Update

encyclopedia.md

@@ -17,12 +17,13 @@ Here is a list of notable encyclopedias, focused on general knowledge English la
 | name                           | year  |  legal status    | format      | ~articles | comment                                                                                                    |
 | ------------------------------ | ----- | ---------------- | ----------- | --------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
 | Britannica 11th edition        | 1910  | PD (old)         | 29 vol.     | 40K       | legendary enc., part of "Big Three", digitized (gutenberg, txt), uncensored facts on race etc.             |
-| Britannica Concise Encyclopedia| 2002  | proprietary      | 1 vol. 2000p| 28K       | quality, condensed from the main multivol. Brit., older (less censorship), piratable as pdf                |
+| Britannica Concise Encyclopedia| 2002  | proprietary      | 1 vol. 2000p| 28K       | nice, short descriptions, condensed from the main multivol. Brit., piratable pdf                           |
 | Britannica online              |...now | proprietary      | online      | 130K      | bloated, high quality articles, unpaid is limited and with ads                                             |
 | [Citizendium](citizendium.md)  |2006...|proprietary? (NC) | online      | 18K       | Wikipedia alternative, censored, faggots have unclear license                                              |
 | Collier's New Encyclopedia     | 1921  | PD (old)         | 10 vol.     |           | NOT TO BE CONFUSED with Collier's Encyclopedia (different one), digitized on Wikisource (txt)              |
+| Columbia Encyclopedia          |1935...| proprietary      | 1 vol. ~3Kp | ~50K      | high quality, lots of information { Read the 1993 edition, it's super nice. ~drummyfish }                  |
 |[Conservaedia](conservapedia.md)|2006...| proprietary      | online      | 52K       | American fascist wiki, has basic factual errors                                                            |    
-| Desk Reference Encyclopedia    | 1995  | proprietary      | 1 vol. 800p | 200K?     | by James Hughes, nice illustrations, quality articles { I bought this, it's nice. ~drummyfish }            |
+| Desk Reference Encyclopedia    | 1995  | proprietary      | 1 vol. 800p | 200K?     | by James Hughes, nice illustrations, quality general overviews { I bought this, it's nice. ~drummyfish }   |
 | Domestic Encyclopaedia         | 1802  | PD (old)         | 4 vol.      |           | shorter articles, partially digitized on Wikisource                                                        |
 | Encyclopedia Americana         |1820...| PD (old)         | ~30 vol.    |           | longer articles, part of "Big Three", several editions (1906, 1920) partially digitized on Wikisource      | 
 | Encyclopedia Dramatica         |2004...| PD (CC0)         | online      | 15K       | informal/fun/"offensive" but valuable info (on society, tech, ...), basically no censorship, no propaganda |    

information.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 *Information wants to be free.*
 
-Information is knowledge that can be used for making decisions. Information is interpreted [data](data.md), i.e. while data itself may not give us any information, e.g. if they're encrypted and we don't know the key or if we simply don't know what the data signifies or implies, information emerges once we make sense of the data. Information is contained e.g in [books](book.md), on the [Internet](internet.md), in nature, and we access it through our senses. [Computers](computer.md) can be seen as machines for processing information and since the computer revolution information has become the focus of our society; we often encounter terms such as [information technology](it.md), informatics, information war, information age etc. [Information theory](information_theory.md) is a [scientific field](science.md) studying information.
+Information (from Latin *informare*: shape/describe/represent) is knowledge that can be used for making decisions. Information is interpreted [data](data.md), i.e. while data itself may not give us any information, e.g. if they're encrypted and we don't know the key or if we simply don't know what the data signifies or implies, information emerges once we make sense of the data. Information is contained e.g in [books](book.md), on the [Internet](internet.md), in nature, and we access it through our senses. [Computers](computer.md) can be seen as machines for processing information and since the computer revolution information has become the focus of our society; we often encounter terms such as [information technology](it.md), informatics, information war, information age etc. [Information theory](information_theory.md) is a [scientific field](science.md) studying information.
 
 **Information wants to be [free](free_culture.md)**, i.e. it is free naturally unless we decide to limit its spread with [shit](shit.md) like [intellectual property](intellectual_property.md) laws. What does "free" mean? It is the miraculous property of information that allows us to duplicate it basically without any cost. Once we have certain information, we may share it with others without having to give up our own knowledge of the information. A file on a computer can be copied to another computer without deleting the file on the original computer. This is unlike with physical products which if we give to someone, we lose them ourselves. Imagine if you could make a piece of bread and then duplicate it infinitely for the whole world -- information works like this! We see it as a crime to want to restrict such a miracle. We may also very nicely store information in our heads. For all this information is [beautiful](beauty.md). It is sometimes discussed whether information is created or discovered -- if a mathematician comes up with an equation, is it his creation or simply his discovery of something that belongs to the nature and that has always been there? This question isn't so important because whatever terms we use, we at [LRS](lrs.md) decide to create, spread and freely share information without limiting it in any way, i.e. neither discovery nor invention should give rise to any kind of [property](property.md).
 

race.md

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Denying the facts regarding human race is called **[race denialism](race_deniali
 
 There is a controversial 1994 book called *The Bell Curve* that deals with differences in intelligence between races. [SJWs](sjw.md) indeed tried to attack it, however international experts on intelligence agree the book is correct in saying average intelligence between races differs (see e.g. [The Wall Street Journal's Mainstream Science on Intelligence](https://web.archive.org/web/20120716184838/http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html)). An online resource with a lot of information on racial differences is e.g. http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/. See also e.g. https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_and_morphology. Note that even though the mentioned sites may be fascist, biased and contain propaganda of their own, they provide links to resources which the pseudoleftist mainstream such as [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) and [Google](google.md) simply censor -- while we may not promote the politics and opinions of mentioned sites, we link to them to provide access to censored information so that one can seek truth and form his own opinions.
 
-**If you want a relatively objective view on races, read old (pre 1950) books.** See for example the article on *NEGRO* in 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (1911), which clearly states on page 344 of the 19th volume that "Mentally the negro is inferior to the white" and continues to cite thorough study of this, finding that black children were quite intelligent but with adulthood the intellect always went down, however it states that negro has e.g. better sense of vision and hearing. Even in the 90s still the uncensored information on race was still available in the mainstream sources, e.g. the 1995 *Desk Reference Encyclopedia* still has an article on races and their differences.
+**If you want a relatively objective view on races, read old (pre 1950) books.** See for example the article on *NEGRO* in 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (1911), which clearly states on page 344 of the 19th volume that "Mentally the negro is inferior to the white" and continues to cite thorough study of this, finding that black children were quite intelligent but with adulthood the intellect always went down, however it states that negro has e.g. better sense of vision and hearing. Even in the 90s still the uncensored information on race was still available in the mainstream sources, e.g. the 1995 *Desk Reference Encyclopedia* and 1993 *Columbia Encyclopedia* still have articles on races and their differences.
 
 { Lol, the 1917 book *The Circle of Knowledge* has a detailed table comparing various races physically and mentally, stating things like "negro: slight mental development after puberty" etc. Encyclopedia Americana (1918) also mentions a detailed description of the negro, mentioning things such as much lower brain weight, prolonged arms, distinct odor and a lower face angle. ~drummyfish }
 

technology.md

@@ -2,4 +2,6 @@
 
 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.
 
+**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).
+
 **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.

woman.md

@@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
 
 A woman (also girl, gril, gurl, femoid or succubus; [tranny](tranny.md) girl being called [t-girl](tgirl.md), [trap](trap.md), [femboy](femboy.md), fake girl or [mtf](mtf.md)) is one of two genders (sexes) of humans, the other one being [man](man.md). Women are [cute](cute.md) (sometimes) but notoriously bad at [programming](programming.mg), [math](math.md) and [technology](technology.md): in the field they usually "work" on [bullshit](bullshit.md) (and mostly [harmful](harmful.md)) positions such as "diversity department", [marketing](marketing.md), "[HR](human_resources.md)", [UI](ui.md)/[user experience](ux.md), or as a [token](token.md) girl for media. If they get close to actual technology, their highest "skills" are mostly limited to casual "[coding](coding.md)" (which itself is a below-average form of [programming](programming.md)) in a baby language such as [Python](python.md), [Javascript](javascript.md) or [Rust](rust.md). Mostly they are just hired for quotas and make coffee for men who do the real work (until TV cameras appear). Don't let yourself be fooled by the propaganda, women have always been bad with tech.
 
+**Even mainstream science acknowledges women are dumber than men**: even the extremely politically correct [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md) states TODAY in the article on human brain that male brain is on average larger in volume AND that there is correlation between volume and intelligence: this undeniably implies women are dumber. On average male brain weights 10% more than woman's and has 16% more brain cells. The Guinness book of 1987 states the average male brain weight being 1424 grams and that of a female being 1242 grams; the averages both grow with time quite quickly so nowadays the numbers will be higher in both sexes, though the average of men grows faster. The heaviest recorded brain belonged to a man (2049 grams), while the lightest belonged to a woman (1096 grams). Heaviest woman brain weighted 1565 grams, only a little more than men's average. [IQ](iq.md)/intelligence measured by various tests has been consistently significantly lower for women than for men.
+
 Historically women have been privileged over men -- while men had to [work](work.md) their asses off, go to [wars](war.md), explore and hunt for food, women often weren't even supposed to work, they could stay at home, chill while guarding the fire and playing with children -- this is becoming less and less so with [capitalism](capitalism.md) which aims to simply enslave everyone, nowadays mostly through the [feminist](feminism.md) cult that brainwashed women to desire the same slavery as men. Statistically women live about 5 years longer lives than men because they don't have to worry and stress so much.
 
 Women also can't drive, operate machines, they can't compare even to the worst men in sports, both physical and mental such as [chess](chess.md). Women have to have separate leagues and more relaxed rules, e.g. the title Woman Grand Master (WGM) in chess has far lower requirements to obtain than regular Grand Master (GM). (According to [Elo](elo.md) rating the best woman chess player in history would have only 8% chance of winning against current best male who would have 48% chance of winning). On the International Mathematical Olympiad only 43 out of 1338 medals were obtained by females. There are too many funny cases and video compilations of women facing men in sports (watch them before they're censored lol), e.g. the infamous Vaevictis female "progaming" team or the [football](football.md) match between the US national women team (probably the best women team in the world) vs some random under 15 years old boy's team which of course the women team lost. Of course there are arguments that worse performance of women in mental sports is caused culturally; women aren't led so much to playing chess, therefore there are fewer women in chess and so the probability of a good woman player appearing is lower. This may be partially true even though genetic factors seem at least equally important and it may equally be true that not so many women play chess simply because they're not naturally good at it; nevertheless the fact that women are generally worse at chess than men stands, regardless of its cause -- a randomly picked men will probably be better at chess than a randomly picked woman, and that's what matters in the end. Also if women are displaced from chess by culture, then what is the area they are displaced to? If women are as capable as men, then for any area dominated by men there should be an area equally dominated by women, however we see that anywhere men face women men win big time, even in the woman activities such as cooking. It makes sense from the evolutionary standpoint, women simply evolved to take care of children, guard fire and save resource consumption by being only as strong as necessarily required for this task, while men had to be stronger and smarter to do the hard job of providing food and protection.
@@ -36,8 +38,6 @@ Here is a comparison of men and women in numbers that are still possible to be f
 
 Note: It is guaranteed that [soyentific](soyence.md) BIGBRAINS will start screeching "MISLEADING STATISTICSSSSSSS NON PEER REVIEWED". Three things: firstly chill your balls, this isn't a scientific paper, just a fun comparison of some numbers. Secondly fuck you, we don't fancy peer censorship. Thirdly we try to be benevolent and not choose stats in a biased way (we don't even have to) but it is not easy to find better statistics, e.g. one might argue it could be better to compare averages or medians rather than bests -- indeed, but it's impossible to find average performance of all women in a population in a specific sport discipline, taking the best performer is simply easier and still gives some idea. So we simply include what we have. Thirdly any statistics is a simplification and can be seen as misleading by those who dislike it.
 
-**Male brains have more brain cells and weight more than those of women**: on average, male brain weights 10% more than woman's and has 16% more brain cells. The Guinness book of 1987 states the average male brain weight being 1424 grams and that of a female being 1242 grams; the averages both grow with time quite quickly so nowadays the numbers will be higher in both sexes, though the average of men grows faster. The heaviest recorded brain belonged to a man (2049 grams), while the lightest belonged to a woman (1096 grams). Heaviest woman brain weighted 1565 grams, only a little more than men's average. [IQ](iq.md)/intelligence measured by various tests has been consistently significantly lower for women than for men.
-
 | measure            | men              | women            | comment                             |
 | ------------------ | ---------------- | ---------------- | ----------------------------------- |
 |height: average (EU)| 178 cm           | 165 cm           |                                     |