@ -6,11 +6,12 @@ Bit [hacks](hacking.md) (also bit tricks, bit [magic](magic.md), bit twiddling e
Basic bit manipulation techniques are common and part of general knowledge so they won't be listed under hacks, but for sake of completeness and beginners reading this we should mention them here. Let's see the basic bit manipulation operators in [C](c.md):
- `|` (bitwise [OR](or.md)): Performs the logical OR on all corresponding bits of two operands, e.g. `0b0110 | 0b1100` gives 1110 (14 in decimal). This is used to set bits and combine flags (options) into a single numeric value that can easily be passed to function etc. For example to set the lowest bit of a number to 1 just do `myNumber | 1`. Now consider e.g. `#define OPTION_A 0b0001`, `#define OPTION_B 0b0010` and `#define OPTION_C 0b0100`, now we can make a single number that represents a set of selected options e.g. as `OPTION_C | OPTION_B` (the value will be `0101` and says that options B and C have been selected).
- `&` (bitwise [AND](and.md)): Performs the logical AND on all corresponding bits of two operands, e.g. `0b0110 & 0b1100` gives 0100 (4 in decimal). This may be used to mask out specific bits, to check if specific bits are set (useful to check the set flags as mentioned above) or to clear (set to zero) specific bits. Consider the flag example from above, if we want to check if value *x* has e.g. the option B set, we simply do `x & OPTION_B` which results in non-zero value if the option is set. Another example may be `myNumber & 0b00001111` (in practice you'll see hexadecimal values, i.e. `myNumber & 0x0F`) which masks out the lowest 4 bits of *myNumber* (which is equivalent to the operation [modulo](mod.md) 16).
- `~` (bitwise [NOT](not.md)): Flips every bit of the number -- pretty straightforward. This is used e.g. for clearing bits as `x & ~(1 << 3)` (clear 3rd bit of *x*).
- `^` (bitwise [XOR](xor.md)): Performs the logical XOR on all corresponding bits of two operands, e.g. `0b0110 ^ 0b1100` gives 1010 (10 in decimal). This is used to e.g. flip specific bits.
- `|` (bitwise [OR](or.md)): Performs the logical OR on all corresponding bits of two operands, e.g. `0b0110 | 0b1100` gives `0b1110` (14 in decimal). This is used to set bits and combine flags (options) into a single numeric value that can easily be passed to function etc. For example to set the lowest bit of a number to 1 just do `myNumber | 1`. Now consider e.g. `#define OPTION_A 0b0001`, `#define OPTION_B 0b0010` and `#define OPTION_C 0b0100`, now we can make a single number that represents a set of selected options e.g. as `OPTION_C | OPTION_B` (the value will be `0101` and says that options B and C have been selected).
- `&` (bitwise [AND](and.md)): Performs the logical AND on all corresponding bits of two operands, e.g. `0b0110 & 0b1100` gives `0b0100` (4 in decimal). This may be used to mask out specific bits, to check if specific bits are set (useful to check the set flags as mentioned above) or to clear (set to zero) specific bits. Consider the flag example from above, if we want to check if value *x* has e.g. the option B set, we simply do `x & OPTION_B` which results in non-zero value if the option is set. Another example may be `myNumber & 0b00001111` (in practice you'll see hexadecimal values, i.e. `myNumber & 0x0F`) which masks out the lowest 4 bits of *myNumber* (which is equivalent to the operation [modulo](mod.md) 16).
- `~` (bitwise [NOT](not.md)): Flips every bit of the number -- pretty straightforward. This is used e.g. for clearing bits as `x & ~(1 << 3)` (clear 4th bit of *x*).
- `^` (bitwise [XOR](xor.md)): Performs the logical XOR on all corresponding bits of two operands, e.g. `0b0110 ^ 0b1100` gives `0b1010` (10 in decimal). This is used to e.g. flip specific bits.
- `<<` and `>>` (binary shift left/right): Performs bitwise shift left or right (WATCH OUT: shifting by data type width or more is undefined behavior in C). This is typically used to perform fast multiplication (left) and division (right) by powers of two (2, 4, 8, 16, ...), just as we can quickly multiply/divide by 10 in decimal by shifting the decimal point. E.g. `5 << 3` is the same as 5 * 2^3 = 5 * 8 = 40.
- We also sometimes use the logical (i.e. NOT bitwise) operators `&&` (AND), `||` (OR) and `!` (NOT); the difference against bitwise operators is that firstly they work with the whole value (i.e. not individual bits), considering 0 to be *false* and anything else to be *true*, and secondly they may employ a bit more complexity, e.g. [short circuit](short_circuit.md) evaluation.
## Specific Bit Hacks
@ -18,7 +19,7 @@ Basic bit manipulation techniques are common and part of general knowledge so th
TODO: stuff from this gophersite: gopher://bitreich.org/0/thaumaturgy/bithacks
Unless noted otherwise we suppose [C](c.md) syntax and semantics and integer [data types](data_type.md). Keep in mind all potential dangers, for example it may sometimes be better to write an idiomatic code and let compiler do the optimization that's best for given platform, also of course readability will worsen etc. Nevertheless as a hacker you should know about these tricks, it's useful for low level code etc.
Unless noted otherwise we suppose [C](c.md) syntax and semantics and integer [data types](data_type.md), but of course we mainly want to express formulas and patterns you can use anywhere, not just in C. Keep in mind all potential dangers, for example it may sometimes be better to write an idiomatic code and let compiler do the optimization that's best for given platform, also of course readability will worsen etc. Nevertheless as a hacker you should know about these tricks, it's useful for low level code etc.
Bloat is a very wide term that in the context of [software](software.md) and technology means overcomplication, unnecessary complexity and/or extreme growth in terms of source code size, overall complexity, number of [dependencies](dependency.md), [redundancy](redundancy.md), unnecessary and/or useless features (e.g. [feature creep](feature_creep.md)) and resource usage, all of which lead to inefficient, badly designed technology with [bugs](bug.md) (e.g. [security](security.md) vulnerabilities or crashes), as well as great obscurity, ugliness, **loss of [freedom](free_software.md)** and waste of human effort. Simply put bloat is burdening [bullshit](bullshit.md). Bloat is extremely bad and one of the greatest technological issues of today. Creating bloat is bad engineering at its worst and unfortunately it is what's absolutely taking over all technology nowadays, mostly due to [capitalism](capitalism.md) causing commercialization, consumerism and incompetent people trying to take on jobs they are in no way qualified to do.
[LRS](lrs.md), [suckless](suckless.md) and some others rather small groups are trying to address the issue and write software that is good, [minimal](minimalism.md), safe, efficient and well functioning. Nevertheless our numbers are very small and in this endeavor we are basically standing against the whole world and the most powerful tech corporations.
[LRS](lrs.md), [suckless](suckless.md) and some others rather small groups are trying to address the issue and write software that is good, [minimal](minimalism.md), safe, efficient and well functioning. Nevertheless our numbers are very small and in this endeavor we are basically standing against the whole world and the most powerful tech [corporations](corporation.md).
The issue of bloat may of course appear outside of the strict boundaries of computer technology, nowadays we may already observe e.g. **[science bloat](science_bloat.md)** -- science is becoming so overcomplicated (many times on purpose, e.g. by means of [bullshit](bullshit.md) science) that 99% people can NOT understand it, they have to BELIEVE "scientific authorities", which does not at all differ from the dangerous blind religious behavior. Any time a new paper comes out, chances are that not even SCIENTISTS from the same field but with a different specialization will understand it in depth and have to simply trust its results. This combined with self-interest obsessed society gives rise to [soyence](soyence.md) and large scale brainwashing and spread of "science approved" propaganda.
Some have attempted to measure bloat, e.g. the famous *web bloat score* (https://www.webbloatscore.com/) measures bloat of websites as its total size divided by the page screenshot size (e.g. [YouTube](youtube.md) at 18.5 vs suckless.org at 0.386). It has been observed that **software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster**, which is now known as [Wirth's law](wirths_law.md); this follows from [Moore's law](moores_law.md) (speed of hardware doubles every 24 months) being weaker than [Gate's](bill_gates.law) law (speed of software halves every 18 months); or in other words: the stupidity of soydevs outpaces the brilliancy of geniuses.
The issue of bloat may of course appear outside of the strict boundaries of computer technology, nowadays we may already observe e.g. **[science bloat](science_bloat.md)** -- science is becoming so overcomplicated (many times on purpose, e.g. by means of [bullshit](bullshit.md) science) that 99% people can NOT understand it, they have to BELIEVE "scientific authorities", which does not at all differ from the dangerous blind religious behavior. Any time a new paper comes out, chances are that not even SCIENTISTS from the same field but with a different specialization will understand it in depth and have to simply trust its results. This combined with self-interest obsessed society gives rise to [soyence](soyence.md) and large scale brainwashing and spread of "science approved" propaganda.
Despite this there isn't any completely objective measure that would say "this software has exactly X % of bloat", bloat is something judged based on what we need/want, what tradeoffs we prefer etc. The answer to "how much bloat" there is depends on the answer to **"what really is bloat?"**. To answer this question most accurately we can't limit ourselves to simplifications such as [lines of code](loc.md) or number of package dependencies -- though these are very good estimates for most practical purposes, a more accurate insight is obtained by carefully asking what *burdens* and *difficulties* of ANY kind come with given technology, and also whether and how much of a necessary evil they are. Realize for example that if your software doesn't technically require package X to run or be compiled, package X may be [de facto](de_facto.md) required for your software to exist and work (e.g. a pure multiplayer game client won't have the server as a dependency, but it will be useless without a server, so de facto all bloat present in the server is now in a wider sense also the client's burden). So if you've found a program that's short and uses no libraries, you still have to check whether the language it is written in isn't bloated itself, whether the program relies on running on a complex platform that cannot be implemented without bloat, whether some highly complex piece of hardware (e.g. [GPU](gpu.md) or 8GB of [RAM](ram.md)) is required, whether it relies on some complex Internet service etc. You can probably best judge the amount of bloat most objectively by asking the following: if our current technology instantly disappeared, how hard would it be to make this piece of technology work again? This will inevitably lead you to investigating how hard it would be to implement all the dependencies etc.
Back to technology though, one of a very frequent questions you may hear a noob ask is **"How can bloat limit software freedom if such software has a [free](free_software.md) license?"** Bloat [de-facto](de_facto.md) limits some of the four essential freedoms (to use, study, modify and share) required for a software to be free. A free license grants these freedoms legally, but if some of those freedoms are subsequently limited by other circumstances, the software becomes effectively less free. It is important to realize that **complexity itself goes against [freedom](freedom.md)** because a more complex system will inevitably reduce the number of people being able to execute freedoms such as modifying the software (the number of programmers being able to understand and modify a trivial program is much greater than the number of programmers being able to understand and modify a highly complex million [LOC](loc.md) program). This is not any made up reason, it is actually happening and many from the free software community try to address the issue, see e.g. [HyperbolaBSD](hyperbolabsd.md) policies on accepting packages which rejects a lot of popular "legally free" software on grounds of being bloat ([systemd](systemd.md), dbus, zstd, protobuf, [mono](mono.md), https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:philosophy:incompatible_packages). As the number of people being able to execute the basic freedom drops, we're approaching the scenario in which the software is de-facto controlled by a small number of people who can (e.g. due to the cost) effectively study, modify and maintain the program -- and a program that is controlled by a small group of people (e.g. a corporation) is by definition [proprietary](proprietary.md). If there is a web browser that has a free license but you, a lone programmer, can't afford to study it, modify it significantly and maintain it, and your friends aren't able to do that either, when the only one who can practically do this is the developer of the browser himself and perhaps a few other rich corporations that can pay dozens of full time programmers, then such browser cannot be considered free as it won't be shaped to benefit you, the user, but rather the developer, a corporation.
One of a very frequent questions you may hear a noob ask is **"How can bloat limit software freedom if such software has a [free](free_software.md) (or "[FOSS](foss.md)") [license](license.md)?"** Bloat [de-facto](de_facto.md) limits some of the four essential freedoms (to use, study, modify and share) required for a software to be free. A free license grants these freedoms legally, but if some of those freedoms are subsequently limited by other circumstances, the software becomes effectively less free. It is important to realize that **complexity itself goes against [freedom](freedom.md)** because a more complex system will inevitably reduce the number of people being able to execute freedoms such as modifying the software (the number of programmers being able to understand and modify a trivial program is much greater than the number of programmers being able to understand and modify a highly complex million [LOC](loc.md) program). This is not any made up reason, it is actually happening and many from the free software community try to address the issue, see e.g. [HyperbolaBSD](hyperbolabsd.md) policies on accepting packages which rejects a lot of popular "legally free" software on grounds of being bloat ([systemd](systemd.md), dbus, zstd, protobuf, [mono](mono.md), https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:philosophy:incompatible_packages). As the number of people being able to execute the basic freedom drops, we're approaching the scenario in which the software is de-facto controlled by a small number of people who can (e.g. due to the cost) effectively study, modify and maintain the program -- and a program that is controlled by a small group of people (e.g. a corporation) is by definition [proprietary](proprietary.md). If there is a web browser that has a free license but you, a lone programmer, can't afford to study it, modify it significantly and maintain it, and your friends aren't able to do that either, when the only one who can practically do this is the developer of the browser himself and perhaps a few other rich corporations that can pay dozens of full time programmers, then such browser cannot be considered free as it won't be shaped to benefit you, the user, but rather the developer, a corporation.
**How much bloat can we tolerate?** We are basically trying to get the most for the least price. The following diagram attempts to give an answer:
Fight culture is the [harmful](harmful.md), mostly western mindset of seeing any endeavor as a fight against something. Even such causes as aiming for establishment of [peace](peace.md) are seen as fighting the people who are against peace, which is [funny](fun.md) but also sad. Fight culture keeps, just by the constant repetition of the word *fight*, a subconscious validation of violence as justified and necessary means for achieving any goal. Fight culture is to a great degree the culture of [capitalist](capitalism.md) society (of course not exclusively), the environment of extreme [competition](competition.md) and hostility. It fuels [war](war.md) mentality, hostility, [fear culture](fear_culture.md) (everyone is your enemy!), constant unrest leading to mental health deterioration, obsession with various kinds of protections against everything etc. It is ridiculous, our society is now one big fight: against global warming, unemployment, inflation, [unproductivity](productivity_cult.md), traffic jams, hunger, too little hunger etc. Perhaps in a few years it won't even sound so weird to say you are fighting a road when you try to get from point A to point B or that you are fighting air when riding your bike.
Fight culture is the [harmful](harmful.md), mostly western mindset of seeing any endeavor as a fight against something. Even such causes as aiming for establishment of [peace](peace.md) are seen as fighting the people who are against peace, which is [funny](fun.md) but also sad. Fight culture keeps, just by the constant repetition of the word *fight* (and similar ones such as *combat*, *win* etc.), a subconscious validation of violence as justified and necessary means for achieving any goal. Fight culture is to a great degree the culture of [capitalist](capitalism.md) society (of course not exclusively), the environment of extreme [competition](competition.md) and hostility. It fuels [war](war.md) mentality, hostility, [fear culture](fear_culture.md) (everyone is your enemy!), constant unrest leading to mental health deterioration, obsession with various kinds of protections against everything etc. It is ridiculous, our society is now one big fight: against global warming, unemployment, inflation, [unproductivity](productivity_cult.md), traffic jams, hunger, too little hunger etc. Perhaps in a few years it won't even sound so weird to say you are fighting a road when you try to get from point A to point B or that you are fighting air when riding your bike.
[We](lrs.md), of course, see fight culture as highly undesirable for a [good society](less_retarded_society.md) as that needs to be based on peace, [love](love.md) and [collaboration](collaboration.md), not [competition](competition.md). For this reasons we never say we "fight" anything, we rather aim for goals, look for solutions, educate and sometimes reject, refuse and oppose bad concepts (e.g. fight culture itself).
[We](lrs.md), of course, see fight culture as highly undesirable for a [good society](less_retarded_society.md) as that needs to be based on peace, [love](love.md) and [collaboration](collaboration.md), not [competition](competition.md). For this reasons we never say we "fight" anything (or even "win", we rather achieve goals), we rather aim for goals, look for solutions, educate and sometimes reject, avoid, refuse and oppose bad concepts (e.g. fight culture itself).
Capitalist often say that "life is a fight". We say life is what you make it, and if for your life is a fight, it merely says you desire fight. We do not.
@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ Please do NOT post lame "big-bang-theory"/[9gag](9gag.md) jokes like *sudo make
- 90% of statistics are fake.
- When will they remove the *[touch](touch.md)* and *[kill](kill.md)* commands from [Unix](unix.md)? Probably when they rename *[man pages](man_page.md)* to *person pages*.
- If [law](law.md) was viewed as a programming code, it would be historically the worst case of [bloated](bloat.md) [spaghetti code](spaghetti_code.md) littered with [magic constants](magic_constant.md), undefined symbols and dead code, which is additionally deployed silently and without any [testing](testing.md). Yet it's the most important algorithm of our society.
- C++ is to C as brain cancer is to brain
- At the beginning there was [machine code](machine_code.md). Then they added [assembly](assembly.md) on top of it to make it more comfortable. To make programs portable they created an [operating system](os.md) and a layer of [syscalls](syscall.md). Except it didn't work because other people made other operating systems with different syscalls. So to try to make it portable again they created a high-level language [compiler](compiler.md) on top of it. To make it yet more comfortable they created yet a higher level language and made a [transpiler](transpiler.md) to the lower level language. To make building more platform independent and comfortable they created [makefiles](makefile.md) on top of it. However, more jobs were needed so they created [CMake](cmake.md) on top of makefiles, just in case. It seems like CMake nowadays seems too low level so a new layer will be needed above all the meta-meta-meta build systems. I wonder how high of a tower we can make, maybe they're just trying to get a Guinness world record for the greatest bullshit sandwich in history.
- How to install a package on [Debian](debian.md)? I don't know, but on my [Arch](arch.md) it's done with `pacman`.
- Difference between a beginner and pro programmer? Pro programmer fails in a much more sophisticated manner.
@ -39,3 +40,4 @@ Please do NOT post lame "big-bang-theory"/[9gag](9gag.md) jokes like *sudo make
@ -28,7 +28,19 @@ What's called *left* in the [modern](modern.md) western culture usually means *p
The difference between left and pseudoleft can be shown in many ways; one of them may be that pseudoleft always wants to **[fight](fight_culture.md)** something, usually the right (as they're essentially the same, i.e. natural competitiors). True left wants to end all fights. Pseudoleft invents [bullshit](bullshit.md) artificial issues such as [political correctness](political_correctness.md) that sparks conflict, as it lives by conflict. Left tries to find peace by solving problems. Pseudoleft sees it as acceptable to do bad things to people who commited something it deems bad. True left knows that violence creates violence, it "turns the other cheek", it cures hate with love.
Pseudoleft is extra harmful by deceiving the public into thinking what it does really is leftist. Most normal people that don't think too much therefore stand between a choice of a lesser of two evils: the right and pseudoleft. True left, the true good, is not known, it is overshadowed.
Pseudoleft is extra harmful by deceiving the public into thinking what it does really is leftist. Most normal people that don't think too much therefore stand between a choice of a lesser of two evils: the right and pseudoleft. True left, the true good, is not known, it is overshadowed. Let us now compare a few existing movements/ideologies/groups:
| class | pseudoleft | pseudoleft | pseudoleft | right | right? | pseudoleft | pseudoleft | true left |
| fights for | gay/bi/etc. | women | antifa, pseudoleft | own race/nation | men | black | proletariat | no one |
| fights against |straight, anti-LGBT| men, anti-Feminists | right, anti-Antifa | Jews, other r/n | women | non-black, anti-BLM | other classes | no one |
Why is there no pseudoright? Because it doesn't make sense :) Left is good, right is a sincere evil and pseudoleft is an evil pretending to be good. A good pretending to be evil doesn't probably exist in any significant form.
@ -36,4 +48,4 @@ Why is there no pseudoright? Because it doesn't make sense :) Left is good, righ
*This article is a part of series of articles on [fascism](fascism.md).*
LGBT, LGBTQ+, LGBTQIKKAWANSQKKALQNMQW (lesbian [gay](gay.md), [bisexual](bisexual.md), [transsexual](tranny.md), [queer](queer.md) and whatever else they're gonna invent) is a toxic [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) [fascist](fascist.md) political group whose ideology is based on superiority of certain selected minority sexual orientations. They are a highly [violent](violence.md), [bullying](bully.md) movement (not surprisingly centered in the [US](usa.md) but already spread around the whole world) practicing [censorship](censorship.md), Internet lynching ([cancel culture](cancel_culture.md)), discrimination, spread of extreme [propaganda](propaganda.md), harmful [lies](soyence.md), culture poison such as [political correctness](political_correctness.md) and other [evil](evil.md).
LGBT, LGBTQ+, LGBTQIKKAWANSQKKALQNMQW (lesbian [gay](gay.md), [bisexual](bisexual.md), [transsexual](tranny.md), [queer](queer.md) and whatever else they're gonna invent), also TTTT (transsexual transsexual transsexual transsexual) is a toxic [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) [fascist](fascist.md) political group whose ideology is based on superiority of certain selected minority sexual orientations. They are a highly [violent](violence.md), [bullying](bully.md) movement (not surprisingly centered in the [US](usa.md) but already spread around the whole world) practicing [censorship](censorship.md), Internet lynching ([cancel culture](cancel_culture.md)), discrimination, spread of extreme [propaganda](propaganda.md), harmful [lies](soyence.md), culture poison such as [political correctness](political_correctness.md) and other [evil](evil.md).
LGBT is related to the ideas of equality in a similar way in which crusade wars were related to the nonviolent teaching of [Jesus](jesus.md), it shows how an idea can be completely twisted around and turned on its head so that it's directly contradicting its original premise.
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.
Name of a philosophy, project, movement, group, [ideology](ideology.md) etc. plays a more significant role than a common man believes. A naive view is that name is just an arbitrary identifier whose value lies at most being "catchy" and "easily remembered" (see also [marketing](marketing.md)), a common man will rather believe promise of politician than the name of his party which he will disregard just as a "bunch of unimportant words"; 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 will be by definition a new, different movement, and everyone will have to decide if he wants to abandon the old movement to join the new. The name very often points towards the one true goal.
For this we have to keep in mind two things:
HOWEVER, here also comes a word of **warning**: firstly language itself (i.e. meanings of all words that exist in it) changes, and also although the power of the name is great, it is not infinite, the discussed stress of the importance of name should just remind us that the force of the name is greater than one might expect, but may will still be broken if stronger forces are at play -- there have been many cases of **name abuse** in history, notably e.g. by [Nazism](nazi.md) whose name stands for "national socialism" but whose actions were completely antisocialist, or so called ["Anarcho" capitalism](ancap.md) which abuses the name *[anarchism](anarchism.md)* despite being completely antianarchist. The moral of the story here is that we should put a great effort in choosing a name, but we shouldn't think we'll be safe as long as we do -- we will probably never be safe from the fuzziness of language and its potential to be abused, but we should try to do our best.
We have to keep in mind two things:
- When encountering a new movement/philosophy/ideology etc., we can tell a lot about it from its name: the name is its ultimate goal which **will be pursued on detriment of other goals**. A lot of times the bad movements are those **named after the means** (e.g. *[capitalism](capitalism.md)* or *[open source](open_source.md)*) **or [people](hero_culture.md)** (e.g. Maoism) rather than goals (e.g. *pacifism*) because by this dominance the focus on means will inevitably subordinate the goal.
- When starting a new movement, we have to pay very careful attention to giving it a name.
Nevertheless keep in mind that while the power of the name is great, it is not infinite and the above may not hold if stronger forces are at play -- there have been many cases of **name abuse** in history, notably e.g. by [Nazism](nazi.md) whose name stands for "national socialism" but whose actions were completely anti-socialist, or so called ["Anarcho" capitalism](ancap.md) which abuses the name *[anarchism](anarchism.md)* despite being completely anti-anarchist.
Let us comment on a few examples:
- **[Capitalism](capitalism.md)**: The goal is maximization of capital -- capital should be the means to achieving "something" (what lol?), but it instead becomes the goal. There is no promise of a good society, it is not mentioned in the name, and indeed what we get is a system that evolves corporations that get progressively better at maximizing capital, on the detriment of people.
