@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ Sometimes it is not 100% clear which action constitutes censorship: for example
1. Censorship is no longer done just by the state, but by [corporations](corporation.md), various social subgroups and even individuals as well, as so called self censorship, often automatically and subconsciously. In wanting to talk you are not just standing against one big bad guy who wants you silent, there are hundreds of sneaky bastards waiting to sue you, report you, ban you, cancel you, even physically terminate you if you touch anything controversial in one way or another.
2. **NO ONE ADMITS TO CENSORSHIP NOWADAYS, no matter how blatantly obvious their censorship is**, exactly in the capitalist "deny EVERYTHING" spirit -- Wikipedia explicitly states "we are not censored" and then literally removes and blocks inclusion of legitimate information it deems "harmful". You point it out, they ban you. They will say "no, it's not censorship, it is MODERATION, PROTECTION, DELISTING, free speech has its limits, it is not a ban, it is deplatformization, blocking of hate speech is not censorship blablabla ..." -- they are inventing hundreds of new terms so that they don't have to use the word *censorship*.
3. There is a lot of soft, undercover and hard to proof censorship -- no longer is something either censored or not censored, but it may be shadowbanned, hugely underanked in search, censored only to specific eyes, modified rather than deleted etc. For example [Google](google.md) censors thousands of websites; you WILL find those websites if Google sees you are looking specifically for those to test their censorship, but it won't ever show it to people who don't know about the site and are legitimately looking for the information they contain. Maybe they will show the site on the 100th page of the search results, which is equivalent to just blocking it completely, but they can say "haha we are not actually censoring it, gotcha". TV series and movies are silently edited retroactively in the [cloud](cloud.md) to no longer include scenes deemed politically incorrect, no one notices as no one owns physical copies anymore. And so on.
3. There is a lot of soft, undercover and hard to prove censorship -- no longer is something either censored or not censored, but it may be shadowbanned, hugely underanked in search, censored only to specific eyes, modified rather than deleted etc. For example [Google](google.md) censors thousands of websites; you WILL find those websites if Google sees you are looking specifically for those to test their censorship, but it won't ever show it to people who don't know about the site and are legitimately looking for the information they contain. Maybe they will show the site on the 100th page of the search results, which is equivalent to just blocking it completely, but they can say "haha we are not actually censoring it, gotcha". TV series and movies are silently edited retroactively in the [cloud](cloud.md) to no longer include scenes deemed politically incorrect, no one notices as no one owns physical copies anymore. In the endgame capitalists will just be constantly updating history, let's say they will just change the characters in Godfather to LGBTQ queer black women and since the movie will only be streamed from the cloud, without any old copied of the original existing, they will just say "the movie has always been like that, the author supported our politics". And so on.
There exist **tools for bypassing censorship**, e.g. [proxies](proxy.md) or encrypted and/or distributed, censorship-resistant networks such as [Tor](tor.md), [Freenet](freenet.md), [I2P](i2p.md) or [torrent](torrent.md) file sharing. Watch out: using such tools may be illegal or at least make you look suspicious and be targeted harder by the surveillance.
@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ Currently the best player in the world is pretty clearly Magnus Carlsen from Nor
During [covid](covid.md) chess has experienced a small boom among normies and [YouTube](youtube.md) chess channels have gained considerable popularity. This gave rise to [memes](meme.md) such as the bong cloud opening popularized by a top player and streamer Hikaru Nakamura; the bong cloud is an intentionally shitty opening that's supposed to taunt the opponent (it's been even played in serious tournaments lol).
**White is generally seen as having a slight advantage** because he always has the first move. This doesn't play such as big role in beginner and intermediate games but starts to become apparent in master games. How big the advantages is is a matter of ongoing debate, most people are of the opinion there exists a slight advantage, some people think chess is a win for white with perfect play while others believe chess is a draw with perfect play. Probably only very tiny minority of people think white doesn't have any advantage.
**White is generally seen as having a slight advantage over black** (just like in [real life](irl.md) lol) because he always has the first move. This doesn't play such as big role in beginner and intermediate games but starts to become apparent in master games. How big the advantages is is a matter of ongoing debate, most people are of the opinion there exists a slight advantage, some people think chess is a win for white with perfect play while others believe chess is a draw with perfect play. Probably only very tiny minority of people think white doesn't have any advantage.
On **perfect play**: as stated, chess is unlikely to be ever solved so it is unknown if chess is a theoretical forced draw or forced win for white (or even win for black), however many simplified endgames and some simpler chess variants have already been solved. Even if chess was ever solved, it is important to realize one thing: **perfect play may be unsuitable for humans** and so even if chess was ever solved, it might have no significant effect on the game played by humans. Imagine the following: we have a chess position in which we are deciding between move *A* and move *B*. We know that playing *A* leads to a very good position in which white has great advantage and easy play (many obvious good moves), however if black plays perfectly he can secure a draw here. We also know that if we play *B* and then play perfectly for the next 100 moves, we will win with mathematical certainty, but if we make just one incorrect move during those 100 moves, we will get to a decisively losing position. While computer will play move *B* here because it is sure it can play perfectly, it is probably better to play *A* for human because human is very likely to make mistakes (even a master). For this reason humans may willingly choose to play mathematically worse moves -- it is because a slightly worse move may lead to a safer and more comfortable play for a human.
@ -53,8 +53,8 @@ Here is a list of notable encyclopedias, focused on general knowledge English la
| World Almanac and Book of Facts|1868...| some PD (old) | 1 vol. | | interesting and useful information, data and facts from old to new age, US-centered |
| The World Book |1917...| proprietary | 22 vol. | 17K | best selling print enc., large, probably high quality |
| The World Book 1917 |1917 | PD (old) | 8 vol. | 3K | nicely readable |
@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Type A and type B fails are two very common cases of failing to adhere to the [L
- **type A fail**: Is anticapitalist, anticonsumerist, may incline towards minimalism, supports [free software](free_software.md) and [free culture](free_culture.md), may even be a vegan, [anarchist](anarchism.md), [C](c.md) programmer etc., however falls into the trap of supporting [pseudoleft](pseudoleft.md), e.g. [LGBT](lgbt.md) or [feminism](feminism.md) and things such as censorship ("[moderation](moderation.md)", [COCs](coc.md)), "just violence and bullying" (violence against fascists, e.g. [antifa](antifa.md)), falls for memes such as "[Rust](rust.md) is the new [C](c.md)".
- **type B fail**: Is against [pseudoleft](pseudoleft.md) bullshit and propaganda such as political correctness, is a [racial realist](racial_realism.md), highly supports [suckless](suckless.md) software, hacking and minimalism to achieve high freedom, usually also opposes [corporations](corporation.md) and state, however falls into the trap of being a [fascist](fascism.md), easily accepts violence, believes in "natural selection/wild west as a basis of society", supports and engages in [cryptocurrencies](crypto.md), believes in some form of [capitalism](capitalism.md) and that the current form of it can be "fixed" (["anarcho" capitalism](ancap.md) etc.)
Both types are furthermore prone to falling a victim to [privacy](privacy.md) obsession, [productivity](productivity_culture.md) obsession, [hero worshipping](hero_culture.md), [diseases](disease.d) such as [distro hopping](distro_hopping.md), [consuerism](consumerism.md) and similar defects.
Both types are furthermore prone to falling a victim to [privacy](privacy.md) obsession, [productivity](productivity_culture.md) obsession, [hero worshipping](hero_culture.md), use of violence, [diseases](disease.d) such as [distro hopping](distro_hopping.md), [consuerism](consumerism.md) and similar defects.
Type A/B fails are the "great filter" of the rare kind of people who show a great potential for adhering to LRS. It may be due to the modern western culture that forces a [right](right.md)-[pseudoleft](pseudoleft.md) false dichotomy that even those showing a high degree of non-conformance eventually slip into the trap of being caught by one of the two poles. These two fails seem to be a manifestation of an individual's true motives of [self interest](self_interest.md) which is culturally fueled with great force -- those individuals then try to not conform and support non-mainstream concepts like free culture or sucklessness, but eventually only with the goal of self interest. It seems to be extremely difficult to abandon this goal, much more than simply non-conforming. Maybe it's also the subconscious knowledge that adhering completely to LRS means an extreme loneliness; being type A/B fail means being a part of a minority, but still a having a supportive community, not being completely alone.
### How does LRS differ from [suckless](suckless.md), [KISS](kiss.md), [free software](free_software.md) and similar types of software?
Sometimes these sets may greatly overlap and LRS is at times just a slightly different angle of looking at the same things, but in short LRS cherry-picks the best of other things and is much greater in scope (it focuses on the big picture of whole society). I have invented LRS as my own take on suckless software and then expanded its scope to encompass not just technology but the whole society -- as I cannot speak on behalf of the whole suckless community (and sometimes disagree with them a lot), I have created my own "fork" and simply set my own definitions without worrying about misinterpreting, misquoting or contradicting someone else. LRS advocates very similar technology to that advocated by suckless, but it furthermore has its specific ideas and areas of focus. The main point is that **LRS is derived from an unconditional love of all life** rather than some shallow idea such as "[productivity](productivity_cult.md)". In practice this leads to such things as a high stress put on [public domain](public_domain.md) and legal safety, [altruism](altruism.md), selflessness, anti-[capitalism](capitalism.md), accepting software such as [games](game.md) as desirable type of software, NOT subscribing to the [productivity cult](productivity_cult.md), different view on [privacy](privacy.md), [cryptocurrencies](crypto.md) etc. While suckless is apolitical and its scope is mostly limited to software, LRS speaks not just about technology but about the whole society -- there are two main parts of LRS: [less retarded software](lrs.md) and [less retarded society](less_retarded_society.md).
Sometimes these sets may greatly overlap and LRS is at times just a slightly different angle of looking at the same things, but in short LRS cherry-picks the best of other things and is much greater in scope (it focuses on the big picture of whole society). I have invented LRS as my own take on suckless software and then expanded its scope to encompass not just technology but the whole society -- as I cannot speak on behalf of the whole suckless community (and sometimes disagree with them a lot), I have created my own "fork" and simply set my own definitions without worrying about misinterpreting, misquoting or contradicting someone else. LRS advocates very similar technology to that advocated by suckless, but it furthermore has its specific ideas and areas of focus. The main point is that **LRS is derived from an unconditional love of all life** rather than some shallow idea such as "[productivity](productivity_cult.md)". In practice this leads to such things as a high stress put on [public domain](public_domain.md) and legal safety, [altruism](altruism.md), selflessness, anti-[capitalism](capitalism.md), accepting [games](game.md) as desirable type of software, NOT subscribing to the [productivity cult](productivity_cult.md), rejecting [privacy](privacy.md), [cryptocurrencies](crypto.md) etc. While suckless is apolitical and its scope is mostly limited to software and its use for "getting job done", LRS speaks not just about technology but about the whole society -- there are two main parts of LRS: [less retarded software](lrs.md) and [less retarded society](less_retarded_society.md).
One way to see LRS is as a philosophy that takes only the [good](good.md) out of existing philosophies/movements/ideologies/etc. and adds them to a single unique [idealist](idealism.md) mix, without including [cancer](cancer.md), [bullshit](bullshit.md), errors, propaganda and other negative phenomena plaguing basically all existing philosophies/movements/ideologies/etc.
Free (as in freedom) hardware is a form of ethical [hardware](hardware.md) aligned with the philosophy of [free (as in freedom) software](free_software.md), i.e. having a free [licensed](license.md) designed that allows anyone to study, use, modify and share such designs for any purpose and so prevent abuse of users by technology. Let us note the word *free* refers to user freedom, not price! Sometimes the term may be more broadly and not completely correctly used even for hardware that's just highly compatible with purely free software systems -- let us rather call these a **freedom friendly hardware** -- and sometimes people misunderstand the term *free* as meaning "gratis hardware"; to avoid misunderstandings [GNU](gnu.md) recommends using the term **free design hardware** or **libre hardware** for free hardware in the strict sense, i.e. hardware with free licensed design. Sometimes -- nowadays maybe even more often -- the term *"[open source](open_source.md)" hardware* or *open hardware* with very similar meaning is encountered, but that is of course a [harmful](harmful.md) terminology as open source is an inherently harmful [capitalist](capitalism.md) movement ignoring the ethical question of freedom -- hence it is recommended to prefer using the term free hardware. Sometimes the acronym FOSH (free and open source hardware) is used neutrally, similarly to [FOSS](foss.md).
[GNU](gnu.md), just like [us](lrs.md), highly advocates for free hardware, though, unlike with software, they don't completely reject using non-free hardware nowadays, not just for practical reasons (purely free hardware almost doesn't exist), but also because hardware is fundamentally different from software and it is possible to use *some* non-free hardware (usually the older one) relatively safely, without sacrificing freedom. The [FSF](fsf.md) issues so called **[Respects Your Freedom](ryf.md)** (RYF) certification for non-malicious hardware products, both free and non-free, that can be used with 100% free software (even though RYF has also been a target of some criticism of free software activists).
[GNU](gnu.md), just like [us](lrs.md), highly advocates for free hardware, though, unlike with software, they don't completely reject using non-free hardware nowadays, not just for practical reasons (purely free hardware basically doesn't exist), but also because hardware is fundamentally different from software and it is possible to use *some* non-free hardware (usually the older one) relatively safely, without sacrificing freedom. The [FSF](fsf.md) issues so called **[Respects Your Freedom](ryf.md)** (RYF) certification for non-malicious hardware products, both free and non-free, that can be used with 100% free software (even though RYF has also been a target of some criticism of free software activists).
We, [LRS](lrs.md), advocate for more strict criteria than just a free-licensed hardware design, for example we prefer complete [public domain](public_domain.md) and advocate high [simplicity](kiss.md) which is a prerequisite of true freedom -- see [less retarded hardware](less_retarded_hardware.md) for more.
The topic of free hardware is a bit messy, free hardware definition is not as straightforward as that of free software because hardware, a physical thing, has some inherently different properties than software and it is also not as easy to design and create so it evolves more slowly than software. For example the very question of what even is hardware? There is a grey area between hardware and software, sometimes we see [firmware](firmware.md) as hardware, sometimes as software, sometimes pure software can be hardwired into a circuit so it basically behaves like hardware etc. Hardware design also has different levels, a higher level design may be free-licensed but its physical implementation may require existing lower level components that are non-free -- does such hardware count as free or not? We have to keep these things in mind. While in the software world it is usually quite easy to label a piece of software as free or not, with hardware we rather tend to speak of different levels of freedom, at least for now.
The topic of free hardware is a bit messy, free hardware definition is not as straightforward as that of free software because hardware, a physical thing, has some inherently different properties than software and it is also not as easy to design and create so it evolves more slowly than software and it is much more difficult to create hardware completely from the ground up. Now consider the very question "what even is hardware"? There is a grey area between hardware and software, sometimes we see [firmware](firmware.md) as hardware, sometimes as software, sometimes pure software can be hardwired into a circuit so it basically behaves like hardware etc. Hardware design also has different levels, a higher level design may be free-licensed but its physical implementation may require existing lower level components that are non-free -- does such hardware count as free or not? How much down does free go -- do peripherals have to be free? Do the chips have to be free? Do the transistors themselves have to be free? We have to keep these things in mind. While in the software world it is usually quite easy to label a piece of software as free or not (at least legally), with hardware we rather tend to speak of different levels of freedom, at least for now.
## Existing Free And Freedom-Friendly Hardware And Firmware
{ I'm not so much into hardware, this may be incomplete or have some huge errors, as always double check and please forgive :) Report any errors you find, thanks. ~drummyfish }
{ I'm not so much into hardware, this may be incomplete or have some huge errors, as always double check and please forgive :) Report any errors you find, also send me suggestions, thanks. ~drummyfish }
TODO, WORK IN PROGRESS, UNDER CONSTRUCTION
@ -19,28 +19,32 @@ The following is a list of hardware whose design is **at least to some degree**
- **[Arduino](arduino.md)**: Extremely popular single board microcontrollers that can be easily used to make various devices. Designs and software tools are free, however the name Arduino is trademarked AND the hardware designs are using existing proprietary components, e.g. the [AVR](avr.md) MCUs, i.e. Arduino is not 100% free from the ground up, but the degree of freedom is high and the hardware is kind of simple, i.e. friendly to tinkering and hacking.
- **[RISC-V](risc_v.md)**: Big project creating a free-licensed [instruction set architecture](isa.md), usable by anyone for anything etc. (however the RISC-V brand is [trademarked](trademark.md)). A number of free CPUs/SOC implementations exist (alongside many proprietary implementations), for example [PicoRV32](picorv32.md) or [Sodor](sodor.md).
The following is a list of some "freedom friendly" hardware, i.e. hardware that though partly or fully proprietary is not or can be made non-malicious to the user (has documented behavior, allows fully free software, battery replacement, repairs etc.):
The following is a list of some "freedom friendly" hardware, i.e. hardware that though partly or fully proprietary is not or can be made non-malicious to the user (has documented behavior, allows fully free software, librebooting, battery replacement, repairs etc.):
- **[Ben NanoNote](ben_nanonote.md)**: tiny [GNU](gnu.md)/[Linux](linux.md) laptop whose design is free, however it utilizes e.g. a proprietary CPU.
- **[DragonBox Pyra](pyra.md)**: Upcoming small handheld computer running [GNU](gnu.md)/[Linux](linux.md) that *almost* meets the RYF criteria, schematics will be available, GPU drivers are sadly proprietary. Successor to OpenPandora.
- **[Librem 5](librem5.md)**: WARNING, this device has been criticized a lot. It's an "open"/privacy-friendly smartphone with free-licensed design running [GNU](gnu.md)/[Linux](linux.md), however it uses proprietary firmware (loaded from secondary CPU to sneakily comply with RYF) and the functionality is, according to reviews, horrible.
- **[MNT Reform](mnt_reform.md)**: "Open hardware" (free-licensed design but using proprietary components) laptop with [NXP](nxp.md) [ARM](arm.md) CPU and [Vivante](vivante.md) GPU that can run with free drivers, has no camera or microphone. Pretty expensive.
- **Old [Thinkpad](thinkpad.md) laptops**: Old thinkpads such as [X200](x200.md), [T400](t400.md) and [T500](t500.md) are construction-wise superior to maybe any other laptop ever made, however despite being proprietary they are compatible with [libreboot](libreboot.md) and can be purchased with [Intel ME](intel_me.md) CPU backdoor disabled, offering complete control over the device, plus they can be bought relatively cheap. Very popular.
- **Old [Thinkpad](thinkpad.md) laptops**: Old thinkpads such as [X200](x200.md), [T400](t400.md) and [T500](t500.md) are construction-wise superior to maybe any other laptop ever made, however despite being proprietary they are compatible with [libreboot](libreboot.md) and can be purchased with [Intel ME](intel_me.md) CPU backdoor disabled, offering complete control over the device, plus they can be bought relatively cheap. Very popular, some even certified ["Respects Your Freedom"](ryf.md) by the [FSF](fsf.md).
- **[OLinuXino](olinuxino.md)**: TODO
- **[OpenPandora](openpandora.md)**: Game console/tiny computer.
- **[Open consoles](open_console.md)** such as [Arduboy](arduboy.md), [Pokitto](pokitto.md) and [Gamebuino](gamebuino.md) usually utilize a lot of simple free hardware such as [Arduino](arduino.md), provide schematics, free libraries and encourage hacking.
- [Raspberry Pi](rpi.md) is not really free hardware but with free firmware such as [librepi](librepi.md) it can be quite freedom friendly.
- **Other proprietary laptops**: many mostly older laptops are freedom friendly, e.g. Asus C201 Chromebook. You can usually find these in the libreboot compatibility list.
- **[Pinephone](pinephone.md)**: Another "free/open" smartphone running GNU/Linux, probably better than Librem5, also uses some proprietary firmware (e.g. for Wifi), design is only source-available.
- **[Ringo MakerPhone](ringo.md)**: Educational Arduino dumbphone running on free software, by [Circuitmess](circuitmess.md). { I own one, is a bit buggy but [works](just_werks.md) for calls and messages. ~drummyfish }
- **[Ronja](ronja.md)**: Device for optical communication using ethernet protocol.
- ...
The following is a list of [firmware](firmware.md), [operating systems](os.md) and software tools that can be used to liberate freedom-friendly proprietary devices:
- **[coreboot](coreboot.md)**: "Open source" replacement for proprietary [BIOS](bios.md) in personal computers. For higher compatibility coreboot includes proprietary [binary blobs](binary_blob.md) for devices that require them, in a similar fashion to [Linux](linux.md), and so coreboot is not 100% free -- libreboot tries to fix this.
- **[libreboot](libreboot.md)**: Completely free version of coreboot, with proprietary blobs removed. However this very much limits the list of libreboot compatible devices.
- **[librepi](librepi.md)**: Libre firmware for [RPI](rpi.md).
- **[PostmarketOS](postmarketos.md)**: Mobile [GNU](gnu.md)/[Linux](linux.md) distribution that can be used to liberate smartphones.
- **[Replicant](replicant.md)**: Fork of [Android](android.md) mobile OS that replaces proprietary components with free software, can be used to liberate smartphones, though it is still [bloat](bloat.md).
- **[Rockbox](rockbox.md)**: Free firmware for digital audio players allowing replacement of the proprietary firmware and even improving on functionality and [GUI](gui.md).
- **[Ronja](ronja.md)**: Device for optical communication using ethernet protocol.
*You can do what you want, but you can't want what you want.*
Free will is a logically erroneous egocentric belief that humans (and possibly other living beings) are special in the universe by possessing some kind of soul which may disobey laws of physics and somehow make spontaneous, unpredictable decisions according to its "independent" desires. Actually that's the definition of *absolute**indeterminate* free will; weaker definitions are also possible, e.g. *volitional free will* means just that one's actions are determined internally, or for the purposes of law definitions based on one's sanity may be made. But here we'll focus on the philosophical definition as that's what most autism revolves around. The Internet (and even academic) debates of free will are notoriously retarded to unbelievable levels, similarly to e.g. debates of [consciousness](consciousness.md).
@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Go (from Japanese *Igo*, "surrounding board game", also *Baduk* or *Wei-qi*) is
**From [LRS](lrs.md) point of view go is one of the best games ever**, for similar reasons to chess (it's highly free, [suckless](suckless.md), cheap, [not owned by anyone](public_domain.md), [fun](fun.md), mathematically deep, nice for programming while the game itself doesn't even require a [computer](computer.md) etc.) plus yet greater [simplicity](minimalism.md) and beauty.
**Solving go:** similarly to chess the full game of go seems unlikely to be solved -- the 19x19 game state tree is yet larger than that of chess, but the much simpler rules possibly give a bigger hope for mathematical proofs. Smaller boards however have been solved: Erik van der Werf made a program that confirmed win for black on boards up to (and including) 5x5 (best first move in all cases being in the middle of the board). Bigger boards are being researched, but a lot of information about them is in undecipherable Japanese/Korean gibberish, so we leave that for the future.
**Solving go:** similarly to chess the full game of go seems unlikely to be solved -- the 19x19 board makes the game state tree yet larger than that of chess, but the much simpler rules possibly give a bigger hope for mathematical proofs. Smaller boards however have been solved: Erik van der Werf made a program that confirmed win for black on boards up to (and including) 5x5 (best first move in all cases being in the middle of the board). Bigger boards are being researched, but a lot of information about them is in undecipherable Japanese/Korean gibberish, so we leave that for the future.
TODO: rating, programming, stats, programs and sites for playing, ...
Less retarded society (LRS, same [acronym](acronym.md) as [less retarded software](lrs.md)) is a model of ideal society towards which we, the [LRS](lrs.md), want to be moving. Less retarded society is a peaceful, collaborative society based on [love](love.md) of all [life](life.md), which aims for maximum well being of all living beings, a society without violence, [money](money.md), oppression, need for [work](work.md), social [competition](competition.md), poverty, scarcity, criminality, [censorship](censorship.md), [self-interest](self_interest.md), government, police, laws, bullshit, slavery and many other negative phenomena. It equally values all living beings and establishes true social equality in which everyone can pursue his true desires freely -- it is a TRULY [leftist](left_vs_right.md) society, not a [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) one. The society works similarly to that described by the [Venus Project](venus_project.md) and various [anarchist](anarchism.md) theories (especially [anarcho pacifist](anpac.md) [communism](communism.md)).
Less retarded society (LRS, same [acronym](acronym.md) as [less retarded software](lrs.md)) is a model of ideal society towards which we, the [LRS](lrs.md), want to be moving. Less retarded society is a peaceful, collaborative society based on [love](love.md) of all [life](life.md), which aims for maximum well being of all living beings, a society without violence, [money](money.md), oppression, need for [work](work.md), social [competition](competition.md), poverty, scarcity, criminality, [censorship](censorship.md), [self-interest](self_interest.md), government, police, laws, bullshit, slavery and many other negative phenomena. It equally values all living beings and establishes true social equality in which everyone can pursue his true desires freely -- it is a TRULY [leftist](left_vs_right.md) society, NOT a [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) one. The society works similarly to that described by the [Venus Project](venus_project.md) and various [anarchist](anarchism.md) theories (especially [anarcho pacifist](anpac.md) [communism](communism.md)), but it also takes good things from elsewhere, even various [religions](religion.md) (without itself actually becoming a religion in traditional sense); for example parts of teaching of [Jesus](jesus.md) and [Buddha](buddhism.md).
**How is this different from other ideologies and "life philosophies"?** Well, one principal difference is that LRS doesn't want to [fight](fight_culture.md); nowadays as well as in the past society has always been about conflict, playing a **game** against others (nowadays e.g. market competition, employment competition, media competition, ...) in which some win, some can manage and some lose. Most political parties nowadays just want to change the rules of the game or downright switch to a different kind of game, some want to make the rules "more fair", or to make it favor their represented minority (so called [fascism](fascism.md)), some just want to [hack](hacking.md) the game, some want to [cheat](cheat.md) to win the game easily, some want to play fair but still win (i.e. become "successful"). LRS simply sees any kind of such game as unnecessary, cruel, unethical and harmful in many ways not just to us, but to the whole planet. LRS therefore simply wants to stop the game, not by force but by making everyone see how bad the game is. It says that **competition and conflict must seize to be the basis of society**.
Science (from Latin *scientia*, knowledge or understanding) in a wide sense means systematic gathering, inference and organization of knowledge, in a more strict sense this process has to be kept rational by obeying some specific strict rules and adhering to whatever principles of objectivity are currently accepted, nowadays for example the [scientific method](scientific_method.md) or mathematical [proof](proof.md). Sciences in the strict sense include [mathematics](math.md) (so called formal science), [physics](physics.md), biology, chemistry, [computer science](computer_science.md), as well as "soft sciences" such as [psychology](psychology.md), sociology etc. Science is not to be confused with [pseudoscience](pseudoscience.md) (such as [gender studies](gender_studies.md) or [astrology](astrology.md)) and [soyence](soyence.md) (political propaganda masked as "science") -- it must be remembered that **when science can no longer be questioned, it seizes to be science**, as asking questions and examining EVERYTHING are the very basic premises of true science: this means that anything prohibited to be questioned, by law or [otherwise](de_facto.md) (e.g. by [cancel culture](cancel_culture.md)), such as the [Holocaust](holocaust.md) (forbidden to be denied in many countries such as Germany), [COVID](covid.md) vaccines, [racial](race.md) differences (prohibited on grounds of "[hate speech](hate_speech.md)") and similar topics CANNOT be seen as scientifically established, but rather politically established.
Science (from Latin *scientia*, knowledge or understanding) in a wide sense means systematic gathering, inference and organization of knowledge, in a more strict, "western" sense this process has to be kept rational by obeying some specific strict rules and adhering to whatever principles of objectivity are currently set, nowadays for example the [scientific method](scientific_method.md) and [peer censorship](peer_review.md) or mathematical [proof](proof.md). Sciences in the strict sense include [mathematics](math.md) (so called formal science), [physics](physics.md), biology, chemistry, [computer science](computer_science.md), as well as "soft sciences" such as [psychology](psychology.md), sociology etc. Science is not to be confused with [pseudoscience](pseudoscience.md) (such as [gender studies](gender_studies.md) or [astrology](astrology.md)) and [soyence](soyence.md) (political propaganda masked as "science", e.g. [gender studies](gender_studies.md), sponsored "science" of big pharma etc.) -- it must be remembered that **when science can no longer be questioned, it seizes to be science**, as asking questions and examining EVERYTHING are the very basic premises of a true science: this means that anything prohibited to be questioned, by law or [otherwise](de_facto.md) (e.g. by [cancel culture](cancel_culture.md)), such as the [Holocaust](holocaust.md) (forbidden to be denied in many countries such as Germany), [COVID](covid.md) vaccines, [racial](race.md) differences (prohibited on grounds of "[hate speech](hate_speech.md)") and similar topics CANNOT be seen as scientifically established, but rather politically established. In the wider sense science may include anything that involves systematic intellectual research, e.g. [Buddhists](buddhism.md) often say their teaching is science rather than religion, that it is searching for objective truths, and it really is true -- a western fedora atheist will shit himself in rage hearing such claim, however that's all he can really do.
TODO: some noice tree of sciences or smth
**There is no simple objective definition of a strict science** -- the definition of science changes with development of society, technology, culture, politics and so on. Science should basically stand for the most rational and objective knowledge we're able to practically obtain, however the specific criteria for this are unclear and have to be agreed on. The [scientific method](scientific_method.md) is evolving and there are many debates over it, with some even stating that there can be no universal method of science. The [p-value](p_value.md) used to determine whether measurements are statistically significant has basically just an arbitrarily set value for what's considered a "safe enough" result. Some say that if a research is to be trusted, it has to be [peer reviewed](peer_review.md), i.e. that what's scientific has to be approved by chosen experts -- this may be not just because people can make mistakes but also because in current highly competitive society there appears science [bloat](bloat.md), obscurity and tendencies to push fake research and purposeful deception, i.e. our politics and culture are already defining what science is. However the stricter the criteria for science, the more monopolized, centralized, controlled and censored it becomes.
**There is no simple objective definition of a strict science** -- the definition of science is hugely arbitrary, political and changes with development of society, technology, culture, changes in government and so on. Science should basically stand for the most rational and objective knowledge we're able to practically obtain about something, however the specific criteria for this are unclear and have to be agreed on. The [scientific method](scientific_method.md) is evolving and there are many debates over it, with some even stating that there can be no universal method of science. The [p-value](p_value.md) used to determine whether measurements are statistically significant has basically just an arbitrarily set value for what's considered a "safe enough" result. Some say that if a research is to be trusted, it has to be [peer reviewed](peer_review.md), i.e. that what's scientific has to be approved by chosen experts -- this may be not just because people can make mistakes but also because in current highly competitive society there appears science [bloat](bloat.md), obscurity and tendencies to push fake research and purposeful deception, i.e. our politics and culture are already defining what science is. However the stricter the criteria for science, the more monopolized, centralized, controlled and censored it becomes.
**What should we then accept as legit science?** [We](lrs.md), in the context of our [ideal society](less_retarded_society.md), argue for NOT creating a strict definition of science, just as we are for example against "formalizing morality" with laws etc. What is and is not science is to be judged on a case-by-case basis, science cannot be a mass produced stream of papers that can automatically be marked as OK or NOT OK. We might define the term **[less retarded science](less_retarded_science.md)** so as to distinguish today's many times twisted and corrupted "science/[soyence](soyence.md)" from the real, good and truly useful science. Less retarded science should follow similar principles as [our technology](lrs.md), it should be completely free as in freedom, [selfless](selflessness.md), [suckless](suckless.md) as much as possible, unobscured etc.
**Science is not almighty** as brainwashed internet [euphoric](atheism.md) kids like to think, that's a completely false idea fed to them by the overlords who abuse "science" ([soyence](soyence.md)) for control of the masses, as religion was and is still used -- soyence is the new religion [nowadays](21st_century.md). Yes, (true) science is great, it is an awesome tool, but it is just that -- a tool, usable for SOME tasks, not a [silver bullet](silver_bullet.md) that could be used for everything. What can be discovered by science is in fact quite limited, exactly because it purposefully LIMITS itself only to accept what CAN be proven and so remains silent about everything else (which however doesn't mean there lies no knowledge or value in the everything else or in other approaches to learning) -- see e.g. Godel's incompleteness theorems that state it is mathematically impossible to really prove validity of mathematics, or the nice compendium of all knowability limitations at http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html. For many (if not most) things we deal in life science is either highly impractical (do you need to fund a peer reviewed research to decide what movie you'll watch today?) or absolutely useless (setting one's meaning of life, establishing one's basic moral axioms, placing completely random bets, deciding to trust or distrust someone while lacking scientifically relevant indicators for either, answering metaphysical questions such as "Why is there ultimately something rather than nothing?" etc.). So don't be Neil de Grass puppet and stop treating science as your omnipotent pimplord, it's just a hammer useful for bashing some specific nails.
**Never confuse trusting scientists vs trusting science** (especially in [capitalism](capitalism.md) and other dystopias), the former is literally faith ([soyence](soyence.md)), no different from blindly trusting religious preachers and political propaganda, the latter means only trusting that which you yourself can test and verify at home and therefore having real confidence. Also do NOT confuse or equate science with [academia](academia.md). As with everything, under capitalism academia has become rotten to the core, research is motivated by profit and what's produced is mostly utter bullshit shat out by wannabe PhDs who need to mass produce "something" as a part of the crazy academia publish-or-perish game. As with everything in capitalism, the closer you look, the more corruption you find.
**What should we accept as "legit" science?** [We](lrs.md), in the context of our [ideal society](less_retarded_society.md), argue for NOT creating a strict definition of science, just as we are for example against "formalizing morality" with laws etc. There are no hard lines between good and evil, fun and boring, useful and useless, bloated and minimal, and so also there is no strict line between science and non-science. What is and is not science is to be judged on a case-by-case basis and can be disagreed on without any issue, science cannot be a mass produced stream of papers that can automatically be marked OK or NOT OK. We might define the term **[less retarded science](less_retarded_science.md)** so as to distinguish today's many times twisted and corrupted "science/[soyence](soyence.md)" from the real, good and truly useful science. Less retarded science should follow similar principles as [our technology](lrs.md), it should be completely free as in freedom, [selfless](selflessness.md), [suckless](suckless.md) as much as possible, unobscured etc. -- especially stressed should be the idea of many people being able to reproduce less retarded science; e.g. Newton's law of gravitation is less retarded because it can easily be verified by anyone, while the existence of Higgs boson is not.
**Never confuse trusting scientists with trusting science** (especially in [capitalism](capitalism.md) and other dystopias), the former is literally faith ([soyence](soyence.md)), no different from blindly trusting religious preachers and political propaganda, the latter means only trusting that which you yourself can test and verify at home and therefore having real confidence. Also do NOT confuse or equate science with [academia](academia.md). As with everything, under capitalism academia has become rotten to the core, research is motivated by profit and what's produced is mostly utter bullshit shat out by wannabe PhDs who need to mass produce "something" as a part of the crazy academia publish-or-perish game. As with everything in capitalism, the closer you look, the more corruption you find.
Zen, a term coming from zen [Buddhism](busshism.md) (the word itself from *dhyana*, meaning *meditation*), means emphasis on mediation that leads to enlightenment; in a wider sense it hints on related things and feelings such as tranquility, spiritual peace, sudden coming to realization and understanding. In [hacker](hacking.md) speech *zen* is a very frequent term, according to [Jargon file](jargon_file.md) "to zen" means to understand something by simply meditating about it (as opposed to e.g. blind [trial and error](trial_and_error.md)), or by sudden realization.
Zen, a term coming from zen [Buddhism](busshism.md) (the word itself from *dhyana*, meaning *meditation*), means emphasis on mediation that leads to enlightenment; in a wider sense it hints on related things and feelings such as tranquility, spiritual peace, sudden coming to realization and understanding. In [hacker](hacking.md) speech *zen* is a very frequent term, according to [Jargon file](jargon_file.md) "to zen" means to understand something by simply meditating about it or by sudden realization (as opposed to e.g. active [trial and error](trial_and_error.md)).
