Update

free_speech.md

@@ -1,9 +1,11 @@
 # Free Speech
 
-Freedom of speech means there are no arbitrary government or anyone else imposed punishments for or obstacles (such as [censorship](censorship.md)) to merely talking about anything, making any public statement or publication of any information. **Free speech has to be by definition absolute and have no limit**, otherwise it's not free speech but controlled speech -- trying to add exceptions to free speech is like trying to limit to whom a [free software](free_software.md) license is granted; doing so immediately makes such software non-free. Freedom of speech is an essential attribute of a mature society, sadly it hasn't been widely implemented yet and with the [SJW](sjw.md) cancer the latest trend in society is towards eliminating free speech rather than supporting it (see e.g. [political correctness](political_correctness.md)). Speech is being widely censored by extremist groups (e.g. [LGBT](lgbt.md) and [corporations](corporation.md), see also [cancel culture](cancel_culture.md)) and states -- depending on country there exist laws against so called "[hate speech](hate_speech.md)", questioning official versions of history (see e.g. [Holocaust](holocaust.md) denial laws present in many EU states), criticizing powerful people (for example it is illegal to criticize or insult that huge inbred dick Thai king), sharing of useful information such as books ([copyright](copyright.md) censorship) etc. Free speech nowadays is being eliminated by the strategy of creating an exception to free speech, usually called "hate speech", and then classifying any undesired speech under such label and silencing it.
+Freedom of speech means there are no arbitrary government or anyone else imposed punishments for or obstacles (such as [censorship](censorship.md)) to merely talking about anything, making any public statement or publication of any information. **Free speech has to be by definition absolute and have no limit**, otherwise it's not free speech but controlled speech -- trying to add exceptions to free speech is like trying to limit to whom a [free software](free_software.md) license is granted; doing so immediately makes such software non-free. **Free speech also comes with zero responsibility** exactly by definition, as responsibility implies some forms of punishment; free speech means exactly one can say anything without fearing any burden of responsibility. Freedom of speech is an essential attribute of a mature society, sadly it hasn't been widely implemented yet and with the [SJW](sjw.md) cancer the latest trend in society is towards eliminating free speech rather than supporting it (see e.g. [political correctness](political_correctness.md)). Speech is being widely censored by extremist groups (e.g. [LGBT](lgbt.md) and [corporations](corporation.md), see also [cancel culture](cancel_culture.md)) and states -- depending on country there exist laws against so called "[hate speech](hate_speech.md)", questioning official versions of history (see e.g. [Holocaust](holocaust.md) denial laws present in many EU states), criticizing powerful people (for example it is illegal to criticize or insult that huge inbred dick Thai king), sharing of useful information such as books ([copyright](copyright.md) censorship) etc. Free speech nowadays is being eliminated by the strategy of creating an exception to free speech, usually called "hate speech", and then classifying any undesired speech under such label and silencing it.
 
 The basic principle of free speech says that **if you don't support freedom of speech which you dislike, you don't support free speech**. I.e. speech that you hate does not equal hate speech.
 
 Some idiots (like that [xkcd](xkcd.md) #1357) say that free speech is only about legality, i.e. about what's merely allowed to be said by the law or what speech the law "protects". Of course, **this is completely wrong** and just reflects this society's obsession with law; true free speech mustn't be limited by anything -- if you're not allowed to say something, it doesn't matter too much what it is that's preventing you, your speech is not free. If for example it is theoretically legal to be politically incorrect and criticize the LGBT gospel but you [de-facto](de_facto.md) can't do it because the LGBT fascist [SJWs](sjw.md) would [cancel](cancel_culture.md) you and maybe even physically lynch you, your speech is not free. It is important to realize **we mustn't tie free speech to legal definition**, i.e. it isn't enough to make speech free only in legal sense -- keep in mind that a [good society](less_retarded_society.md) aims to eliminating law itself. Our goal is to make speech free culturally, i.e. teach people that we should let others speak freely, even those -- and especially those -- who we disagree with.
 
+**Free speech extends even to such actions as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.** In a good society with free speech people don't behave like monkeys, they will not trust a mere shout without having a further proof of there actually being fire and even if they know there is fire, they will not panic as that's a retarded things to do.
+
 Despite what the propaganda says **there is no free speech in our society**, the only kind of speech that is allowed is that which either has no effect or which the system desires for its benefit. **Illusion of free speech is sustained by letting people speak until they actually start making a change** -- once someone's speech leads to e.g. revealing state secrets or historical truths (e.g. about [Holocaust](holocaust.md), human [races](race.md) or government crimes -- see [wikileaks](wikileaks.md)) or to destabilizing economy or state, such speech is labeled "harmful" in some way (hate speech, intellectual property violation, revealing of confidential information, instigating crime, defamation etc.), censored and punished. Even though nowadays just pure censorship laws are being passed on daily basis, even in times when there are seemingly no specific censorship laws and so it seems that "we have free speech" there always exist generic laws that can be fit to any speech, such as those against "inciting violence", "terrorism", "undermining state interests", "hate speech" or any other fancy issue, which can be used to censor absolutely any speech the government pleases, even if such speech has nothing to do with said causes -- it is enough that some state lawyer can find however unlikely possible indirect link to such cause: this could of course be well seen e.g. in the cases of [Covid](covid.md) flu or Russia-Ukraine war. Even though there were e.g. no specific laws in European countries against supporting Russia immediately after the war started, government immediately started censoring and locking up people who supported Russia on the Internet, based on the above mentioned generic laws. These laws work on the same principle as [backdoor](backdoor.md) in software: they are advocated as a "safety" "feature" and allow complete takeover of the system, but are mostly unused until the right time comes, to give the users a sense of being safe ("I've been using this backdoored CPU for years and nothing happened, so it's safe"); unlike with software backdoor though the law backdoor isn't usually removed after it has been exploited, people are just too stupid to notice this and governments can get away with keeping the laws in place, so they do.

infinity.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ The concept of infinity came to firstly be explored by philosophers -- as an abs
 The term *infinity* has two slightly distinct meanings:
 
 - **potential infinity**: The unboundedness, lack of upper limit. For example the sequence of odd numbers 1, 3, 5, ... is potentially infinite. This is the less problematic kind of infinity as we know what's going on: we simply lack any limit and can keep going on forever.
-- **actual infinity**: Infinity as an actual "object" (for example a number) that's somehow "endlessly large", larger beyond any limits, largest possible etc. This type of infinity poses more issues as we don't know anything like this from [real life](irl.md), we lack experience and intuition about it, we don't know how such an object should behave and we encounter [paradoxes](paradox.md). Stuff can get pretty weird and things we take for granted stop working, such as being able to just randomly pick elements from sets (see [axiom of choice](axiom_of_choice.md)). For example if we have the largest object possible, what happens if we put two of such objects together, will we get yet larger object or not? How about two infinities minus one infinity -- is that an infinity or zero? What if we shrink infinity to half, what size will it have?
+- **actual infinity**: Infinity as an actual "object" (for example a number) that's somehow "endlessly large", larger beyond any limits, largest possible etc. This type of infinity poses more issues as we don't know anything like this from [real life](irl.md), we lack experience and intuition about it, we don't know how such an object should behave and we encounter [paradoxes](paradox.md). Stuff can get pretty weird and things we take for granted stop working, such as being able to just randomly pick elements from sets (see [axiom of choice](axiom_of_choice.md)). For example if we have the largest object possible, what happens if we put two of such objects together, will we get yet a larger object or not? How about two infinities minus one infinity -- is that an infinity or zero? What if we shrink infinity to half, what size will it have?
 
 It could be argued that potential infinity is really the reason for the existence of true, high level mathematics as we know it, as that is concerned with constructing mathematical [proofs](proof.md) -- such proofs are needed anywhere where there exist infinitely many possibilities, as if there was only a finite number of possibilities, we could simply enumerate and check them all without much thinking (e.g. with the help of a [computer](computer.md)). For example to confirm [Fermat's Last Theorem](fermats_last_theorem) ("for whole numbers and *n > 2* the equation *a^n + b^n = c^n* doesn't have a solution") we need a logical proof because there are infinitely many numbers; if there were only finitely many numbers, we could simply check them all and see if the theorem holds. So infinity, in a sense, is really what forces mathematicians to think.
 

main.md

@@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ Are you a noob but see our ideas as appealing and would like to join us? Say no
 ## Did You Know
 
 - That all [Intel](intel.md) [processors](cpu.md) since 2008 (and [AMD](amd.md) processors since 2013) have a hardware [backdoor](backdoor.md) ([Intel ME](intel_me.md), [AMD PSP](amd_psp.md)) that run the [Minix](minix.md) operating system and allows spying on users of those processors no matter what operating system they run?
+- That brain size correlates with [intelligence](intelligence.md) and male brains are on average 10% larger than those of [women](woman.md)? Yep, this still even on [Wikipedia](wikipedia.md), though the implications mustn't be mentioned there.
 - That [capitalism](capitalism.md) is probably the most [retarded](retard.md) and dangerous idea in [history](history.md)?
 - Thanks to [quantum computing](quantum.md) you can use a computer to [carry out computation](counterfactual_computing.md) without actually running the computer?
 - You can mathematically [prove you don't know some information](no_knowledge_proof.md)?

phd.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # PhD
 
+PhD (also Ph.D., PhD. etc.), or *doctor of philosophy*, written after the name, is the highest academic degree that can be earned by being a student in [University](university.md), the basic title required for working as a scientist. It is earned through many years of study and especially active publishing of original research that pushed the boundary of current human knowledge in a specific field. Despite being called doctor of *philosophy*, the title is awarded generally to scientists in basically any field such as [mathematics](math.md), [physics](physics.md), [psychology](psychology.md), [chemistry](chemistry.md) etc., NOT just to those studying [philosophy](philosophy.md). PhD is yet above [master's degree](masters_degree.md). It is a doctorate degree, so a holder of PhD is called a *doctor* (Dr.), just as those with other forms of doctorates such as medical doctorate or honorary doctorate; however PhD is the *big doctorate*, the kind of highest, most prestigious one. People with a PhD degree are considered the foremost experts, the smartest, most educated elite, as only about 1 to 2 % of population hold a PhD, though PhD is also often considered an overkill and an overqualitfication (there are many cases of people with PhD not mentioning it on their CVs because such a high education can actually be a disadvantage), and of course, as with everything under [capitalism](capitalism.md), PhDs became a thing of business and conformance, subject to corruption and degradation (there now even exist PhDs in [astrology](astrology.md), [gender studies](gender_studies.md) etc.), at times even a [meme](meme.md). Yes, one has to be quite smart and talented to obtain a PhD, but nowadays it's probably more about pouring an extreme amount of energy, slavery and conformance to the corrupt academic cults, so the prestige of the title comes for a pretty high price, one often not worth paying.
+
 TODO
 
-**Should you get a PhD?** TODO
+**Should you get a PhD?** Probably not -- as said the sacrifice required is enormous, to make it you should have a REAL GOOD reason, of which there aren't many -- perhaps if you REALLY want to be teacher at University or if for some twisted reason you want to spend your whole life in the corrupt toxic [soyence](soyence.md) environment trying to prove [women](woman.md) are better than men and sucking capitalist dicks so that they throw you a bit of money so that you can buy a microscope, then maybe. Otherwise [masters_degree](masters_degree.md) is enough to give you all you need for a rich intellectual life and being able to do good things, and it won't suck the soul out of your body.
+
+TODO

race.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ Instead of the word *race* the politically correct camp uses words such as *ethn
 
 Pseudoleft uses cheap, logically faulty arguments to deny the existence of race; for example that there are no clear objective boundaries between races -- of course there are not, but how does that imply nonexistence of race? That's like saying that color doesn't exist because given any two distinct colors there exists a gradual transition, or that [music](music.md) and noise are the same thing because objectively no clear line can be drawn between them.
 
-The politically correct camp further argues that there wasn't enough time for human races to develop significant differences as evolution operates on scales of millions of years while the evolution of modern humans was taking part about in an order of magnitude smaller time scale. However it has been shown that evolution can be much faster under specific conditions, e.g. those of rapid environment change (shown e.g. in a documentary *Laws of the Lizard* on anoles that show signs of evolutionary change only after 14 years, also see e.g. the book *The 10,000 Year Explosion* talking about actual acceleration of human evolution) and interbreeding with other species (e.g. Neanderthals, which European population bred with but African population didn't), which did occur when humans spread around the world and had to live in vastly different conditions -- successful civilizations themselves actually furthermore started to rapidly change their environment to something that favors very different traits. We can take a look at the enormous differences between dog breeds which have been bred mostly during only the last 200 years and whose differences are enormous and not only physical, but also that of intelligence and temperament -- yes, the breeding of dogs has been selective, but a rapid change in environment may have a similar accelerating effect, and the process in humans still took many tens of thousands of years. For example races of slaves were probably selectively bred, even if unintentionally, as physically fit slaves were more likely to survive than those who were smart; similarly in prospering civilizations, e.g. that of Europe, where trade, business and development of technology (e.g. military) became more crucial for survival than in primitive desert or jungle civilizations, different traits such as intelligence became preferred by evolution.
+The politically correct camp further argues that there wasn't enough time for human races to develop significant differences as evolution operates on scales of millions of years while the evolution of modern humans was taking part about in an order of magnitude smaller time scale. However it has been shown that **evolution can be extremely fast and make great changes in mere DECADES**, e.g. in cases of rapid environment change (shown e.g. in a documentary *Laws of the Lizard* on anoles that show signs of evolutionary change only after 14 years, also see e.g. the book *The 10,000 Year Explosion* talking about actual acceleration of human evolution) and interbreeding with other species (e.g. Neanderthals, which European population bred with but African population didn't), which did occur when humans spread around the world and had to live in vastly different conditions -- successful civilizations themselves actually furthermore started to rapidly change their environment to something that favors very different traits. It has for example been found that average male brain increased from 1372 gram in 1860 to 1424 grams in 1940, a very significant change in LESS THAN A CENTURY. We can take a look at the enormous differences between dog breeds which have been bred mostly during only the last 200 years and whose differences are enormous and not only physical, but also that of intelligence and temperament -- yes, the breeding of dogs has been selective, but a rapid change in environment may have a similar accelerating effect, and the process in humans still took many tens of thousands of years. For example races of slaves were probably selectively bred, even if unintentionally, as physically fit slaves were more likely to survive than those who were smart; similarly in prospering civilizations, e.g. that of Europe, where trade, business and development of technology (e.g. military) became more crucial for survival than in primitive desert or jungle civilizations, different traits such as intelligence became preferred by evolution.
 
 Another pseudoleftist argument is that "the DNA of any two individuals is 99.6 % identical so the differences are really insignificant". Now consider that DNA of a pig is 98 % identical to human. We see the argument is like saying a strawberry and beer is practically the same thing as they are both about 93 % water. It is known that only a minuscule part of DNA has any actual biological effect, only a small part is important and therefore including all the unimportant junk in judging similarity is just purposeful attempt at misleading statistics.
 

woman.md

@@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ Note: It is guaranteed that [soyentific](soyence.md) BIGBRAINS will start screec
 | marathon           |2:01 (Kipchoge)   |2:14 (Kosgei)     |best W ranks #3935 among men         |
 | 100m swim WR       |46.8s (Popovici)  |51.7s (Sjostrom)  |best W ranks lower than #602 among M |
 | chess best Elo     |2882 (Carlsen)    |2735 (Polgar)     |best W win 8%, lose 48%, draw 44%    |
+| go best Elo        |3862 (Jinseo)     |3424 (Choi Jeong) |best W ranks #68, M win prob.: 92%   |
 | speedcubing WR     |3.47s (Du)        |4.44 (Sebastien)  |best W ranks #16 among M             |   
 |Starcr. 2 best Elo  |3556 (Serral)     |2679 (Scarlett)   |best M has ~80% win chance against W |
 |holding breath WR   |24:37 (Sobat)     |18:32m (Meyer)    |Ms have ~35% greater lung capacity   |