Free (as in freedom) software is a type of ethical [software](software.md) that's respecting its users' freedom and preventing their abuse, generally by availability of its source code AND by a [license](license.md) that allows anyone to use, study, modify and share the software without restricting conditions (such as having to pay or get explicit permission from the author). Free software is NOT equal to software whose source code is just available publicly or software that is offered for zero price, the basic legal rights to the software are the key attribute that has to be present. Free software stands opposed to [proprietary software](proprietary_software.md) -- the kind of abusive, closed software that [capitalism](capitalism.md) produces by default. Free software is not to be confused with [freeware](freeware.md) ("gratis", software available for free); although free software is always available for free thanks to its definition, zero price is not its goal. The goal is freedom.
Free software is also known as *free as in freedom*, *free as in speech* software or *libre* software. It is sometimes equated with [open source](open_source.md), even though open source is fundamentally different ([evil](evil.md)), or neutrally labelled FOSS or FLOSS (free/libre and open-source software). Software that is gratis (freeware) is sometimes called *free as in beer*.
Free software is also known as *free as in freedom*, *free as in speech* software or *libre* software. It is sometimes equated with [open source](open_source.md), even though open source is fundamentally different ([evil](evil.md)), or neutrally labelled FOSS or FLOSS (free/libre and open-source software); sadly free software has lost to open source in mainstream popularity. In contrast to free software, software that is merely gratis (freeware) is sometimes called *free as in beer*.
**Examples of free software** include the [GNU](gnu.md) operating system (also known as "[Linux](linux.md)"), [GIMP](gimp.md) (image editor), [Stockfish](stockfish.md) chess engine, or games such as [Xonotic](xonotic.md) and [Anarch](anarch.md). Free software is actually what runs the world, it is a standard among experts and it is possible to do computing with exclusively free software, even though most normal people don't even know the term free software exists because they only ever come in contact with abusive [proprietary](proprietary.md) consumer software such as [Windows](windows.md) and capitalist [games](game.md). There also exists a lot of big and successful software, such as [Fireforx](firefox.md), [Linux](linux.md) (the kernel) or [Blender](blender.md), that's often spoken of as free software which may however be only technically true or true only to a big (but not full) degree: for example even though [Linux](linux.md) is 99% free, in its [vanilla](vanilla.md) version it comes with [proprietary](proprietary.md) [binary blobs](binary_blob.md) which breaks the rules of free software. [Blender](blender.md) is technically free but it is also [capitalist software](capitalist_software.md) which doesn't really care about freedom and may de-facto limit some freedoms required by free software, even if they are granted legally by Blender's license. Such software is better called "[open source](open_source.md)" or [FOSS](foss.md) because it doesn't meet the high standards of free software. This issue of technically-but-not-really free software is addressed by some newer movements and philosophies such as [suckless](suckless.md) and our [less retarded software](lrs.md) who usually also aim for [unbloating](bloat.md) technology so as to make it more free in practice.
Holy war is a perpetual passionate argument over usually two possible choices. This separates people into almost religious teams that sometimes argue to death about details such as what name something should be given, very much resembling traditional disagreements between religions and their churches. In holy wars people tend to defend whichever side they stand on to the death and can get emotional when discussing the topic. Some examples of holy wars are (in brackets indicated the side taken by [LRS](lrs.md)):
Holy war is a long passionate argument over a choice (often between two options) that touches an issue which is within given community deemed controversial and "religious", which to an outsider typically seems like a childish, hard to understand rant about an insignificant thing. In technology circles holy wars revolve e.g. around [operating systems](os.md), [programming languages](programming_language.md), [licenses](license.md), source code formatting etc. Such a war separates people into almost religious groups that sometimes argue to death about details such as what name something should be given, very much resembling traditional disagreements between religions and their churches. In holy wars people tend to defend whichever side they stand on to the death and can get emotional when discussing the topic. Some examples of holy wars are (in brackets indicated the side taken by [LRS](lrs.md)):
Name of a philosophy, movement, group, ideology etc. plays a more significant role than a common man believes. A naive view is that name is just an identifier, a common man will rather believe promise of politician than the name of his party; however name is much more than a mere string of letters, it is the single most stable defining feature of an entity; everything else, all the books and knowledge associated with it may be distorted by history, but the name will always stay the same and will hold a scrutiny over all actions of the entity, it will always be a permanent reminder to every follower of what he is trying to achieve. But what if the name of the movement changes? Then it is to be considered a new, different movement. The name usually holds the one true goal.
Name of a philosophy, project, movement, group, ideology etc. plays a more significant role than a common man believes. A naive view is that name is just an identifier, a common man will rather believe promise of politician than the name of his party; however name is much more than a mere string of letters, it is the single most stable defining feature of an entity; everything else, all the books and knowledge associated with it may be distorted by history, but the name will always stay the same and will hold a scrutiny over all actions of the entity, it will always be a permanent reminder to every follower of what he is trying to achieve. But what if the name of the movement changes? Then it is to be considered a new, different movement. The name usually holds the one true goal.
For this we have to keep in mind two things:
@ -16,4 +16,5 @@ Let us comment on a few examples:
- **[Open Source Movement](open_source.md)**: The movement has been born from the Free Software Movement with a specific goal of abandoning ethics and supporting business. The ethics (freedom) has been dropped from the name and was replaced with the word "open", and indeed what we're seeing is software that is somewhat "open" -- whatever that means -- but mostly [capitalism software](capitalist_software.md) abusing and restricting its users by means other than proprietary licenses (see e.g. [Firefox](firefox.md)).
- **[Feminism](feminism.md)**: The goal is to benefit the females, i.e. make the superior to males. There is no mention of equality of sexes in the name even this idea might have appeared somewhere in the movement's beginning. And indeed, what we're seeing is a progressively more aggressive fascist movement that is downright hostile to males, is completely uninterested in inequality in the opposite direction and only ever looks for empowering the women, without any concern of equality.
- **[LGBT](lgbt.md)**: Same as feminism.
- **[Anarchism](anarchism.md)**: anarchism means "without a ruler" which has shown to be a good name, clearly opposing the idea of one man standing above another and so, again, keeps resisting attempts at being twisted to go against this basic goal. We rarely see the name being abused by the powerful because someone who wants to rule others simply cannot promote something that clearly indicates there should be no rulers. Indeed, there exist attempts at abusing the name, such as ["Anarcho" capitalism](ancap.md), but we observe the shear absurdity of such attempt is quickly spotted by most people who know what the word *anarchism* means.
- **[Anarchism](anarchism.md)**: anarchism means "without a ruler" which has shown to be a good name, clearly opposing the idea of one man standing above another and so, again, keeps resisting attempts at being twisted to go against this basic goal. We rarely see the name being abused by the powerful because someone who wants to rule others simply cannot promote something that clearly indicates there should be no rulers. Indeed, there exist attempts at abusing the name, such as ["Anarcho" capitalism](ancap.md), but we observe the shear absurdity of such attempt is quickly spotted by most people who know what the word *anarchism* means.
@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ At high level programming becomes [spiritual](spirituality.md). Check out e.g. t
## How To Learn Programming And Do It Well
*See also [programming tips](programming_tips.md).*
The key thing to becoming a programmer is learning a [programming language](programming_language.md) very well (and learning many of them), however this is not enough (it's only enough for becoming a coding monkey), you additionally have to have a wider knowledge such as general knowledge of computers ([electronics](electronics.md), [hardware](hardware.md), theory or computation, [networks](networking.md), ...), tech [history](history.md) and culture ([free software](free_software.md), [hacker cutlure](hacking.md), [free culture](free_culture.md), ...), [math](math.md) and [science](science.md) in general, possibly even society, philosophy etc. Programming is not an isolated topic (only coding is), a programmer has to see the big picture and have a number of other big brain interests such as [chess](chess.md), voting systems, linguistics, physics, music etc. Remember, becoming a good programmer takes a whole life, sometimes even longer.
**Can you become a good programmer when you're old?** Well, as with everything to become a SERIOUSLY good programmer you should have probably started before the age of 20, the majority of the legend programmers started before 10, it's just like with sports or becoming an excellent musician. But with enough enthusiasm and endurance you can become a pretty good programmer at any age, just like you can learn to play an instrument or run marathon basically at any age, it will just take longer and a lot of energy. You don't even have to aim to become very good, becoming just average is enough to write simple gaymes and have a bit of fun in life :) Just don't try to learn programming because it seems cool, because you want to look like movie haxor, gain followers on youtube or because you need a job -- if you're not having genuine fun just thinking before sleep about how to swap two variables without using a temporary variable, programming is probably not for you.
@ -20,18 +20,6 @@ Of course, [LRS](lrs.md) loves all living beings equally, even women. In order t
lol http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com
## How To Get Women
Don't!
## Women In Tech/Science
Finding famous women capable in technology is almost a futile task. One of the most famous women of [modern](modern.md) tech, even though more an entrepreneur than engineer, was [Elizabeth Holmes](elizabeth_holmes.md) who, to the feminists' dismay, turned out to be a complete fraud and is now facing criminal charges. [Grace Hopper](grace_hopper) (not "grass hopper" lol) is a woman actually worth mentioning for her contribution to programming languages, though the contribution is pretty weak. [Ada Lovelace](ada_lovelace.md) cited by the feminist propaganda as the "first programmer" also didn't actually do anything besides scribbling a note about a computer completely designed by a man. This just shows how desperate the feminist attempts at finding capable women in tech are. Then there are also some individuals who just contributed to the downfall of the technology who are, in terms of gender, at least partially on the woman side, but their actual classification is actually pretty debatable -- these are monstrosities with pink hair who invented such [cancer](cancer.md) as [COCs](coc.md) and are not even worth mentioning.
In the related field of [free culture](free_culture.md) there is a notable woman, [Nina Paley](nina_paley.md), that has actually done some nice things for the promotion of free culture and also standing against the [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) fascism by publishing a series of comics with a character named Jenndra Identitty, a parody of fascist trannies.
In [science](science.md) at wide we occasionally find a capable woman, for example Marie Curie.
## Men Vs Women In Numbers
Here is a comparison of men and women in numbers that are still possible to be found in already highly censored sources. Of course, the numbers aren't necessarily absolutely up to date, at the time or reading they may be slightly outdated, also keep in mind that in the future such comparisons may become much less objective due to [SJW](sjw.md) forces -- e.g. because of [trans](tranny.md) athletes in sports we may see diminishing differences between measurements of performance of men and "women" because what in the future will be called women will be just men pretending to be women.
@ -47,8 +35,8 @@ Note: It is guaranteed that [soyentific](soyence.md) BIGBRAINS will start screec
| brain: avg. weight | 1424 g | 1242 g | |
| brain: heaviest | 2049 g | 1565 g | |
| muscle/mass avg. | 42% | 32% | |
|life span: avg. (EU)| 75 years | 81 years |top 10 oldest people ever are all W |
| life span: greatest| 116 y. (Kimura) | 122 y. (Calment) | |
|life span: avg. (EU)| 75 years | 81 years | |
| life span: greatest| 116 y. (Kimura) | 122 y. (Calment) |top 10 oldest people ever are all W |
|average IQ (US 1993)| 101.8 | 98.8 |in some areas M score even 11 higher |
| 200m outdoor WR | 19.90s (Bolt) |21.34s (G-Joyner) |best W ranks lower than #5769 among M|
| 60m indoor WR | 6.34s (Coleman) |6.92s (Privalova) |best W ranks lower than #3858 among M|
@ -60,6 +48,18 @@ Note: It is guaranteed that [soyentific](soyence.md) BIGBRAINS will start screec
|Starcr. 2 best Elo |3556 (Serral) |2679 (Scarlett) |best M has ~80% win chance against W |
Finding famous women capable in technology is almost a futile task. One of the most famous women of [modern](modern.md) tech, even though more an entrepreneur than engineer, was [Elizabeth Holmes](elizabeth_holmes.md) who, to the feminists' dismay, turned out to be a complete fraud and is now facing criminal charges. [Grace Hopper](grace_hopper) (not "grass hopper" lol) is a woman actually worth mentioning for her contribution to programming languages, though the contribution is pretty weak. [Ada Lovelace](ada_lovelace.md) cited by the feminist propaganda as the "first programmer" also didn't actually do anything besides scribbling a note about a computer completely designed by a man. This just shows how desperate the feminist attempts at finding capable women in tech are. Then there are also some individuals who just contributed to the downfall of the technology who are, in terms of gender, at least partially on the woman side, but their actual classification is actually pretty debatable -- these are monstrosities with pink hair who invented such [cancer](cancer.md) as [COCs](coc.md) and are not even worth mentioning.
In the related field of [free culture](free_culture.md) there is a notable woman, [Nina Paley](nina_paley.md), that has actually done some nice things for the promotion of free culture and also standing against the [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) fascism by publishing a series of comics with a character named Jenndra Identitty, a parody of fascist trannies.
In [science](science.md) at wide we occasionally find a capable woman, for example Marie Curie.
