Update

how_to.md

@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ An important issue of many ideologies/philosophies/religions/etc. has shown to b
 Examples from LRS point of view:
 
 - Is it OK to ever use violence? Here LRS takes the extremist way of strongly saying no -- according to us violence is always bad and we define this as an [axiom](axiom.md), something without a need of proof, it is the very foundation of our movement and not acknowledging it would simply mean it's not LRS anymore. However a bit of moderacy may also appear here; if for example someone uses violence in a desperate attempt to protect one's child, though we won't embrace the action we won't condemn the man either -- he committed a "sin", did something wrong, but in his situation there was really no right thing to do, so what should we blame him for, for being a subject of unfortunate situation?
-- Is it OK to sometimes use proprietary software? Here for example [Richard Stallman](rms.md)/FSF/[GNU](gnu.md) take the extremist stance and say no, proprietary software is the literal [devil](devil.md) and though shalt evade it for all cost (in fact GNU will put effort in purposefully breaking compatibility with proprietary software, which is borderline capitalist behavior similar to artificial obsolescence etc.). While we agree it is a good general rule to avoid software whose purpose is almost exclusively the abuse of its user, we may be more tolerant and allow breaking the rule sometimes, because to us proprietary software is nothing set in any axiom, it is just a symptom resulting from bad society. As a non-axiom it should be a subject to constant reevaluation against the main goal. A simple commandment of "NO TOUCH NOTHING PROPRIETARY" is a good tool for a newcomer, it is a simple to follow rule of thumb that teaches him to find free replacements and alternatives, however once one becomes advanced and eventually a master of the freedom philosophy, he sees things aren't as simple to be solved by one simple rule, just as a master of music knows when to break basic rules of thumb, when to leave the scale, break the rhythm to make excellent music. Here we see it similarly: When touching proprietary software doesn't result in significant harm (such as supporting its developer, becoming addicted to it, getting abused by it, ...) and when it does significant good (e.g. inspires creation of its free clone, reveals the mechanisms by which it abuses its users, ...), it may in fact be good to do so.
+- Is it OK to sometimes use proprietary software? Here for example [Richard Stallman](rms.md)/FSF/[GNU](gnu.md) take the extremist stance and say no, proprietary software is the literal [devil](devil.md) and thou shalt evade it for all cost (in fact GNU will put effort in purposefully breaking compatibility with proprietary software, which is borderline capitalist behavior similar to artificial obsolescence etc.). While we agree it is a good general rule to avoid software whose purpose is almost exclusively the abuse of its user, we may be more tolerant and allow breaking the rule sometimes, because to us proprietary software is nothing set in any axiom, it is just a symptom resulting from bad society. As a non-axiom it should be a subject to constant reevaluation against the main goal. A simple commandment of "NO TOUCH NOTHING PROPRIETARY" is a good tool for a newcomer, it is a simple to follow rule of thumb that teaches him to find free replacements and alternatives, however once one becomes advanced and eventually a master of the freedom philosophy, he sees things aren't as simple to be solved by one simple rule, just as a master of music knows when to break basic rules of thumb, when to leave the scale, break the rhythm to make excellent music. Here we see it similarly: When touching proprietary software doesn't result in significant harm (such as supporting its developer, becoming addicted to it, getting abused by it, ...) and when it does significant good (e.g. inspires creation of its free clone, reveals the mechanisms by which it abuses its users, ...), it may in fact be good to do so.
 - Should you oppose your boss at work, deny to serve him in unethical practice because he is a filthy capitalist and so make trouble for yourself, possibly even get fired for it? Well, this is not so easy again; a strict extremist anticapitalist here would just stay without a job because he couldn't work as any work supports capitalism. On the other hand such a guy would just be homeless, rid of any practical opportunity to create and do good, and would probably die soon anyway. Here it's more or less a question of personal tuning, finding the "least harmful" job, minimizing time spent at it so as to be able to do good in spare time, opposing your boss sometimes but not every single time, not really building a career so that you may quit at any moment etc. Until we have [basic income](ubi.md) or something, you are more or less [doomed](doom.md) to suffer dealing with this on your own sadly.
 
 ## Tech
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ Also please take a look at [gopher](gopher.md) (a much better alternative to web
 
 Here we will quickly sum up how to make a **[static](static.md), single page plain [HTML](html.md) website without TLS (https)**, which should suffice for most things (sharing opinions, contacts, files, multimedia, simple blogging, ...). Once you get more advanced you can do fancy stuff like this wiki (multi-page wiki written in [Markdown](markdown.md), compiled to HTML with a shell script etc.).
 
-**NOTE on TLS (https)**: most sites on the web nowadays use encryption for MUH SECURITY obsession and also web browsers kinda prefer such sites etc. (in the future it will probably be required but by then we'll already be elsewhere) -- such site addresses are prefixed with `https://`, as opposed to normal non-encrypted `http://`. [Encryption](encryption.md) is huge [bloat](bloat.md) and mess to set up, normally you need to pay extra money to get a [certificate](certificate.md) for it (though services like Let's Encrypt provide certificates for free) etc. -- basically you only need encryption if you have an interactive site where passwords or other sensitive info gets sent, a purely static site basically doesn't need encryption at all, however if your site doesn't support encryption it may get some penalty by search engines and browsers as they won't "trust it as much", it's just a form of internet bullying for not conforming to latest encryption hysteria. All in all if you can set up encryption easily (e.g. with a single button on your web hosting provider site), do it just for the sake of normies; if you are experienced and can set it up yourself easily, also do it, but if not, just don't care about it and run your site on `http://` only, at least for now until you get into this stuff. Also very importantly **always support plain unencrypted http** even if you set up https, otherwise you're bullying simple browsers that don't implement encryption.
+**NOTE on TLS (https)**: most sites on the web nowadays use encryption for MUH SECURITY obsession and also web browsers and search engines kinda prefer such sites etc. (in the future it will probably be required but by then we'll already be elsewhere) -- such site addresses are prefixed with `https://`, as opposed to normal non-encrypted `http://`. [Encryption](encryption.md) is huge [bloat](bloat.md) and mess to set up, normally you need to pay extra money to get a [certificate](certificate.md) for it (though services like Let's Encrypt provide certificates for free) etc. -- basically you only need encryption if you have an interactive site where passwords or other sensitive info gets sent, a purely static site basically doesn't need encryption at all, however if your site doesn't support encryption it may get some penalty by search engines and browsers as they won't "trust it as much", it's just a form of internet bullying for not conforming to latest encryption hysteria. All in all if you can set up encryption easily (e.g. with a single button on your web hosting provider site), do it just for the sake of normies; if you are experienced and can set it up yourself easily, also do it, but if not, just don't care about it and run your site on `http://` only, at least for now until you get into this stuff. Also very importantly **always support plain unencrypted http** even if you set up https, otherwise you're bullying simple browsers that don't implement encryption.
 
 Now **do NOT follow mainstream tutorials on making website** (Wordpress, PHP, static generators, ...) -- these are absolute horseshit and just follow ugly capitalist ways, you will just get brain cancer. Also do NOT use any frameworks; **do NOT even use static site generators** -- these are not needed at all! All you really need for making a small website is: