~-~|~-~-~|~-~|~-~-~-|-~|~|~-~-~-~|~- - -
+       -2        -1        0:   1/2   ,    phi         e    pi           real line    
+                = i^2       :  = 0.5  ,    ~=         ~=   ~= 3.14...  (real numbers)
+                            :         ,   1.61...    2.71...     
+                        -i ~+~ ~ ~ ~ ~+
+                            :           1 - i
+                            .
+```
+
+*Number lines and some notable numbers -- the horizontal line is real line, the vertical is imaginary line that adds another dimension and reveals complex numbers. Further on we can see quaternion lines projected, hinting on the existence of yet higher dimensional numbers (which however cannot properly be displayed using mere two dimensions here).*
+
+The following is a table demonstrating just one way of how you can play around with numbers -- here we just examine whole positive numbers (like number theorists would) up to 50, count each one's total number of divisors (excluding 1 and itself, 0 here means the number is [prime](prime.md) except for 1, if the number is highest in the series so far the number is called "highly composite"), unique divisors (excluding itself), sum of total and unique divisors (if the number equal sum of unique divisors, it is said to be a "perfect number"), average "dividing spread" (distance of each tested potential divisor's remainder after division from half of this tested potential divisor, kind of "amount of not dividing the number") in percents, maximum dividing spread and normalized range between smallest and biggest divisor expressed in percents (-1 if there are none). You can make quite interesting graphs from similar data and discover cool and interesting patterns.
+
+| number   | divisors |divisors uniq.|divisor sum|uniq. div. sum|avg. div. spread (%)|max div. spread (%)|div. range (%)|
+| -------- | -------- | ------------ | --------- | ------------ | ------------------ | ----------------- | ------------ |
+|        1 |        0 |            1 |         0 |            1 |                  0 |                 0 |           -1 |
+|        2 |        0 |            1 |         0 |            1 |                  0 |                 0 |           -1 |
+|        3 |        0 |            1 |         0 |            1 |                  0 |                 0 |           -1 |
+|        4 |        2 |            2 |         4 |            3 |                 33 |               100 |            0 |
+|        5 |        0 |            1 |         0 |            1 |                 16 |                50 |           -1 |
+|        6 |        2 |            3 |         5 |            6 |                 43 |               100 |           16 |
+|        7 |        0 |            1 |         0 |            1 |                 24 |                66 |           -1 |
+|        8 |        4 |            3 |        10 |            7 |                 44 |               100 |           25 |
+|        9 |        2 |            2 |         6 |            4 |                 36 |               100 |            0 |
+|       10 |        2 |            3 |         7 |            8 |                 40 |               100 |           30 |
+|       11 |        0 |            1 |         0 |            1 |                 34 |                80 |           -1 |
+|       12 |        5 |            5 |        17 |           16 |                 53 |               100 |           33 |
+|       13 |        0 |            1 |         0 |            1 |                 35 |                83 |           -1 |
+|       14 |        2 |            3 |         9 |           10 |                 43 |               100 |           35 |
+|       15 |        2 |            3 |         8 |            9 |                 44 |               100 |           13 |
+|       16 |        7 |            4 |        24 |           15 |                 49 |               100 |           37 |
+|       17 |        0 |            1 |         0 |            1 |                 38 |                87 |           -1 |
+|       18 |        5 |            5 |        23 |           21 |                 47 |               100 |           38 |
+|       19 |        0 |            1 |         0 |            1 |                 42 |                88 |           -1 |
+|       20 |        5 |            5 |        23 |           22 |                 51 |               100 |           40 |
+|       21 |        2 |            3 |        10 |           11 |                 45 |               100 |           19 |
+|       22 |        2 |            3 |        13 |           14 |                 43 |               100 |           40 |
+|       23 |        0 |            1 |         0 |            1 |                 42 |                90 |           -1 |
+|       24 |        8 |            7 |        39 |           36 |                 55 |               100 |           41 |
+|       25 |        2 |            2 |        10 |            6 |                 45 |               100 |            0 |
+|       26 |        2 |            3 |        15 |           16 |                 45 |               100 |           42 |
+|       27 |        4 |            3 |        18 |           13 |                 44 |               100 |           22 |
+|       28 |        5 |            5 |        29 |           28 |                 49 |               100 |           42 |
+|       29 |        0 |            1 |         0 |            1 |                 45 |                92 |           -1 |
+|       30 |        6 |            7 |        41 |           42 |                 52 |               100 |           43 |
+|       31 |        0 |            1 |         0 |            1 |                 45 |                93 |           -1 |
+|       32 |        9 |            5 |        42 |           31 |                 48 |               100 |           43 |
+|       33 |        2 |            3 |        14 |           15 |                 45 |               100 |           24 |
+|       34 |        2 |            3 |        19 |           20 |                 47 |               100 |           44 |
+|       35 |        2 |            3 |        12 |           13 |                 48 |               100 |            5 |
+|       36 |       10 |            8 |        65 |           55 |                 54 |               100 |           44 |
+|       37 |        0 |            1 |         0 |            1 |                 45 |                94 |           -1 |
+|       38 |        2 |            3 |        21 |           22 |                 45 |               100 |           44 |
+|       39 |        2 |            3 |        16 |           17 |                 46 |               100 |           25 |
+|       40 |        8 |            7 |        53 |           50 |                 51 |               100 |           45 |
+|       41 |        0 |            1 |         0 |            1 |                 47 |                95 |           -1 |
+|       42 |        6 |            7 |        53 |           54 |                 51 |               100 |           45 |
+|       43 |        0 |            1 |         0 |            1 |                 46 |                95 |           -1 |
+|       44 |        5 |            5 |        41 |           40 |                 49 |               100 |           45 |
+|       45 |        5 |            5 |        35 |           33 |                 47 |               100 |           26 |
+|       46 |        2 |            3 |        25 |           26 |                 47 |               100 |           45 |
+|       47 |        0 |            1 |         0 |            1 |                 47 |                95 |           -1 |
+|       48 |       12 |            9 |        85 |           76 |                 53 |               100 |           45 |
+|       49 |        2 |            2 |        14 |            8 |                 48 |               100 |            0 |
+|       50 |        5 |            5 |        47 |           43 |                 49 |               100 |           46 |
+
 ## Numbers In Math
 
-There are different types of numbers, in mathematics we classify them into [sets](set.md). Though we can talk about finite sets of numbers perfectly well (e.g. [modulo](mod.md) arithmetic, [Boolean algebra](boolean_algebra.md) etc.), we are firstly considering [infinite](infinity.md) sets (curiously some of these infinite sets can still be considered "bigger" than other infinite sets, e.g. by certain logic there is more real numbers than rational numbers, i.e. "fractions"). Some of these sets are subsets of others, some overlap and so forth. Here are some notable number sets:
+There are different types of numbers, in mathematics we classify them into [sets](set.md). Though we can talk about finite sets of numbers perfectly well (e.g. [modulo](mod.md) arithmetic, [Boolean algebra](boolean_algebra.md) etc.), we are firstly considering [infinite](infinity.md) sets (curiously some of these infinite sets can still be considered "bigger" than other infinite sets, e.g. by certain logic there is more real numbers than rational numbers, i.e. "fractions"). Some of these sets are subsets of others, some overlap and so forth. Here are some notable number sets (note that a list can potentially not capture all relationships between the sets):
 
 - **all**: Anything conceivable as a number, even by stretch. E.g. [zero](zero.md), minus [infinity](infinity.md) or aleph one.
+  - **[p-adic numbers](p_adic_number.md)**: Another way of generalizing rational numbers, they may (a bit mindblowingly) have infinitely many digits to the left (for which they are sometimes called *leftist numbers*).
   - **H: [quaternions](quaternion.md)**: A sum of real number, imaginary number and two other kinds of numbers, forming a number in four dimensional space. E.g. 1 + i + j - k, 50 - 0.6k or 2i + 7j.
     - **C: [complex](complex_number.md)**: A sum of real and imaginary number, forming a number in two dimensional plane. E.g. 3 + 2i, 0.5 - 13i or 100i.
       - **[algebraic](algebraic_number.md)**: Are roots of one variable [polynomials](polynomial.md) with integer coefficients. E.g. 4/3, the [golden ratio](golden_ratio.md) or square root of two.
@@ -42,29 +120,7 @@ There are different types of numbers, in mathematics we classify them into [sets
                 - **[prime](prime.md)**: Are only divisible by 1 and themselves, excluding 1. E.g. 2, 7 or 809.
                 - **composite**: Aren't primes, excluding 1. For example 4, 22 or 150.
 
-One of the most interesting and mysterious number sets are the [prime numbers](prime.md), in fact many number theorists dedicate their whole careers solely to them. Primes are the kind of thing that's defined very simply but give rise to a whole universe of mysteries and whys, there are patterns that seem impossible to describe, conjectures that look impossible to prove and so on.
-
-```
- quaternions                . imaginary line
-            projected       : (imaginary numbers)
- projected   j line     2i ~+~ ~ ~ ~ ~+ 1 + 2i
-  k line       :            :         ,
-     ...        :_          :         ,             complex numbers
-        \___      \_ j      :         ,
-            \___    +_   i ~+~ ~ ~ ~ ~+ 1 + i
-                +___  \_    :         ,
-               k    \___\_  :         ,
-                        \_\_:         1         2         3         4
-  - - -~|~-~-~-~-~|~-~-~-~-~+~-~-|-~-~|~-~-~|~-~|~-~-~-|-~|~|~-~-~-~|~- - -
-       -2        -1        0:   1/2   ,    phi         e    pi           real line    
-                = i^2       :  = 0.5  ,    ~=         ~=   ~= 3.14...  (real numbers)
-                            :         ,   1.61...    2.71...     
-                        -i ~+~ ~ ~ ~ ~+
-                            :           1 - i
-                            .
-```
-
-*Number lines and some notable numbers -- the horizontal line is real line, the vertical is imaginary line that adds another dimension and reveals complex numbers. Further on we can see quaternion lines projected, hinting on the existence of yet higher dimensional numbers (which however cannot properly be displayed using mere two dimensions here).*
+One of the most interesting and mysterious number sets are the [prime numbers](prime.md), in fact many number theorists dedicate their whole careers solely to them. Primes are the kind of thing that's defined very simply but give rise to a whole universe of mysteries and whys, there are patterns that seem impossible to describe, conjectures that look impossible to prove and so on. Another similar type of numbers are the [perfect numbers](perfect_number.md).
 
 Of course there are countless other number sets, especially those induced by various number sequences and functions of which there are whole encyclopedias. Another possible division is e.g. to *cardinal* and *ordinal* numbers: ordinal numbers tell the order while cardinals say the size (cardinality) of a set -- when dealing with finite sets the distinction doesn't really have to be made, within natural numbers the order of a number is equal to the size of a set of all numbers up to that number, but with infinite sets this starts to matter -- for example we couldn't tell the size of the set of natural numbers by ordinals as there is no last natural number, but we can assign the set a cardinal number (aleph zero) -- this gives rise to new kind of numbers.
 

one.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # One
 
-One (1, also a *unit*) is the first positive whole number, signifying the existence of a single unique thing we're counting.
+One (1, also a *unit*) is the first positive whole [number](number.md), signifying the existence of a single unique object we're counting.
 
 Some facts about this number include:
 

people.md

@@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
 
 *"People are retarded."* --[Osho](osho.md)
 
+All people are idiots, [love](love.md) all of them, never make anyone a [leader](hero_culture.md). A cover mostly says just enough about the book.
+
 Here is a list of people notable in technology or in other ways related to [LRS](lrs.md).
 
 - **[Aaron Swartz](aaron_swartz.md)**: famous computer prodigy activist involved in creation of famous things like [Reddit](reddit.md), [RSS](rss.md) and [Creative Commons](creative_commons.md), [suicided](suicide.md) at 26

prime.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Prime Number
 
-Prime number (or just *prime*) is a [whole](integer.md) positive [number](number.md) only divisible by 1 and itself, except for the number [1](one.md). I.e. prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 etc. Non-prime numbers are called *composite numbers*. Prime numbers are extremely important, [interesting](interesting.md) and mysterious for their properties and distribution among other numbers, they have for millennia fascinated [mathematicians](math.md), nowadays they are studied in the math subfield called [number theory](number_theory.md). Primes are for example essential in [asymmetric cryptography](asymmetric_cryptography.md). Primes can be seen as the opposite of [highly composite numbers](highly_composite_number.md) (also antiprimes, numbers that have more divisors than any lower number).
+Prime number (or just *prime*) is a [whole](integer.md) positive [number](number.md) only divisible by 1 and itself, except for the number [1](one.md). I.e. prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 etc. Non-prime numbers are called *composite numbers*. Ask any mathematician and you'll learn that prime numbers are more than just highly important, they are [interesting](interesting.md) and mysterious for their intricate properties and distribution among other numbers, they have for millennia fascinated [mathematicians](math.md); nowadays they are studied in the math subfield called [number theory](number_theory.md). Primes are also of practical use, for example in [asymmetric cryptography](asymmetric_cryptography.md). Primes can be seen as the opposite of [highly composite numbers](highly_composite_number.md) (also antiprimes, numbers that have more divisors than any lower number). Numbers of comparable status and similarly mysterious properties to prime numbers are for example [perfect numbers](perfect_number.md), whose importance is however a bit diminished by current lack of practical use.
 
 ```
 .##.#.#...#.#...#.#...#.....#.#.....#...#.#...#.....#.....#.#.....#...
@@ -8,7 +8,6 @@ Prime number (or just *prime*) is a [whole](integer.md) positive [number](number
 
 *Prime number positions up to 70.*
 
-
 The largest known prime number as of 2022 is 2^82589933 - 1 (it is so called [Mersenne prime](mersenne_prime.md), i.e. a prime of form 2^N - 1).
 
 Every natural number greater than 1 has a unique **prime factorization**, i.e. a [set](set.md) of prime numbers whose product it is. For example 75 is a product of three primes: 3 * 5 * 5. This is called the *fundamental theorem of arithmetic*. Naturally, each prime has a factorization consisting of a single number -- itself -- while factorizations of non-primes consist of at least two primes. To mathematicians prime numbers are what chemical elements are to chemists -- a kind of basic building blocks.
@@ -86,6 +85,10 @@ There also exists a term **pseudoprime** -- it stands for a number which is not
 
 **[Fun](fun.md) with primes**: thanks to their interesting, mysterious and [random](randomness.md) nature, primes can be played around -- of course, you can examine them mathematically, which is always fun, but you can also play sort of [games](game.md) with them. For example the prime race: you make two teams of primes, one that gives 1 modulo 4, the other one that gives 3; then you go prime by prime and add points to each team depending on which one the prime falls in; the interesting thing is that team 3 is almost always in lead just by a tiny amount (this is known as Chebyshev bias, only after 2946 primes team 1 gets in the lead for a while, then at 50378 etc.). Similar thing can be done by evaluating the Mobius function: set total sum to 0, then go number by number and if it only has unique prime factors, add 1 if the number of those factors is even, otherwise subtract 1 -- see how the function behaves. Of course you can go crazy, make primes paint pictures or compose [music](music.md) -- people also like to do this with digits of numbers, e.g. those of [pi](pi.md) or [e](e.md).
 
+**Can we generalize the concept of prime numbers?** Yeah, sure, why not? The ways are many, we'll rather run into the issue of analysis paralysis -- choosing the interesting generalization of out of the many possible ways. The above mentioned pseudoprimes, superprimes and twin primes are examples of generalizing primes, another one is e.g. defining so called **almost primes** -- a number is *n*-almost-prime if it has *n* prime factors, so 1-almost-primes are just regular primes (they have 1 prime divisor -- themselves) but then there are 2 almost primes like 9 or 15 that are kind of closer to being primes than let's say 5-almost-primes such as 48 or 80. I.e. we took the idea of numbers having either none (primes) or some (non-primes) divisors and generalized it by says a number is more prime like if it has fewer divisors. Similarly we may try to play on this observation: a non-prime is a number that is divisible by something, i.e. there is some number that when dividing the original number gives remainder after division zero; primes are those for which no number gives remainder zero, but some primes might be considered "weaker" by giving very low or very high remainder such as 1, i.e. being "not quite but almost" divisible by something (of course we have to somehow account for the fact that low divisors can only ever give low remainders) -- ideal prime would have remainders after division near the half of the dividing number (it would dodge multiples of other numbers with some margin), which we can formalize and define kind of "prime strength".
+
+TODO: generalization to non integers? does it exist?
+
 ## Algorithms
 
 **Primality test**: testing whether a number is a prime is quite easy and not computationally difficult (unlike factoring the number). A [naive](naive.md) algorithm is called *trial division* and it tests whether any number from 2 up to the tested number divides the tested number (if so, then the number is not a prime, otherwise it is). This can be [optimized](optimization.md) by only testing numbers up to the [square root](sqrt.md) (including) of the tested number (if there is a factor greater than the square root, there is also another smaller than it which would already have been tested). A further simple optimization is to to test division by 2, 3 and then only numbers of the form 6q +- 1 (other forms are divisible by either 2 or 3, e.g 6q + 4 is always divisible by 2). Further optimizations exist and for maximum speed a [look up table](lut.md) may be used for smaller primes. A simple [C](c.md) function for primality test may look e.g. like this:
@@ -122,4 +125,5 @@ Prime generation: TODO
 
 ## See Also
 
+- [perfect number](perfect_number.md)
 - [happy number](happy_number.md)

pseudominimalism.md

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 # Pseudominimalism
 
-Pseudominimalism is the kind of technology design which aims to appear [minimalist](minimalism.md) on the outside while being [bloated](bloat.md) on the inside. Rather than trying to achieve a truly good, minimalist design from the ground up, with all its advantages, pseudominimalism just tries to hide the ugliness of its internals and appeal purely by the looks. A typical example could be a website that has a minimalist look -- a blank background with sans-serif font text and a few nice looking shapes -- which in the background uses dozens of [JavaScript](js.md) frameworks and libraries and requires a high end CPU to even appear responsive. Basically all [modern](modern.md) "retro" video [games](game.md) are pseudominimalist in design, they use pixelated graphics but are created in huge frameworks such as [Unity](unity.md) or [Godot](godot.md); even projects calling themselves "minimalist", such as many [fantasy consoles](fantasy_console.md), are in fact only pseudominimalist, written in extremely high level languages such as [JavaScript](javascript.md). [Apple](apple.md) is heavily practicing pseudominimalism.
+Pseudominimalism is the kind of technology design which aims to appear [minimalist](minimalism.md) on the outside while being [bloated](bloat.md) on the inside. Rather than trying to achieve a [truly good](lrs.md), minimalist design from the ground up, with all its advantages, pseudominimalism merely attempts to hide the ugliness of its internals and appeal purely by the looks. A typical example might be a website that has a minimalist look -- a blank background with sans-serif [font](font.md) text and a few nice looking vector shapes -- which in the background sneakily uses dozens of [JavaScript](js.md) frameworks and libraries and requires a high end [CPU](cpu.md) in order to even appear responsive. Essentially all [modern](modern.md) "retro" video [games](game.md) are pseudominimalist in design, they use pixelated graphics but are created in enormous frameworks such as [Unity](unity.md) or [Godot](godot.md); even projects calling themselves "minimalist", such as many [fantasy consoles](fantasy_console.md), are in truth only pseudominimalist, written in extremely high level languages such as [JavaScript](javascript.md). [Apple](apple.md) is heavily practicing pseudominimalism.
 
 While true minimalists do appreciate minimalist look as well, pseudominimalists are obsessed with visuals and after a while you learn to spot pseudominimalist just by their attempts at what they call a "clean design" or "user experience" -- a true minimalist uses minimalism so that bullshit doesn't stands in his way, a **pseudominimalist is just a snob** using visuals to pretend he's an intellectual. You will see the sweat that went into font choice, spacing of paragraphs with this tryharding leaking even to language in which he tries to use minimum of words which just makes it hard to understand what he wants to say. A typical example is the [shitty 100r wiki](xxiivv.md).
 
-Another example are many [modern](modern.md) [CLI](cli.md) programs that [code monkeys](coder.md) use to impress their [YouTube](youtube.md) viewers or to feel like matrix haxors. Some people think that anything running in the command line is minimalist which is less and less true as we progress into the [future](future.md). A lot of [capitalist software](capitalist_software.md) add a CLI interface ex post **on top** of an already bloated program, often by simply disabling [GUI](gui.md) (but leaving all its [dependencies](dependency.md) in). An example may be the [gomux](gomux.md) chat client.
+Another example is presented by many "[modern](modern.md)" [CLI](cli.md) programs which [code monkeys](coder.md) use to impress their [YouTube](youtube.md) viewers or to feel like matrix haxors. Some people believe that anything running in the command line has to be minimalist by a law of nature which is less and less true as we progress into the [future](future.md). A lot of [capitalist software](capitalist_software.md) add a CLI interface ex post **on top** of an already bloated program, often by simply disabling [GUI](gui.md) (but leaving all its [dependencies](dependency.md) in). An example may be the [gomux](gomux.md) chat client.
 
-Yet another kind of pseudominimalism appearing among the new generation of pseudoprogrammers is all about writing very few LOC in some hugely bloated language and calling that "minimalism". Something like a *Minecraft clone in 100 LOC of Python using only Python standard library*, the catch of course being that [Python](python.md) itself is hugely bloated and its standard library is enormous, therefore they just hide all the complexity out of view. Such effort is of course completely useless and only serves for flexing in front of beginners who can't spot the trick. Even if obvious, it has to be noted that **minimalist software cannot be written in a bloated language**.
+Yet another kind of pseudominimalism appearing among the new generation of crippled pseudoprogrammers is all about writing very few LOC in some incredibly bloated language and calling that "minimalism". Something like a *Minecraft clone in 100 LOC of Python using only Python standard library*, the catch of course being that [Python](python.md) itself is hugely bloated and its standard library is enormous, therefore they just hide all the complexity out of view. Effort like that is indeed completely useless and only serves for flexing in front of beginners who can't spot the trick. Even if obvious, it has to be noted that **minimalist software cannot be written in a bloated language**.

public_domain.md

@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ As a next step make sure you clearly **document** your work and the sources you
 
 If you collaborate with someone on the work, it must be clear that ALL contributors to the work follow what we describe here (e.g. that they all agree to the license/waiver you have chosen etc.). It is safer if there are fewer contributors as with more people involved the chance of someone starting to "make trouble" increases.
 
-Finally you need to actually release your work into the public domain. Remember that you want to achieve a **safe, world-wide public domain** (so again you shouldn't try to rely on some weird/obscure laws of your own small country). It must be stressed that it is NOT enough to write *"my work is public domain"*, this is simply legally insufficient (and in many countries you can't even put your work into public domain which is why you need a more sophisticated tool). You need to use a public domain [waiver](waiver.md) (similar to a [license](license.md)) which you just put alongside your work (e.g. into the `LICENSE` file), plus it is also good to explicitly write (e.g. in your readme) a sentence such as **"I, ..., release this work into public domain under CC0 1.0 (link), public domain"**. Keep in mind that the WORDING may be very important here, so try to write this well: we mention the license name AND its version (CC0 1.0, it may even be better to fully state *Creative Commons 1.0*) as well as a link to its exact text and also mention the words *public domain* afterwards to make the intent of public domain yet clearer to any doubters. Here we used what's currently probably the best waiver you can use: [Creative Commons Zero](cc0.md) (CC0) -- this is what we recommend. However note that CC0 only waives copyright and not other things like [trademarks](trademark.md) or [patents](patent.md), so e.g. for [software](software.md) you might need to add an extra waiver of these things as well.
+Finally you need to actually release your work into the public domain. Remember that you want to achieve a **safe, world-wide public domain** (so again you shouldn't try to rely on some weird/obscure laws of your own small country). It must be stressed that it is NOT enough to write *"my work is public domain"*, this is simply legally insufficient (and in many countries you can't even put your work into public domain which is why you need a more sophisticated tool). You need to use a public domain [waiver](waiver.md) (similar to a [license](license.md)) which you just put alongside your work (e.g. into the `LICENSE` file), plus it is also good to explicitly write (e.g. in your readme) a sentence such as **"I, ..., release this work into public domain under CC0 1.0 (link), public domain"**. Bear in mind that the WORDING may be very important here, so try to write this well: we mention the license name AND its version (CC0 1.0, it may even be better to fully state *Creative Commons 1.0*) as well as a link to its exact text and also mention the words *public domain* afterwards to make the intent of public domain yet clearer to any doubters. Here we used what's currently probably the best waiver you can use: [Creative Commons Zero](cc0.md) (CC0) -- this is what we recommend. However note that CC0 only waives copyright and not other things like [trademarks](trademark.md) or [patents](patent.md), so e.g. for [software](software.md) you might need to add an extra waiver of these things as well.
 
 { I personally use the following waiver IN ADDITION to CC0 with my software to attempt waiving of patents, trademarks etc. I made it by taking some standard waiver companies use to steal "rights" of their employees and modifying it to make it a public domain waiver. If you want to use it, make sure you mention it is an EXTRA, additional waiver alongside CC0. The waiver text follows. ~drummyfish
 

randomness.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 
 *Not to be confused with [pseudorandomess](pseudorandomness.md).*
 
-Randomness means unpredictability, lack of patterns and/or behavior without cause. Random events can only be predicted imperfectly using [probability](probability.md), because there is something present that's subject to chance, something we don't know; events may be random to us either because they are inherently random (i.e. they really have no cause, pattern etc.) or because we just lack knowledge or practical ability to perfectly predict the events. Randomness is one of the most basic, yet also one of the most difficult concepts to understand about our [Universe](universe.md) -- it's a phenomenon of immense practical importance, we encounter it every second of our daily lives, but it's also of no lesser interest to science, philosophy, art and religion. Whole libraries could be filled just with books about this topic, here we will be able to only scratch the surface of it by taking a look at the very basics of randomness, mostly as related to [programming](programming.md) and [math](math.md).
+Randomness means unpredictability, lack of patterns, and/or behavior without cause. Random events can only be predicted imperfectly using [probability](probability.md) because there is something present that's subject to chance, something we don't know; events may be random to us either because they are inherently random (i.e. they really have no cause, pattern etc.) or because we just lack knowledge or practical ability to perfectly predict the events. Randomness is one of the most basic, yet also one of the most difficult concepts to understand about our [Universe](universe.md) -- it's a phenomenon of uttermost practical importance, we encounter it every second of our daily lives, but it's also of no lesser interest to science, philosophy, art and religion. Whole libraries could be filled just with books about this topic, here we will be able to only scratch the surface of it by taking a look at the very basics of randomness, mostly as related to [programming](programming.md) and [math](math.md).
 
-As with similarly wide terms, the word *randomness* and *random* may be defined in different ways and change meaning slightly depending on context, for example sometimes we have to distinguish between "true" randomness, such as that we encounter in [quantum mechanics](quantum.md) or that present in nondeterministic mathematical models, and [pseudorandomness](pseudorandomness.md) (what as a programmer you'll be probably dealing with), i.e. imitating this true randomness with [deterministic](determinism.md) ("non-randomly behaving") systems, e.g. sequences of numbers that are difficult to [compress](compression.md). Other times we call random anything at all that just deviates from usual order, as in "someone started randomly spamming me in chat". Let's briefly review a few terms related to this topic:
+As with similarly wide spanning terms the word *randomness* and *random* may be defined in different ways and change meaning slightly depending on context, for example sometimes we have to distinguish between "true" randomness, such as that we encounter in [quantum mechanics](quantum.md) or that present in nondeterministic mathematical models, and [pseudorandomness](pseudorandomness.md) (what as a programmer you'll be probably dealing with), i.e. imitating this true randomness with [deterministic](determinism.md) ("non-randomly behaving") systems, e.g. sequences of numbers that are difficult to [compress](compression.md). Other times we call random anything at all that just deviates from usual order, as in "someone started randomly spamming me in chat". Let's briefly review a few terms related to this topic:
 
 - **randomness**: The wide term meaning great unpredictability, which may be inherent or just apparent. We usually divide it to:
   - **true randomness**: Randomness that is caused by inherently unpredictable behavior of a system, i.e. behavior that truly has no cause and is decided purely by chance, without ever being able to be perfectly predicted, even just theoretically; this is contrasted with pseudorandomness. A typical example given is [quantum physics](quantum.md) in which true randomness seems to be present in things such as some properties of elementary particles of the Universe -- though in fact this can never be proven with certainty, there is so much evidence of us not being able to predict quantum phenomena that we just mostly take it for the closest thing to true randomness in real world. However we can also see some purely mathematical models to have true randomness, simply because they define it so, e.g. a nondeterministic [Turing machine](turing_machine.md) is simply defined to sometimes make purely random decisions.
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ As with similarly wide terms, the word *randomness* and *random* may be defined
 - **[stochasticity](stochastic.md)**: Basically mathematics that deals with randomness and probability in some way, the term is often used as an attribute of a mathematical model, i.e. stochastic model is that which is somehow described in terms of probabilities.
 - **[entropy](entropy.md)**: A measure related to randomness, saying how much [information](information.md) (in [bits](bit.md)) we can extract from given message -- the higher the randomness (unpredictability), the higher the entropy because this randomness may be used to carry information.
 
-Keep in mind **there are different "amounts" of randomness**, i.e. you should consider that **[probability distributions](probability_distribution.md)** exist and that some processes may be random only a little. It is not like there are only completely predictable and completely unpredictable systems, oftentimes we just have some small elements of chance or can at least estimate which outcomes are more likely. We see absolute randomness (i.e. complete unpredictability) only with uniform probability distribution, i.e. in variables in which all outcomes are equally likely -- for example rolling a dice. However in real life variables some values are usually more likely than others -- e.g. with adult human male height values such as 175 cm will be much more common than 200 cm; great many real life values actually have [normal distribution](normal_distribution.md) -- the one in which values around some center value are most common.
+Keep in mind **there are different "amounts" of randomness** -- that is to say you should consider that **[probability distributions](probability_distribution.md)** exist and that some processes may be random only a little. It is not like there are only completely predictable and completely unpredictable systems, oftentimes we just have some small elements of chance or can at least estimate which outcomes are more likely. We see absolute randomness (i.e. complete unpredictability) only with uniform probability distribution, i.e. in variables in which all outcomes are equally likely -- for example rolling a dice. However in real life variables some values are usually more likely than others -- e.g. with adult human male height values such as 175 cm will be much more common than 200 cm; great many real life values actually have [normal distribution](normal_distribution.md) -- the one in which values around some center value are most common.
 
 **What do random numbers look like?** This is a tricky question. Let's now consider uniform probability distribution, i.e. "absolute randomness". When we see sequences of numbers such as [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] or [9, 1, 4, 7, 8, 1, 5], which are "random" and which not? Intuitively we would say the first two are not random because there is a clear pattern, while the third one looks pretty random. However consider that under our assumption of uniform probability distribution all of these sequences are equally likely to occur!  It is just that there are only very few sequences in which we recognize a common pattern compared to those that look to have no pattern, so we much more commonly see these sequences without a pattern coming out of random number generators and therefore we think the first two patterns are very unlikely to have come from a random source. Indeed they are, but the third, "random looking" sequence is equally unlikely (if you bet the numbers in lottery, you are still very unlikely to win), it just has great many weird looking siblings. You have to be careful, things around probability are great many times very unintuitive and tricky (see e.g. the famous [Monty Hall problem](monty_hall.md)).
 
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ One of the most basic is the **[chi-squared test](chi_squared_test.md)** whose d
 
 { The following is a method I came up with wrote about here (includes some code): https://codeberg.org/drummyfish/my_writings/src/branch/master/randomness.md, I haven't found what this is called, it probably already exists. If you know what this method is called, please send me a mail. ~drummyfish }
 
-**Cool randomness test**: this test tries to measure the unpredictability, the inability to predict what binary digit will follow. As an input to the test we suppose a binary sequence *S* of length *N* bits that's repeating forever (for example for *N = 2* a possible sequence is 10 meaning we are really considering an infinite sequence 1010101010...). We suppose an observer knows the sequence and that it's repeating (consider he has for example been watching us broadcast it for a long time and he noticed we are just repeating the same sequence over and over), then we ask: if the observer is given a random (and randomly long) subsequence *S2* of the main sequence *S*, what's the average probability he can correctly predict the bit that will follow? This average probability is our measured randomness *r* -- the lower the *r*, the "more random" the sequence *S* is according to this test. For different *N* there are different minimum possible values of *r*, it is for example not possible to achieve *r < 0.7* for *N = 3* etc. The following table shows this test's most random sequences for given *N*, along with their count and *r*.
+**Cool randomness test**: this test attempts to measure the unpredictability, the inability to predict what binary digit will follow. As an input to the test we suppose a binary sequence *S* of length *N* bits that's repeating forever (for example for *N = 2* a possible sequence is 10 meaning we are really considering an infinite sequence 1010101010...). We suppose an observer knows the sequence and that it's repeating (consider he has for example been watching us broadcast it for a long time and he noticed we are just repeating the same sequence over and over), then we ask: if the observer is given a random (and randomly long) subsequence *S2* of the main sequence *S*, what's the average probability he can correctly predict the bit that will follow? This average probability is our measured randomness *r* -- the lower the *r*, the "more random" the sequence *S* is according to this test. For different *N* there are different minimum possible values of *r*, it is for example not possible to achieve *r < 0.7* for *N = 3* etc. The following table shows this test's most random sequences for given *N*, along with their count and *r*.
 
 | seq. len. | most random looking sequences                                                                 |count| min. r |
 | --------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ------ |

real_number.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Real Number
 
-Real numbers are all [numbers](number.md) found on the infinite, continuous one dimensional number line, they often represent what we generally just mean by the term "number" and include for example [zero](zero.md), [pi](pi.md) or -39/11. The [set](set.md) or real numbers includes all [whole numbers](integer.md) as well as all [rational numbers](rational_number.md) (fractions with integer nominator and denominator), but in addition contains infinitely many "special" numbers such as [pi](pi.md), [e](e.md) or [square root](sqrt.md) of 2, numbers that are mathematically very interesting because they for example produce infinitely many digits in our traditional number notation without showing any obvious patterns. However it has to be noted real numbers still do NOT include for example [infinity](infinity.md) or [complex numbers](complex_number.md) (kind of "2D extension" of real numbers) such as [i](i.md). Real numbers really represent a **[continuum](continous.md)**, between any two numbers that are not the same there is always infinitely many real numbers that have no gaps in between -- this leads to the fact that not only is there infinitely many real numbers, but there is **[uncountably many](uncountable.md)** of them, i.e. simply put there is "more than traditional infinity" of real numbers.
+Real numbers are all [numbers](number.md) found on the infinite, continuous one dimensional number line, they often represent what we generally just mean by the term "number" and include for example [zero](zero.md), [pi](pi.md) or -39/11. The [set](set.md) or real numbers includes all [whole numbers](integer.md) as well as all [rational numbers](rational_number.md) (fractions with integer nominator and denominator), but in addition contains infinitely many "special" numbers such as [pi](pi.md), [e](e.md) or [square root](sqrt.md) of 2, numbers that are mathematically very interesting because they for example produce infinitely many digits in our traditional number notation without showing any obvious patterns. However it has to be noted real numbers still do NOT include for example [infinity](infinity.md) or [complex numbers](complex_number.md) (kind of "2D extension" of real numbers) such as [i](i.md). Real numbers really represent a **[continuum](continous.md)**, between any two numbers that are not the same there is always infinitely many real numbers that have no gaps in between -- this leads to the fact that not only is there infinitely many real numbers, but there is **[uncountably many](uncountable.md)** of them, i.e. simply put there is "more than traditional infinity" of real numbers. [Mathematically](math.md) the set of real numbers and operations with them form a structure called a *[field](field.md)* (so you'll often hear the term "field of real numbers").
 
 WATCH OUT: even though in programming we sometimes we encounter [data types](data_type.md) named *real*, they usually don't represent true real numbers! In [programming](programming.md) we mostly only [approximate](approximation.md) real numbers with [floating](float.md) or [fixed](fixed_point.md) point numbers, which really are only rational numbers -- this is practically always [good enough](good_enough.md), we don't ever need an exact value of pi, a few decimal digits of accuracy is enough to an engineer, but to a mathematician real numbers represent a completely new, different world with some fundamental differences, which even a mere programmer should be at least aware of. Real numbers are tied to questions of the continuum, infinitely big and infinitely small, and they can really eventually lead to deep philosophical debates.
 

reddit.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Reddit, established in 2005, marketing itself as the "frontpage of the [Internet
 
 Before the infamous censorship wave circa 2019 reddit used to be quite a beautiful place to behold, truly an experience unlike anything else (maybe a bit comparable to [Usenet](usenet.md)). { I used to actually love reddit, sad it died. ~drummyfish } It's hard to sum up to someone who didn't experience reddit back then, it found a great mix of excellent ideas that just worked great together, a combination mainly of [free speech](free_speech.md) (that's completely gone now, it's almost comical to remember reddit used to be one of the "bastions of free speech" back then), nice minimalist user interface (also gone now), having many subforums for all kinds of niche communities, even the smallest you can imagine (like people who like round objects or people who try to talk without using some specific letter because they hate it etc.), sharing of [interesting](interesting.md) links and/or ideas, having a non-traditional comment system structured as a [tree](tree.md) and letting people vote on both posts and individual comments to bring up the ones they found most valuable (i.e. informative, funny, interesting etc.). Users also gathered so called "karma", a kind of points they cumulated for getting upvotes, so users had some sort of "level" -- the more karma, the more "elite" the user was (users could also gift so called *reddit gold* for excellent posts, basically giving the user a free premium account for a while); this not once led to so called *karma whoring*. Anyway, reddit was like an whole new Internet within the Internet, it was just a place where you could spend hours searching and discovering things you didn't even know you wanted to find -- any hobby or any detail you had a morbid curiosity about you could dig up on reddit, you could find large interviews with ambulance drivers who told fascinating stories they saw during their careers, schizophrenic people answering questions like "can you walk through the imaginary people you see?", discussions like "what's the weirdest thing that happened to you as a beekeeper", people digging out extremely weird videos on YouTube, solving mysteries in video games, even famous people like Barak Obama took part in reddit IAMA interviews and just answered all the weird questions the internet asked them. There were also porn communities and controversial communities like *r/watchpeopledie* where users just shared videos of people dying { This was my favorite, seeing people die and suffer was actually what led me to completely reject all violence later on in my life. ~drummyfish }. This was sort of the vanilla reddit experience. However, as they always do, money and [pseudoleftists](pseudoleft.md) soon swiftly killed all of this, a few greedy faggots just destroyed it all so that they could get even richer than they already were.
 
-What was the big moment? Basically in 2019 reddit presented one the most visible, greatest examples of a **profit motivated 180 degree turn from a [free speech](free_speech.md) site to a [censorship](censorship.md) dictatorship** -- as some cock invested money to reddit, the reddit CEO just said yeah, let's make this advertisement friendly and ban all free speech on the site; there were hilarious historical moments like Alexis Ohanian, the co-founder of the site, saying "we never intended reddit to be the bastion of free speech" while someone actually found a quote of him saying the exact opposite in the past :D This shitstorm resulted in one of the greatest disasters to ever have happened on the Internet. Subreddits such as *r/politicallyincorrect*, *r/Offensive_Wallpapers*, *r/watchpeopledie*, *r/necrophilia*, *r/PicsOfHorseVaginas*, *r/sjwhate*, *r/lovenotacrime*, *r/fatpeoplehate* and THOUSANDS of other were all banned (you can probably still find them in archives, but you can no longer discuss of course). Of course those who criticized this were just banned too, anyone who showed a dislike of this got a "fuck you bitch" message from a mod with a swift ban. People not familiar with reddit or Internet too much perhaps didn't notice too much, but to an Internet citizen this was comparable to something like the Pope one day waking up, admitting to [atheism](atheism.md), dressing up as [Voldemort](hitler.md) and starting to masturbate on the balcony, cumming on people while promoting nuclear war, all because someone paid him $1 to do it. Of course this was completely expected under [capitalism](capitalism.md), reddit just showed a very rapid, "we don't give a shit about users or society or anything but money" kind of step, one that must show clear as day even to any blind idiot what capitalism really is about. After this many people left reddit for good { Including me. ~drummyfish }, some migrated to alternative sites like [Voat](voat.md), but it was never what it used to be, communities were fragmented and they mostly degenerated to small groups bitching about how reddit fucked up. At least it's a great lesson learned about "free market" society.
+What was the big moment? Basically in 2019 reddit presented one the most visible, greatest examples of a **profit motivated 180 degree turn from a [free speech](free_speech.md) site to a [censorship](censorship.md) dictatorship** -- as some cock invested money to reddit, the reddit CEO just said yeah, let's make this advertisement friendly and ban all free speech on the site; there were hilarious historical moments like Alexis Ohanian, the co-founder of the site, saying "we never intended reddit to be the bastion of free speech" while someone actually found a quote of him saying the exact opposite in the past :D This shitstorm resulted in one of the greatest disasters to ever have happened on the Internet. Subreddits such as *r/politicallyincorrect*, *r/Offensive_Wallpapers*, *r/watchpeopledie*, *r/necrophilia*, *r/PicsOfHorseVaginas*, *r/sjwhate*, *r/lovenotacrime*, *r/fatpeoplehate* and THOUSANDS of others were all banned (you can probably still find them in archives, but you can no longer discuss of course). Of course those who criticized this were just banned too, anyone who showed a dislike of this got a "fuck you bitch" message from a mod with a swift ban. People not familiar with reddit or Internet too much perhaps didn't notice too much, but to an Internet citizen this was comparable to something like the Pope one day waking up, admitting to [atheism](atheism.md), dressing up as [Voldemort](hitler.md) and starting to masturbate on the balcony, cumming on people while promoting nuclear war, all because someone paid him $1 to do it. Of course this was completely expected under [capitalism](capitalism.md), reddit just showed a very rapid, "we don't give a shit about users or society or anything but money" kind of step, one that must show clear as day even to any blind idiot what capitalism really is about. After this many people left reddit for good { Including me. ~drummyfish }, some migrated to alternative sites like [Voat](voat.md), but it was never what it used to be, communities were fragmented and they mostly degenerated to small groups bitching about how reddit fucked up. At least it's a great lesson learned about "free market" society.
 
 Reddit had an extreme number of own memes, historical events, famous users, inside [jokes](jokes.md) and jargon -- it was kind of like a whole country. Especially notable are the [acronyms](acronym.md) that come from subreddit names and which reddit guys use in normal speech, like AMA (ask me anything), TIL (today I learned), TIFU (today I fucked up) or ELI5 (explain like I'm 5) etc.
 

resnicks_termite.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ WORK IN PROGRESS
 
 { Found this in the book *The Computational Beauty of Nature*. --drummyfish }
 
-Resnick's termite is a simple [cellular automaton](cellular_automaton.md) simulating behavior of ants, demonstrating how even a very dumb behavior of a single agent can lead to higher collective intelligence once we increase the number of the agents. The simulation was made by Mitchel Resnick, the theme is similar to that of [Langton's ant](langtons_ant.md) but Resnick's termites are stochastic, [nondeterministic](determinism.md), they rather show how statistics/randomness in behavior help many ants build tunnels in sand. The game demonstrates how randomly scattered chips start getting chunked together and form tunnels once we let ants with extremely simple behavior work together on moving the chips. Besides this demonstration however there doesn't seem to be anything more interesting going on (at least until we start to modify and tweak the thing somehow).
+Resnick's termite is a simple [cellular automaton](cellular_automaton.md) simulating behavior of ants, demonstrating how even a very dumb behavior of a single agent can lead to higher collective intelligence once we increase the number of the agents. The simulation was made by Mitchel Resnick, the theme is similar to that of [Langton's ant](langtons_ant.md) but Resnick's termites are [stochastic](stochasticism.md), [nondeterministic](determinism.md), they rather show how statistics/[randomness](randomness.md) in behavior help many ants build tunnels in sand. The game demonstrates how randomly scattered chips start getting chunked together and form tunnels once we let ants with extremely simple behavior work together on moving the chips. Besides this demonstration however there doesn't seem to be anything more interesting going on (at least until we start to modify and tweak the thing somehow).
 
 The system is defined quite simply: we have a world made of cells, each cell can be either empty or have a wooden chip on it. In this world we have a number of ants, each of which behaves by the following [algorithm](algorithm.md):
 

sigbovik.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # SIGBOVIK
 
-SIGBOVIK ([special interest group](sig.md) on Harry Q. Bovik) is a [computer science conference](compsci.md) running since 2007 that focuses on researching and presenting [fun](fun.md) ideas in fun ways, scientifically but in a lighthearted [hacker](hacking.md) spirit similar to e.g. [esoteric programming languages](esolang.md) research or the [IOCCC](ioccc.md). SIGBOVIK has their own proceedings just like other scientific conferences, the contributors are usually professional researchers and experts in computer science. The name seems to be a reference to the "serious" conferences such as [SIGGRAPH](siggraph.md), SIGMOD etc. (SIGBOVIK is organized by the *Association for Computational Heresy* while the "serious" SIGs are run by *Asscoiation for Computing Machinery*, ACM).
+SIGBOVIK ([special interest group](sig.md) on Harry Q. Bovik) is a [computer science conference](compsci.md) running since 2007 that focuses on researching and presenting [fun](fun.md) ideas in fun ways, [scientifically](science.md) but in a lighthearted [hacker](hacking.md) spirit similar to e.g. [esoteric programming languages](esolang.md) research or the [IOCCC](ioccc.md). SIGBOVIK has its own proceedings just like other scientific conferences, the contributors are usually professional researchers and experts in computer science. The name seems to be a reference to the "serious" conferences such as [SIGGRAPH](siggraph.md), SIGMOD etc. (SIGBOVIK is organized by the *Association for Computational Heresy* while the "serious" SIGs are run by *Asscoiation for Computing Machinery*, ACM).
 
-A famous contributor to the conference is e.g. Tom7, a [PhD](phd.md) who makes absolutely lovely [youtube](youtube.md) videos about his fun research (e.g. this one is excellent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpXy041BIlA).
+A famous contributor to the conference is for instance Tom7, a [PhD](phd.md) who makes absolutely lovely [youtube](youtube.md) videos about his fun research (e.g. this one is excellent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpXy041BIlA).
 
 { Skimming through the proceedings sadly most of the stuff seems rather silly, though there are a few good papers, usually those by Tom7. Maybe I'm just dumb. ~drummyfish }

social_inertia.md

@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
 # Social Inertia
 
-Social inertia appears when a social group continues to behave in an established way mainly because it has behaved that way for a long time, even if such behavior is no longer justified.
+Social inertia appears when a social group continues to behave in established ways chiefly because it has behaved that way for a long time, and that even if such behavior is no longer well rationally justified.

steganography.md

@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ The following two pictures encode text, each picture a different one, written un
                               ,_,,
 ```
 
-*To be or not to be. That is the question.*
+*To be or [not to be](suicide.md). That is the question.*
 
 ## Example Code
 

sw.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 # Software
 
-Software (SW) are [programs](program.md) that run on a [computer](computer.md), i.e. its non-physical parts (as opposed to [hardware](hw.md)); for example an [operating system](os.md), the Internet [browser](browser.md), [games](game.md) etc. Software is created by the act of [programming](programming.md) (and related activities such as [software engineering](sw_engineering.md) etc.).
+Software (SW) are [programs](program.md) running on a [computer](computer.md), i.e. its non-physical parts (as opposed to [hardware](hw.md)); for example an [operating system](os.md), the Internet [browser](browser.md), [games](game.md) etc. Software is created by the act of [programming](programming.md) (and related activities such as [software engineering](sw_engineering.md) etc.).
 
-Usually we can pretty clearly say what is software vs what is hardware, however there are also edge cases where it's debatable. Normally software is that about the computer which *can relatively easily be changed* (i.e. reinstalled by a typing a few commands or clicking a few buttons) while hardware is [hard-wired](hard_wired.md), difficult to modify, and not expected or designed to be modified. Nevertheless e.g. some [firmware](firmware.md) is kind of software in form of instructions which is however many times installed in some special kind of memory that's difficult to reprogram and not expected to be reprogrammed often -- some software may be "burned in" into a circuit so that it could only be changed by physically rewiring the circuit (the [ME](intel_me.md) spyware in [Intel](intel.md) [CPU](cpu.md)s has a built-in [minix](minix.md) operating system). And this is where it may sometimes be difficult to decide where the line is drawn. This issue is encountered e.g. by the [FSF](fsf.md) which certifies some hardware that works with free software as *Respects Your Freedom* ([RYF](ryf.md)), and they have very specific definition what to them classifies software.
+Usually we can pretty clearly say what is software vs what is hardware, however there are also edge cases where it's debatable. Normally software is that about the computer which *can relatively easily be changed* (i.e. reinstalled by a typing a few commands or clicking a few buttons) while hardware is [hard-wired](hard_wired.md), difficult to modify and not expected or designed to be modified. Nevertheless e.g. some [firmware](firmware.md) is kind of software in form of instructions which is however many times installed in some special kind of memory that's difficult to reprogram and not expected to be reprogrammed often -- some software may be "burned in" into a circuit so that it could only be changed by physically rewiring the circuit (the [ME](intel_me.md) spyware in [Intel](intel.md) [CPU](cpu.md)s has a built-in [minix](minix.md) operating system). And this is where it may on occasion become difficult to judge where the line is to be drawn. This issue is encountered e.g. by the [FSF](fsf.md) which certifies some hardware that works with free software as *Respects Your Freedom* ([RYF](ryf.md)), and they have very specific definition what to them classifies software.
 
 ## See Also
 

sw_rendering.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Software Rendering
 
-[Software](software.md) (SW) rendering refers to [rendering](rendering.md) [computer graphics](graphics.md) without the help of [graphics card](gpu.md) (GPU), i.e. computing images only with [CPU](cpu.md). This mostly means rendering [3D graphics](3d_rendering.md) but can also refer to other kinds of graphics such as drawing [fonts](font.md) or [video](video.md). Before GPUs were invented, all rendering was done in software, of course -- games such as [Quake](quake.md) or Thief were designed with SW rendering and only added optional GPU acceleration later. SW rendering for traditional 3D graphics is also called software [rasterization](rasterization.md), as rasterization is the basis of current real-time 3D graphics.
+[Software](software.md) (SW) rendering refers to [rendering](rendering.md) [computer graphics](graphics.md) without the help of [graphics card](gpu.md) (GPU), or in other words computing images only with [CPU](cpu.md). Most commonly the term means rendering [3D graphics](3d_rendering.md) but may as well refer to other sorts of graphics such as drawing [fonts](font.md) or [video](video.md). Before the invention of GPU card all rendering was done in software of course -- games such as [Quake](quake.md) or Thief were designed with SW rendering and only added optional GPU acceleration later. SW rendering for traditional 3D graphics is also called software [rasterization](rasterization.md), for rasterization is the basis of current real-time 3D graphics.
 
 SW rendering has advantages and disadvantages, though from our point of view its advantages prevail (at least given only capitalist GPUs exist nowadays). Firstly it is **much slower** than GPU graphics -- GPUs are designed to perform graphics-specific operations very quickly and, more importantly, they can process many pixels (and other elements) in [parallel](parallelism.md), while a CPU has to compute pixels sequentially one by one and that in addition to all other computations it is otherwise performing. This causes a much lower [FPS](fps.md) in SW rendering. For this reasons SW rendering is also normally of **lower quality** (lower resolution, [nearest neighbour](nn.md) texture filtering, ...) to allow workable FPS. Nevertheless thanks to the ginormous speeds of today's CPUs simple fullscreen SW rendering can be pretty fast on PCs and achieve even above 60 FPS; on slower CPUs (typically [embedded](embedded.md)) SW rendering is usable normally at around 30 FPS if resolutions are kept small.
 

technology.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # Technology
 
-Technology (from Greek tekhnologia, "systematic treatment of art", also just "tech") encompasses tools and knowledge of making such tools invented and achieved mainly with the help of [science](science.md) and by long systematic effort. This includes everything from [stone tools](rock.md) to space rockets and [artificial intelligence](ai.md). On the Internet, as well as on this Wiki, this term is often used with the focus on [computer](computer.md) technology, i.e. [hardware](hardware.md) and [software](software.md), as this is the kind of technology that is being discussed and developed the most in our days. Technology, like fire, should serve us, but can also be dangerous and often gets misused and abused.
+Technology (from Greek tekhnologia, "systematic treatment of art", also just "tech") encompasses tools and knowledge of making such tools invented and achieved mainly through [science](science.md) and by long systematic effort. This includes everything from [stone tools](rock.md) to space rockets and [artificial intelligence](ai.md). On the [Internet](internet.md), as well as on [this Wiki](lrs_wiki.md), this term is commonly used with an increased focus on [computer](computer.md) technology, i.e. [hardware](hardware.md) and [software](software.md), for this is the kind of technology that is being discussed and developed the most these days. Let it be said that technology, like fire, should serve us, but can also be dangerous and often gets misused and abused.
 
-**The foremost purpose of technology is to make people not have to [work](work.md)**. Proponents of dystopian societies, such as [capitalists](capitalism.md), are afraid of technology "taking people's work" -- such people are for sure greatly idiotic and often end up abusing technology in the completely opposite manner: for enslaving and oppressing people. Proponents of [good technology](lrs.md) correctly try to make technology do work for humans so that people can actually live happy lives and do what they want. With this in mind we have to remember that **one of the most important concepts in technology is [minimalism](minimalism.md)**, as that is a necessary prerequisite for technological [freedom](freedom.md).
+**The foremost purpose of technology is to make people not have to [work](work.md)** -- see also [progress](progress.md). Proponents of dystopian societies, such as [capitalists](capitalism.md), fear that technology will "take people's work" -- such people are for sure greatly idiotic and often end up abusing technology in the completely opposite manner: for enslaving and oppressing people. Proponents of [good technology](lrs.md) strive to make technology do work for humans so that people can actually live happy lives and do what they want. With this in mind we have to remember that **one of the most important concepts in technology is [minimalism](minimalism.md)**, as that is a necessary prerequisite for technological [freedom](freedom.md).
 
-**Knowledge of older technology gets lost extremely quickly in society** -- this is a very crucial realization that follow a naive idea of a young man who usually believes that we somehow pertain knowledge of all technology that's been invented from dawn of man until today. In history our society has always only held knowledge of technology it was CURRENTLY ACTIVELY USING; knowledge of decades outdated technology only stays in hands of extremely few individuals and perhaps in some obscure books which ARE UNREADABLE to most, sometimes to none; yet older technology often gets forgotten completely. For example renaissance had to largely reinvent many arts and sciences of making building and statues of antiquity because middle ages have simply forgotten them. A more recent example can be found at [NASA](nasa.md) and their efforts to recreate THEIR OWN old rocket engines: you would think that since they literally have detailed documentation of those engines, they'd be able to simple make them again, but that's not the case because the small undocumented (yet crucial) [know-how](know_how.md) of the people who built the engines decades ago was lost with those individuals who died or retired in the meanwhile; NASA had to start a ginormous project to reinvent its own relatively recent technology. The same is happening in the field of [programming](programming.md): [modern](modern.md) [soydevs](soydev.md) just CANNOT create as efficient software as hackers back then as due to normalization of wasting computing resources they threw away the knowledge of [optimization](optimization.md) technique and [wisdom](unix_philosophy.md) in favor of bullshit such as "soft skills" and memorizing one billion genders and personal pronouns. One might naively think that e.g. since our agriculture is highly efficient and advanced due to all the immense complexity of our current machines, simple farming without machines would be a child's play for us, however the opposite is true: we no longer know how to farm without machines. If a [collapse](collpase.md) comes, we are simply fucked.
+**Knowledge of older technology gets lost extremely quickly in society** -- this is a crucial realization that follows a naive idea of the young man who by his inexperience believes that we somehow pertain knowledge of all technology that's been invented from dawn of man until today. In [history](history.md) our society has always only held knowledge of technology it was CURRENTLY ACTIVELY USING; knowledge of decades old technology no longer in use only stays in hands and heads of extremely few individuals and perhaps in some obscure [books](book.md) that ARE UNREADABLE to most, sometimes to none; yet older technology oftentimes gets forgotten for good. For instance renaissance had to largely reinvent many arts and sciences of making building and statues of antiquity because middle ages have simply forgotten them. A more recent example can be found at [NASA](nasa.md) and their efforts to recreate THEIR OWN old rocket engines: you would think that since they literally have detailed documentation of those engines, they'd be able to simple make them again, but that's not the case because the small undocumented (yet crucial) [know-how](know_how.md) of the people who built the engines decades ago was lost with those individuals who died or retired in the meanwhile; NASA had to start a ginormous project to reinvent its own relatively recent technology. The same is happening in the field of [programming](programming.md): [modern](modern.md) [soydevs](soydev.md) just CANNOT create as efficient software as hackers back then as due to normalization of wasting computing resources they threw away the knowledge of [optimization](optimization.md) technique and [wisdom](unix_philosophy.md) in favor of bullshit such as "soft skills" and memorizing one billion genders and personal pronouns. One might naively think that e.g. since our agriculture is highly efficient and advanced due to all the immense complexity of our current machines, simple farming without machines would be a child's play for us, however the opposite is true: we no longer know how to farm without machines. If a [collapse](collpase.md) comes, we are quite simply fucked.

wiki_stats.md

@@ -3,8 +3,8 @@
 This is an autogenerated article holding stats about this wiki.
 
 - number of articles: 566
-- number of commits: 735
-- total size of all texts in bytes: 3341662
+- number of commits: 736
+- total size of all texts in bytes: 3345680
 
 longest articles:
 
@@ -24,6 +24,18 @@ longest articles:
 latest changes:
 
 ```
+Date:   Wed Mar 13 21:13:00 2024 +0100
+autostereogram.md
+lrs_dictionary.md
+pseudominimalism.md
+random_page.md
+rms.md
+wiki_pages.md
+wiki_stats.md
+wikipedia.md
+wow.md
+xonotic.md
+xxiivv.md
 Date:   Wed Mar 13 17:00:53 2024 +0100
 3d_rendering.md
 autostereogram.md
@@ -45,18 +57,6 @@ float.md
 history.md
 interesting.md
 iq.md
-jesus.md
-main.md
-number.md
-often_confused.md
-open_console.md
-pi.md
-random_page.md
-rms.md
-thrembo.md
-wiki_pages.md
-wiki_stats.md
-Date:   Mon Mar 11 15:27:23 2024 +0100
 ```
 
 most wanted pages: