Update

anorexia.md

@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ And now to some general tips:
 - **avoiding seeing food**: Hard to do in [capitalism](capitalism.md) but important, one must eliminate [ads](marketing.md), food documentaries, avoid billboards with food, going near food shops etc.
 - **avoiding access to food**: It's surprising how much of a role subconsciousness plays in being hungry -- just having food in a fridge nearby will make people hungry. { This I experienced and realized very much when spending time at my caravan in the woods. In a civilization I used to get hungry in the evening but in my caravan I never got hungry at all if I was only staying overnight and brought no food with me. ~drummyfish }
 - **avoiding bad food**:
-  - **fastfood, hamburgers, chips, sweets etc.**: Everyone knows this makes you fat and sick. As an exercise check out how many calories there are in this stuff.
+  - **fastfood, hamburgers, chips, sweets, jam etc.**: Everyone knows this makes you fat and sick. As an exercise check out how many calories there are in this stuff.
   - **bakery**: Bread, rolls etc. Somehow this is bad for losing weight, just start eating something else.
   - **strong flavors, too tasty**: Potato chips, ketchup on food, spicy food and so on -- this excites the taste receptors and makes one uncontrollably crave more and more food, it's intentionally made so by [capitalists](capitalism.md). Has to be avoided. At first it's hard, it's literally like quitting a drug, but just like with drugs one can eventually overcome the withdrawal and even starts enjoying the normal stuff much more than before. Really it works, just needs a bit of self control.
   - **sweet drinks**: Coca Cola, Pepsi, energy drinks and similar garbage are basically sugar with a bit of added water, avoid this at any cost. Maybe you can lose a few kilos literally just by quitting these and doing nothing else. Some people think that a drink can't have too many calories but no, that's a fatal mistake.
@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ And now to some general tips:
   - **tea** (no sugar): Basically just hot water, absolutely guilt free, healthy drink, many different flavors.
   - **sparkling water**: Some people really love it. It's possible to get mildly flavored water too.
   - **diet versions of drinks**: There exist zero calorie versions of coca cola, energy drinks etc., and they DO taste basically the same as the normal version, however these drinks are quite unhealthy so they shouldn't be consumed regularly. One can use them as a kind of "treat" for losing another kilogram for example ;)
+  - **wholegrain styrofoam bread**: That kind of small, dry biscuit-like bread that doesn't taste great on its own but is excellent to replace normal bread, very good to make nice small vegetable sandwiches.
   - ...
 - **low(er) calorie food**: This is what you want your meals to consist of. In general you want stuff with a lot of water in it as water makes it bigger (makes you full) and has no calories.
   - **fruit/vegetable**: Obviously, very tasty, healthy and cool.

ascii.md

@@ -4,9 +4,9 @@ ASCII ([American](usa.md) standard code for [information](information.md) interc
 
 The ASCII standard assigns a 7 [bit](bit.md) code to each basic text character which gives it a room for 128 characters -- these include lowercase and uppercase [English](english.md) alphabet, decimal digits, other symbols such as a question mark, comma or brackets, plus a few special control characters that represent instructions such as carriage return which are however often obsolete nowadays. Due to most computers working with 8 bit bytes, most platforms store ASCII text with 1 byte per character; the extra bit creates a room for **extending** ASCII by another 128 characters (or creating a variable width encoding such as [UTF-8](utf8.md)). These extensions include unofficial ones such as VISCII (ASCII with additional Vietnamese characters) and more official ones, most notably [ISO 8859](iso_8859.md): a group of standards by [ISO](iso.md) for various languages, e.g. ISO 88592-1 for western European languages, ISO 8859-5 for Cyrillic languages etc. Also [IBM Code Page 437](cp437.md) is a famous unofficial extension of ASCII.
 
-The ordering of characters has been kind of cleverly designed to make working with the encoding easier, for example digits start with 011 and the rest of the bits correspond to the digit itself (0000 is 0, 0001 is 1 etc.). Corresponding upper and lower case letters only differ in the 6th bit, so you can easily convert between upper and lower case by negating it as `letter ^ 0x20`. { I think there is a few missed opportunities though, e.g. in not putting digits right before letters. That way it would be very easy to print hexadecimal (and all bases up to a lot) simply as `putchar('0' + x)`. UPDATE: seen someone ask this on some stack exchange, the answer said ASCII preferred easy masking or something, seems like there was some reason. ~drummyfish }
+The ordering of characters has been kind of cleverly designed in order to facilitate certain operations with the characters, for example digits always start with 011 and the rest of the bits corresponds to the [binary](binary.md) value of the digit (0000 is 0, 0001 is 1 etc.). Corresponding upper and lower case letters only differ in the 6th bit, so conversion of case is achieved simply by negating the bit as `letter ^ 0x20`. { I think there is a few missed opportunities though, e.g. in not putting digits right before letters. That way it would be very easy to print hexadecimal (and all bases up to a lot) simply as `putchar('0' + x)`. UPDATE: seen someone ask this on some stack exchange, the answer said ASCII preferred easy masking or something, seems like there was some reason. ~drummyfish }
 
-ASCII was approved as an [ANSI](ansi.md) standard in 1963 and since then underwent many revisions every few years. The current one is summed up by the following table:
+ASCII was approved as an [ANSI](ansi.md) standard in 1963 and thereafter underwent many revisions every few years. The current one is summed up by the following table:
 
 | dec  | hex  | oct  |  bin    | other     | symbol                |
 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ------- | --------- | --------------------- |

c_tutorial.md

@@ -374,7 +374,7 @@ Functions are extremely important, no program besides the most primitive ones ca
 
 Functions are similar to but **NOT the same as mathematical functions**. Mathematical function (simply put) takes a number as input and outputs another number computed from the input number, and this output number depends only on the input number and nothing else. C functions can do this too but they can also do additional things such as modify variables in other parts of the program or make the computer do something (such as play a sound or display something on the screen) -- these are called **[side effects](side_effect.md)**; things done besides computing an output number from an input number. For distinction mathematical functions are called *pure* functions and functions with side effects are called non-pure.
 
-**Why are function so important?** Firstly they help us divide a big problem into small subproblems and make the code better organized and readable, but mainly they help us respect the [DRY](dry.md) (*Don't Repeat Yourself*) principle -- this is extremely important in programming. Imagine you need to solve a [quadratic equation](quadratic_equation.md) in several parts of your program; you do NOT want to solve it in each place separately, you want to make a function that solves a quadratic equation and then only invoke (call) that function anywhere you need to solve your quadratic equation. This firstly saves space (source code will be shorter and compiled program will be smaller), but it also makes your program manageable and eliminates bugs -- imagine you find a better (e.g. faster) way to solving quadratic equations; without functions you'd have to go through the whole code and change the algorithm in each place separately which is impractical and increases the chance of making errors. With functions you only change the code in one place (in the function) and in any place where your code invokes (calls) this function the new better and updated version of the function will be used.
+**Why are function so important?** Primarily they help us divide a big problem into small subproblems and make the code better organized and readable, but mainly they aid us in respecting the [DRY](dry.md) (*Don't Repeat Yourself*) principle -- this is extremely important in programming. Imagine you need to solve a [quadratic equation](quadratic_equation.md) in several parts of your program; you do NOT want to solve it in each place separately, you want to make a function that solves a quadratic equation and then only invoke (call) that function anywhere you need to solve your quadratic equation. This firstly saves space (source code will be shorter and compiled program will be smaller), but it also makes your program manageable and eliminates bugs -- imagine you find a better (e.g. faster) way to solving quadratic equations; without functions you'd have to go through the whole code and change the algorithm in each place separately which is impractical and increases the chance of making errors. With functions you only change the code in one place (in the function) and in any place where your code invokes (calls) this function the new better and updated version of the function will be used.
 
 Besides writing programs that can be directly executed programmers also write so called **[libraries](library.md)** -- collections of functions (and possibly similar things like macros etc.) that can be used in other projects. We have already seen libraries such as *stdio*, *standard input/output library*, a standard (official, should be bundled with every C compiler) library for input/output (reading and printing values); *stdio* contains functions such as `puts` which is used to printing out text strings. Examples of other libraries are the standard *math* library containing function for e.g. computing [sine](sine.md), or [SDL](sdl.md), a 3rd party multimedia library for such things as drawing to screen, playing sounds and handling keyboard and mouse input.
 

forth.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 Forth ("fourth generation" shortened to four characters due to technical limitations) is a very [elegant](beauty.md), extremely [minimalist](minimalism.md) [stack](stack.md)-based, untyped [programming language](programming_language.md) (and a general computing environment) that uses [postfix](notation.md) (reverse Polish) notation -- it is one of the very best programming languages ever conceived. Forth's vanilla form is super simple, much simpler than [C](c.md), its design is ingenious and a compiler/interpreter can be made with relatively little effort, giving it high [practical freedom](freedom_distance.md) (that is to say Forth can really be in the hands of the people). As of writing this the smallest Forth implementation, [milliforth](milliforth.md), has just **340 bytes** (!!!) of [machine code](machine_code.md), that's just incredible (the size is very close to [Brainfuck](brainfuck.md)'s compiler size, a language whose primary purpose was to have the smallest compiler possible). Forth finds use for example in [space](space.md) computers (e.g. [RTX2010](rtx2010.md), a radiation hardened space computer directly executing Forth) and [embedded](embedded.md) systems as a way to write efficient [low level](low_level.md) programs that are, unlike those written in [assembly](assembly.md), [portable](portability.md). Forth stood as the main influence for [Comun](comun.md), the [LRS](lrs.md) programming language, it is also used by [Collapse OS](collapseos.md) and [Dusk OS](duskos.md) as the main language. In minimalism Forth competes a bit with [Lisp](lisp.md), however, to Lisp fan's dismay, Forth seems to ultimately come out as superior, especially in performance, but ultimately probably even in its elegance (while Lisp may be more mathematically elegant, Forth appears to be the most elegant fit for real hardware).
 
-Not wanting to invoke a fanboy mentality, the truth still has to be left known that **Forth may be one of best [programming](programming.md) systems yet conceived**, it is a pinnacle of programming genius. While in the realm of "normal" programming languages we're used to suffering tradeoffs such as sacrificing performance for flexibility, Forth dodges this seemingly inevitable mathematical curse and manages to beat virtually all such traditional languages at EVERYTHING at once: [simplicity](minimalism.md), [beauty](beauty.md), memory compactness, flexibility, performance and [portability](portability.md). It's also much more than a programming language, it is an overall system for computing, a calculator, programming language and its own debugger but may also serve for example as a [text editor](text_editor.md) and even, without exaggeration, a whole [operating system](os.md) (that is why e.g. DuskOS is written in Forth -- it is not as much written in Forth as it actually IS Forth). Understandably you may ask: if it's so great, why isn't it very much used "in the business"? Once someone summed it up as follows: Forth gives us unprecedented freedom and that allows [retards](soydev.md) to come up with bad design and unleash destruction -- [capitalism](capitalism.md) needs languages for monkeys, that's why [bad languages](rust.md) prosper. Remember: popularity has never been a measure of quality -- the best art will never be mainstream, it can only be understood and mastered by a few.
+Not wanting to invoke a fanboy mentality, the truth still has to be left known that **Forth may be one of best [programming](programming.md) systems yet conceived**, it is a pinnacle of programming genius and a mesmerizing gem buried in the pile of [shit](shit.md) that [modern](modern.md) technology is. While in the realm of "normal" programming languages we're used to suffering tradeoffs such as sacrificing performance for flexibility, Forth dodges this seemingly inevitable mathematical curse and manages to beat virtually all such traditional languages at EVERYTHING at once: [simplicity](minimalism.md), [beauty](beauty.md), memory compactness, flexibility, performance and [portability](portability.md). It's also much more than a programming language, it is an overall system for computing, a calculator, programming language and its own debugger but may also serve for example as a [text editor](text_editor.md) and even, without exaggeration, a whole [operating system](os.md) (that is why e.g. DuskOS is written in Forth -- it is not as much written in Forth as it actually IS Forth). Understandably you may ask: if it's so great, why isn't it very much used "in the business"? Once someone summed it up as follows: Forth gives us unprecedented freedom and that allows [retards](soydev.md) to come up with bad design and unleash destruction -- [capitalism](capitalism.md) needs languages for monkeys, that's why [bad languages](rust.md) prosper. Remember: popularity has never been a measure of quality -- the best art will never be mainstream, it can only be understood and mastered by a few.
 
 Forth is unique in its philosophy, we might almost go as far as calling Forth a programming [paradigm](paradigm.md) of its own. It can really be hardly compared to traditional languages such as [C++](cpp.md) or [Java](java.md) -- while the "typical language" is always more or less the same thing from the programmer's point of view by providing a few predefined, hardwired, usually complex but universal constructs that are simply there and cannot be changed in any way (such as an [OOP](oop.md) system, template system, macro language, control structures, primitive types, ...), **Forth adopts [Unix philosophy](unix_philosophy.md)** (and dare we say probably better than Unix itself) by defining just the concept of a *word*, maybe providing a handful of simple words for the start, and then letting the programmer extend the language (that is even the compiler/interpreter itself) by creating new words out of the simpler ones, and this includes even things such as control structures (branches, loops, ...), variables and constant. For instance: in traditional languages we find a few predefined formats in which numbers may be written -- let's say C lets us use decimal numbers as `123` or hexadecimal numbers as `0x7b` -- in Forth you may change the base at any time to any value by assigning to the `base` variable which will change how Forth parses and outputs numbers (while a number is considered any word that's not been found in dictionary), and it is even possible to completely rewrite the number parsing procedure itself. Almost everything in Forth can be modified this way, so pure Forth without any words is not much more than a description of a [data structure](data_structure.md) and simpler parser of space-separated words, it plainly dictates a format of how words will be represented and handled on a very basic level (that's on the simplicity level of, let's say, [lambda calculus](lambda_calculus.md)) and only a *Forth system* (i.e. one with a specific dictionary of defined words, such as that defined by ANS Forth standard) provides a basic "practically usable" language. The point is this can still be extended yet further, without any end or limitation.
 

human_language.md

@@ -67,19 +67,19 @@ This section lists some of the most notable human languages. In the brackets the
     - ...
   - **Slavic languages** (~300 M native speakers): Hard to learn, many grammatical cases and inflections, spoken in central/east Europe and north Asia.
     - **Bulgarian** (*как се казваш, "Kak se kazvash?"*): TODO
-    - **Croatian** ([aio], *Kako se zoveš?*): Kinda similar to Czech/Slovak/Polish, seems to have a lot of "ch" (as in "chicken") sounds.
-    - **[Czech](czechia.md)** ([oea], *Jak se jmenuješ?*): Very similar to Slovak but has a harder sound, contains the infamous "ř" which some consider the most unique and possibly most difficult sound to pronounce in any language -- by this it can be recognized.
-    - **Polish** ([iae], *Jak się nazywasz?*): Similar to Czech/Slovak, has many "sz", "sh", "ch" sounds, stress usually on penultimate syllable.
-    - **Russian** (~150 M native speakers, [oea], *Как тебя зовут?, "Kak tebia zovut?"*): Written in Cyrillic, characteristic sounds like "blj", speaking with duckface and long end and middle parts of words.
-    - **Slovak** ([aoe], *Ako sa voláš?*): Super similar to Czech (mutually intelligible), sounds much softer and more pleasant, especially e.g. the letter "l", also compared to Czech doesn't have [bullshit](bullshit.md) like "ř" and vocative case.
-    - **Ukrainian** ([oan], *Як тебе звати?, "Jak tebe zvati?"*): Different from Russian but sounds the same.
+    - **Croatian** ([aio], *Kako se zoveš?*): Kinda similar to Czech/Slovak/Polish, seems to have a lot of "ch" (as in "chicken") sounds, has 7 cases.
+    - **[Czech](czechia.md)** ([oea], *Jak se jmenuješ?*): Very similar to Slovak but has a harder sound, stress is on first syllable, has 7 cases, contains the infamous "ř" which some consider the most unique and possibly most difficult sound to pronounce in any language -- by this it can be recognized.
+    - **Polish** ([iae], *Jak się nazywasz?*): Similar to Czech/Slovak, has many "sz", "sh", "ch" sounds, stress usually on penultimate syllable, has 7 cases.
+    - **Russian** (~150 M native speakers, [oea], *Как тебя зовут?, "Kak tebia zovut?"*): Written in Cyrillic, characteristic sounds like "blj", speaking with duckface and long end and middle parts of words, has 6 cases.
+    - **Slovak** ([aoe], *Ako sa voláš?*): Super similar to Czech (mutually intelligible), sounds much softer and more pleasant, especially e.g. the letter "l", also compared to Czech doesn't have [bullshit](bullshit.md) like "ř" and vocative case, has 6 cases total.
+    - **Ukrainian** ([oan], *Як тебе звати?, "Jak tebe zvati?"*): Different from Russian but sounds the same, has 7 cases.
     - ...
   - ...
 - **Other languages**:
   - **Arabic** (~400 M native speakers, *ما اسمك؟, "Ma ismuka?"*): Sounds fast, weird script written right to left, difficult to learn.
   - **[Chinese](chinese.md)** (~1 B native speakers, *你贵姓大名?, "Ni quixing daming?"*): Considered the hardest language ever, has many variants and dialects that are even mutually unintelligible (and as such is actually sometimes rather considered a language family), most notably Cantonese and Mandarin, has most native speakers of all languages, has many soft sounds like "shii", "shoo", "chii", plus those "ching chong" sounds along with weird intonation (the language is tonal, meaning pitch changes meaning of words), writing system is a disaster (one character per word).
   - **[Esperanto](esperanto.md)** ([aie], *Kio estas via nomo?*): Most famous [constructed language](conlang.md), even has a few native speakers, sounds similar to Italian, in general resembled Romance languages, is very easy to learn thanks to completely regular grammar and vocabulary borrowed from many existing languages.
-  - **Finnish** ([ena], *Mikä sinun nimesi on?*): TODO
+  - **Finnish** ([ena], *Mikä sinun nimesi on?*): Has 14 cases and inflections, so word order is not fixed, stress often on first syllable.
   - **Greek** ([aoi], *Πώς σε λένε?, "Pos se lene?"*): Famously using the weird Greek alphabet, its old version is very historically significant.
   - **Hebrew** (*מַה שִּׁמְךָ?, "Ma shimkha?"*): TODO
   - **Hindi** (~350 M native speakers, *तुम्हारा नाम क्या हे, "Tumhaara naam kya he?"*): Sounds quite fast, has that very specific "clicky" pronunciation of certain sounds like "t", "r" and "d", weird script, women talk in high pitch squeaking.
@@ -97,6 +97,8 @@ This section lists some of the most notable human languages. In the brackets the
   - **Yiddish** (*װי הײסטו, "Vi heystu?"*): Language spoken by [Jews](jew.md), developed in Jewish diaspora, an interesting "Frankenstein monster" mix of German, Hebrew and other languages.
   - ...
   
+**Language curiosities**: Harold Whitmore Williams (*1876) allegedly spoke 58 languages and is sometimes considered the most accomplished polyglot. The most common sound found in all languages is "a", the most unique probably the Czech "ř". Language with smallest alphabet is probably Rotokas, spoken in Papua New Guinea, with only 12 letters. English word with the most meanings is apparently "set" (almost 200). Longest non-technical word in English is "antidisestablishmentarianism", but if we impose no limits, there is a name of a chemical that's 189819 letters long. TODO: more
+
 TODO: average word length, longest word, number of letters in alphabet, ...
 
 ## How To Learn A Foreign Language
@@ -129,7 +131,8 @@ Here are some tips for learning foreign languages:
 - Do NOT use fucking [proprietary](proprietary.md) [capitalist](capitalism.md) language "[apps](app.md)", they fucking just give you brain [cancer](cancer.md).
 - **Watch out for false friends**. These are words that look and sound very similar to words in a language you already know, but they mean something different, so you may easily end up using them wrong. For example "actual" in Spanish doesn't translate as "actual" in English -- in Spanish it means "current" (as in "current events") whereas in English it means "real".
 - If you want to get super serious and git gud even at pronunciation, there are techniques such as shadowing (trying to speak over native speaker recordings, imitating them) etc. But this is not needed if you just want to communicate or if you don't even talk to people [in real life](irl.md), it's just for nerds who wanna flex probably.
-- Especially if you're learning your first foreign language: be ready, make no assumptions about the new language based on your native language, different language may break all the rules of your language and importantly: different language is not just different words and grammar, it is also a **different [CULTURE](culture.md)**. Forget EVERYTHING you think you know and that you assume should hold, many words and sentences will be UNTRANSLATABLE. There will be many rules that make ZERO logical sense, for example a word may have different spelling in different contexts just because, or there will be many words for something that in your language only has one name, just don't ask why, it simply is so. The new language may for example have various politeness levels -- different ways of says "you" for instance, depending on whom you are addressing -- which will have no counterpart in English; there may be completely different tenses and cases, grammatical concepts you never heard of, words may have unclear translations or unexpected connotations, it may be uncommon to make [jokes](jokes.md) you're used to make (for example in [Czech](czech.md) it's not common to make [puns](pun.md) as much as in English), certain phrases will be used much more or much less frequently (e.g. in English it's pretty common to hear family members say "I love you" to one another, but this isn't common in many other languages), in some languages it's very common to greet strangers with many different phrases etc. Don't try to understand these differences logically, these are historical and cultural features which are sometimes untraceable leftovers from something that's already gone, you just have to learn it all by listening and using the language, you can't memorize it.
+- **Necessity teaches best**. Literally needing the language, e.g. due to having moved to another country, reliably leads to learning it.
+- Especially if you're learning your first foreign language: be ready, make no assumptions about the new language based on your native language, different language may break all the rules of your language and importantly: different language is not just different words and grammar, it is also a **different [CULTURE](culture.md)**, reflecting the needs and necessities of the people using it. Forget EVERYTHING you think you know and that you assume should hold, many words and sentences will be UNTRANSLATABLE. There will be many rules that make ZERO logical sense, for example a word may have different spelling in different contexts just because, or there will be many words for something that in your language only has one name, just don't ask why, it simply is so. The new language may for example have various politeness levels -- different ways of says "you" for instance, depending on whom you are addressing -- which will have no counterpart in English; there may be completely different tenses and cases, grammatical concepts you never heard of, words may have unclear translations or unexpected connotations, it may be uncommon to make [jokes](jokes.md) you're used to make (for example in [Czech](czech.md) it's not common to make [puns](pun.md) as much as in English), certain phrases will be used much more or much less frequently (e.g. in English it's pretty common to hear family members say "I love you" to one another, but this isn't common in many other languages), in some languages it's very common to greet strangers with many different phrases etc. Don't try to understand these differences logically, these are historical and cultural features which are sometimes untraceable leftovers from something that's already gone, you just have to learn it all by listening and using the language, you can't memorize it.
 - ...
 
 ## See Also

minimalism.md

@@ -8,11 +8,11 @@ Antoine de Saint-Exupery sums it up with a quote: *we achieve perfection not whe
 
 **[Forth](forth.md)** is perhaps the best example of software minimalism and demonstrates that clever, strictly minimalist design can be absolutely superior to the best efforts of maximalists. Languages such as Scheme [Lisp](lisp.md) show that minimalism can also be applied on high level of [abstraction](abstraction.md).
 
-The concept of minimalism is also immensely important in [art](art.md), religion and other aspects of culture and whole society, for example in architecture and design we see a lot of minimalism, and basically every major religion values frugality and letting go material desired, be it [Christianity](christianity.md), [Islan](islam.md) or [Buddhism](buddhism.md). Therefore there also exists the generalized concept of **life minimalism** which applies said wisdom and philosophy to all areas of [life](life.md) and which numerous technological minimalists quite naturally start to follow along the way -- life minimalism is about letting go of objects, thoughts and desires that aren't necessarily needed because such things enslave us and mostly just make us more miserable; from time to time you should meditate a little bit about what it is that you really want and need and only keep that. Indeed this is nothing new under the Sun, this wisdom has been present for as long as humans have existed, most religions and philosophers saw a great value in [asceticism](asceticism.md), frugality and even poverty, as owning little leads to [freedom](freedom.md). For instance owning a [car](car.md) is kind of a slavery, you have to clean it, protect it, repair it, [maintain](maintenance.md) it, pay for parking space, pay for gas, pay for insurance -- this is not a small commitment and you sacrifice a significant part of your life and [head space](head_space.md) to it (especially considering additional commitments of similar magnitude towards your house, garden, clothes, electronics, furniture, pets, bank accounts, social networks and so forth), a minimalist will rather choose to get a simple [suckless](suckless.md) bicycle, travel by public transport or simply walk. Life minimalism is also much healthier both for the individual and for whole society. A man who learns to live with very little starts to find much more enjoyment in mundane things thereafter, a simple pleasure such as an extra meal once a week suddenly feels like it's Christmas, unlike to someone who overeats daily and can hardly take any extra pleasure in food at all. It is also proven (despite you disagreeing with it) that people living in scarcity are friendlier to each other, i.e. a community of people living with little are more [socialist](socialism.md), sharing, loving and caring, without crime and hostility, unlike communities of overstimulated fat depressed consumers addicted to endless increase of pleasure, demanding more and more from the day, eventually ending up only with [competition](competition.md) and hostility on their mind.
+Minimalism as a general concept is also immensely important in [art](art.md), [religion](religion.md) and other parts of [culture](culture.md) and whole society, for example in fine art, architecture and design we find great use of it, and basically every major religion values frugality and letting go of material desire in order to distill the truly important part of one's existence, be it [Christianity](christianity.md), [Islan](islam.md) or [Buddhism](buddhism.md). Therefore there also exists the generalized concept of **life minimalism** which applies said wisdom and philosophy to all areas of [life](life.md) and which numerous technological minimalists quite naturally start to follow along the way -- life minimalism is about letting go of objects, thoughts and desires that aren't necessarily needed because such things enslave us and mostly just make us more miserable; from time to time you should meditate a little bit about what it is that you really want and need and only keep that. Indeed this is nothing new under the Sun, this wisdom has been present for as long as humans have existed, most religions and philosophers saw a great value in [asceticism](asceticism.md), frugality and even poverty, as owning little leads to [freedom](freedom.md). For instance owning a [car](car.md) is kind of a slavery, you have to clean it, protect it, repair it, [maintain](maintenance.md) it, pay for parking space, pay for gas, pay for insurance -- this is not a small commitment and you sacrifice a significant part of your life and [head space](head_space.md) to it (especially considering additional commitments of similar magnitude towards your house, garden, clothes, electronics, furniture, pets, bank accounts, social networks and so forth), a minimalist will rather choose to get a simple [suckless](suckless.md) bicycle, travel by public transport or simply walk. Life minimalism is also much healthier both for the individual and for whole society. A man who learns to live with very little starts to find much more enjoyment in mundane things thereafter, a simple pleasure such as an extra meal once a week suddenly feels like it's Christmas, unlike to someone who overeats daily and can hardly take any extra pleasure in food at all. It is also proven (despite you disagreeing with it) that people living in scarcity are friendlier to each other, i.e. a community of people living with little are more [socialist](socialism.md), sharing, loving and caring, without crime and hostility, unlike communities of overstimulated fat depressed consumers addicted to endless increase of pleasure, demanding more and more from the day, eventually ending up only with [competition](competition.md) and hostility on their mind.
 
-Minimalism is a sign of high [IQ](iq.md) and better developed mind, it is something that requires an intellect strong enough to overcome the human instinct for hoarding to which the unintelligent is a slave -- an instinct that was important in times of scarce resources but one that's become harmful in times when certain resources are abundant and can be consumed without limits. It is like with overeating: the intelligent man is able to restrain from unhealthy overeating to which he is pushed by his instinct.
+Minimalism is a sign of high [IQ](iq.md) and better developed, [more cultivated](unretard.md) mind, it is something that requires an intellect strong enough to overcome the human instinct for hoarding to which the unintelligent is a slave -- an instinct that was important in times of scarce resources but one that's become a harmful curse in times when certain resources became so abundant that they can be consumed without end. It is like with overeating: the intelligent man is able to restrain from unhealthy overeating to which he is pushed by his instinct.
 
-**Minimalism is necessary for [freedom](freedom.md)** as free technology can only be that over which no one holds a [monopoly](bloat_monopoly.md), i.e. which many people and small parties can fully control and make use of, study and modify with affordable effort, without needing armies of technicians just for carrying out [maintenance](maintenance.md). Minimalism stands opposed to creeping overcomplexity of technology that always brings about huge costs and dangers, e.g. the cost of [maintenance](maintenance.md) and further development, costs of required expertise, creeping [obscurity](obscurity.md), inefficiency ("[bloat](bloat.md)", wasting resources) brought by the need for high [abstraction](abstraction.md), increased risk of bugs, errors and failures, [money](money.md) and business leading to [consumerism](consumerism.md) and so on.
+**Minimalism is a prerequisite for technological [freedom](freedom.md)** as free [technology](technology.md) can only be that over which no one holds a [monopoly](bloat_monopoly.md), i.e. which many people and small parties can fully control and make use of, study and modify with affordable effort, without needing armies of technicians just for carrying out [maintenance](maintenance.md). Minimalism stands opposed to creeping overcomplexity of technology that always brings about huge costs and dangers, e.g. the cost of [maintenance](maintenance.md) and further development, costs of required expertise, creeping [obscurity](obscurity.md), inefficiency ("[bloat](bloat.md)", wasting resources) brought by the need for high [abstraction](abstraction.md), increased risk of bugs, errors and failures, [money](money.md) and business leading to [consumerism](consumerism.md) and so on.
 
 { Apparently some people "disagree" with the above and say that "complexity is OK" in free software. I don't think it is possible to disagree on this, it is only possible to not see the issue because of lack of experience. Someone "disagreeing" here means one of two things: he only pretends to care about freedom while actually pursuing other interests (for example creating a "community" around some highly bloated project), OR he has fewer than one brain cell. ~drummyfish }
 
@@ -44,11 +44,11 @@ Up until recently in [history](history.md) every engineer would tell you that *t
 - for potential weaker links to minimalism also check out [retro](retro.md)/[old](old.md)/[boomer](boomer.md) tech, [salvage computing](salvage_computing.md), [degrowth](degrowth.md), [Amish](amish.md), [technophobia](technophobia.md), [demoscene](demoscene.md), [code golf](golf.md), [lightweight](lightweight.md) software, [fantasy consoles](fantasy_console.md) (sadly mostly pseudominimalism), communities around [plain text](plain_text.md), [pubnixes](pubnix.md), some GNU/Linux distros (e.g. [Arch](arch.md), [Gentoo](gentoo.md), KISS Linux, ...), [IRC](irc.md) communities and so on.
 - ...
 
-Under [capitalism](capitalism.md) technological minimalism is suppressed in the mainstream as it goes against [corporate](corporation.md) interests, i.e. those of having monopoly control over technology, even if such technology is "[FOSS](foss.md)" (which then becomes just a cool brand, see [openwashing](openwashing.md)). We may, at best, encounter a "shallow" kind of minimalism, so called [pseudominimalism](pseudominimalism.md) which only tries to make things appear minimal, e.g. aesthetically, and hides ugly overcomplicated internals under the facade. [Apple](apple.md) is infamous for this [shit](shit.md).
+Under [capitalism](capitalism.md) technological minimalism is suppressed in the [mainstream](mainstream.md) as it goes against [corporate](corporation.md) interests, i.e. those of having [monopoly](bloat_monopoly.md) control over technology, even if it was to be called "[FOSS](foss.md)" (which then becomes just a cool brand, see [openwashing](openwashing.md)). We may, at best, encounter a "shallow" kind of minimalism, so called [pseudominimalism](pseudominimalism.md), which only strives to make things appear minimal, e.g. aesthetically, and hides ugly overcomplicated internals under the facade. [Apple](apple.md) is infamous for this [shit](shit.md).
 
 **Does minimalism mean we have to give up the nice things?** Well, not really, it is more about giving up the [bullshit](bullshit.md), getting rid of addiction and changing an attitude. People addicted to [modern](modern.md) consumerist technology often worry that with minimalism they will lose their drug, typically [games](game.md) or something similar. Remember that with minimalism **we can still have technology for entertainment**, just a non-consumerist one -- instead of consuming a new game each month we may rather focus on creating deeper games that may last longer, e.g. those of a [easy to learn, hard to master](easy_to_learn_hard_to_master.md) kind and building communities around them, or on modifying existing games rather than creating new ones from scratch over and over. Sure, technology would LOOK different, our computer interfaces may become less of a thing of fashion, our games may rely more on aesthetics than realism, but ultimately minimalism can be seen just as trying to achieve the same effect while minimizing waste. If you've been made addicted to bullshit such as buying a new GPU each month so that you can run games at 1000 FPS at progressively higher resolution then of course yes, you will have to suffer a bit of a withdrawal just as a heroin addict suffers when quitting the drug, but just as him in the end you'll be glad you did it.
 
-Remember, you can't lose if you don't play.
+Remember, you can't lose if you don't play. Sometimes choosing to play certain games is a loss in itself.
 
 A possible **real life analogy** of the mainstream bloated software vs minimalist software is for example this: the bloated, mainstream computing environment (Windows, Mac, "Linux" distros, mainstream web browsers, virtual machines etc.) is like a skyscraper in a city whereas minimalist software is a small, self-sufficient caravan somewhere in the woods. The skyscraper offers luxury but for an enormous price: it's extremely expensive to just build, just its realization requires tons and tons of bullshit like getting permissions, reviewing environmental and economic impacts, paying architects, planning the building process, ensuring safety, keeping to all regulations, getting enough capital, finding companies to contract and so on -- erecting the building will be an enormously stressful and risky task for many dozens of companies which it will be extremely difficult to just coordinate and once the building stands, it will continue to be extremely expensive to just maintain in habitable state, the rent will be enormous as you're paying for maintenance of the whole building, cleaning the stairs, for energies, clean water pumped to high altitudes, security systems, high speed internet and so on, plus you as someone who even "owns" an apartment in the skyscraper will have practically no control over it besides arranging furniture in the room you "own" while also in the end, for getting this kind of "luxury" of maybe getting a nice view of the city, it will even be inferior in many ways: you'll live in constant noise of the city, in polluted air, bombarded by ads and neons from the streets, you'll have to take the lift to your apartment (good luck if electricity goes out), you can't make much noise to not bother the neighbors, you'll have to work your ass off to just pay the bills, you'll have to be constantly cleaning all the marble and glass, becoming slave to the apartment, while risking conflicts with neighbors and so on. Your "apartment" (or a computer program) isn't even really a thing you own, it's just basically a tiny bit of something trivial (four walls) on top of some gigantic platform (the skyscraper inside the big city, the enormous operating system inside a virtual sandbox running in a [cloud](cloud.md) etc.), expensive just by being at this "privileged" location -- in this case we may substitute the word *platform* for *prison*. On the other hand your off-the-grid caravan will be cheap to get and maintain, you'll have complete control over it, be able to make absolutely any modifications to it, you can repair most things yourself (unlike e.g. with a "smart" apartment), it won't bother you with bullshit, there are no loud or annoying neighbors, [ads](marketing.md), no lifts, no safety regulations (in case of fire it's even much safer than living in skyscraper), you won't even have to pay extra taxes you'd pay for a "real" building, you'll be living in a nice, quiet and relaxing environment, have cleaner air, be more self sufficient, making your own solar electricity (and generally not needing so much electricity), flexible, able to move anywhere at any time. All this for basically giving up having a bathtub made of marble. Anyone with half a brain must see the stupidity of choosing to live in the skyscraper.
 

operating_system.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Operating System
 
-Operating System (OS) is usually a quite complex [program](program.md) that's typically installed on a [computer](computer.md) before any other user program and serves as a platform for running other programs as well as handling [low level](low_level.md) functions, managing resources ([CPU](cpu.md) usage, [RAM](ram.md), [files](file.md), [network](network.md), ...) and offering services, protection and [interfaces](interface.md) for humans and programs. If computer was a city, an OS is its center that was built first and where its government resides. As with most things, the definition of an OS can differ and be stretched greatly -- while a typical OS will include features such as [graphical interface](gui.md) with windows and mouse cursor, [file system](file_system.md), [multitasking](multitasking.md), [networking](network.md), [audio](audio.md) system, safety mechanisms or user accounts, there exist OSes that work without any said feature. Though common on mainstream computers, operating system isn't necessary; it may be replaced by a much simpler program (something akin to a program loader, BIOS etc.) or even be absent altogether -- programs that run without operating system are called "[bare metal](bare_metal.md)" programs (these can be encountered on many simple computers such as [embedded](embedded.md) devices).
+Operating System (OS) is usually a quite [complex](bloat.md) [program](program.md) that's typically installed on a [computer](computer.md) before any other user program and serves as a platform for running other programs as well as handling [low level](low_level.md) functions, managing resources ([CPU](cpu.md) usage, [RAM](ram.md), [files](file.md), [network](network.md), ...) and offering services, protection and [interfaces](interface.md) for humans and programs. If computer was a city, an OS is its center that was built first and where its government resides. As with many terms, the definition of an OS can differ and be stretched greatly -- while a typical OS will include features such as [graphical interface](gui.md) with windows and mouse cursor, [file system](file_system.md), [multitasking](multitasking.md), [networking](network.md), [audio](audio.md) system, safety mechanisms or user accounts, there exist OSes that work without any said feature. Though common on mainstream computers, operating system isn't necessary; it may be replaced by a much simpler program (something akin to a program loader, BIOS etc.) or even be absent altogether -- programs that run without operating system are called "[bare metal](bare_metal.md)" programs (these can be encountered on many simple computers such as [embedded](embedded.md) devices).
 
 There is a nice [CC0](cc0.md) wiki for OS development at https://wiki.osdev.org/.
 
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Examples of operating systems are [Unix](unix.md) (one of the first and most inf
 
 From programmer's point of view a serious OS is one of the most difficult pieces of software one can pursue to develop. The task involves an enormous amount of [low-level](low_level.md) programming, development of own tools from scratch and requires deep and detailed knowledge of all components of a computer, of established standards as well as many theoretical subjects such as [compiler](compiler.md) design.
 
-**Which OS is the best?** Currently there seems to be almost no good operating system in existence, except perhaps for [Collapse OS](collapseod.md) and [Dusk OS](duskos.md) which may be the closest to [LRS](lrs.md) at the moment, but aren't widely used yet and don't have many programs running on them. Besides this there are quite a few relatively usable OSes, mostly [Unix](unix.md) like systems. For example [OpenBSD](openbsd.md) seems to be one of them, however it is [proprietary](proprietary.md) (yes, it contains some code without valid licenses, for example [this](https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/tigon/tigon-license?rev=1.5&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup), [this](https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/yds/yds-license?rev=1.3&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup) etc.) and too obsessed with MUH [SECURITY](security.md), and still a bit overcomplicated. [HyperbolaBSD](hyperbolabsd.md) at least tries to address the freedom issue of OpenBSD but suffers from many others. [Devuan](devuan.md) is pretty usable, [just werks](just_werks.md) and is alright in not being an absolute apeshit of consoomerist bloat. [FreeDOS](freedos.md) seemed nice too: though it's not Unix like, it is much more [KISS](kiss.md) than Unices, but it will probably only work on [x86](x86.md) systems. 
+**Which OS is the best?** Currently there seems to be almost no [good](good.md) operating system in existence, except perhaps for [Collapse OS](collapseod.md) and [Dusk OS](duskos.md) which may be the closest to [LRS](lrs.md) at the moment, but aren't widely used yet and don't have many programs running on them. Besides this there are quite a few relatively usable OSes, mostly [Unix](unix.md) like systems. For example [OpenBSD](openbsd.md) seems to be one of them, however it is [proprietary](proprietary.md) (yes, it contains some code without valid licenses, for example [this](https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/tigon/tigon-license?rev=1.5&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup), [this](https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/yds/yds-license?rev=1.3&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup) etc.) and too obsessed with MUH [SECURITY](security.md), and still a bit overcomplicated. [HyperbolaBSD](hyperbolabsd.md) at least tries to address the freedom issue of OpenBSD but suffers from many others. [Devuan](devuan.md) is pretty usable, [just werks](just_werks.md) and is alright in not being an absolute apeshit of [consoomerist](consumerism.md) bloat. [FreeDOS](freedos.md) seemed nice too: though it's not Unix like, it is much more [KISS](kiss.md) than Unices, but it will probably only work on [x86](x86.md) systems. 
 
 An OS, as a software, consists of two main parts:
 

paradigm.md

@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 # Paradigm
 
-By [programming language](programming_language.md)'s paradigm (from Greek *paradeigma*, "pattern", "example") we mean the very basic concepts used as a basis for performing computation in that language. Among the most popular paradigms we'll find for example the [imperative](imperative.md), [object oriented](oop.md) and [functional](functional.md), but there exist many others; we may view every paradigm as a set of basic ideas, principles and [mathematical](math.md) models (e.g. [models of computation](model_of_computation.md), [data types](data_type.md), forms of [expressions](expression.md) etc.) that form the foundation of how the whole language works; these foundations are subsequently also accompanied by a kind of "programming philosophy" (we'll oftentimes hear sentences such as "[everything is](everything_is.md) X" where *X* may be *number*, *object*, *array*, *list* etc.), a naturally emerging "mindset", a set of recommendations the programmer should follow when using the language. But let it be set straight that paradigm will NOT include other than purely technical, engineering aspects of computation, i.e. artistic or political ideas (such as "eco-friendlieness", "anti-fascism", ...) are indeed not part of programming paradigm. Nevertheless, although of technical nature, aspects of paradigms are subjective, for example the question of drawing borders between them -- just like [music](music.md) genres or human [races](race.md), paradigms are [fuzzy](fuzzy.md) concepts, they have different definitions in different books, come in different flavors and are often combined; sometimes it's unclear how to classify paradigms (if one strictly falls under another etc.) or even if something is or isn't a paradigm at all. In a wider sense the term *paradigm* may also be used outside of programming languages, for example a paradigm of a [physics engine](physics_engine.md) might be "everything's a sphere" etc.
+By [programming language](programming_language.md)'s paradigm (from Greek *paradeigma*, "pattern", "example") we mean the very essential concepts used as a basis for performing computation in that language. Among the most popular ones we'll find for example the [imperative](imperative.md), [object oriented](oop.md) and [functional](functional.md), but there's a sizable set of other paradigms in the world; a paradigm can be understood as a set of fundamental ideas, principles and [mathematical](math.md) models (e.g. [models of computation](model_of_computation.md), [data types](data_type.md), forms of [expressions](expression.md) etc.) upon which are built more complex constructs of the language -- paradigm forms foundations which are subsequently accompanied by a kind of "programming philosophy" (expressed for examples as "[everything is](everything_is.md) X" where *X* may be *[number](number.md)*, *[object](oop.md)*, *[array](array.md)*, *[list](list.md)* etc.), a naturally emerging "mindset", a set of recommendations the programmer should follow when using the language. But let it be set straight that paradigm will NOT include other than purely technical, engineering aspects of computation, i.e. artistic or political ideas (such as "eco-friendlieness", "anti-fascism", ...) are indeed not part of programming paradigm. Nevertheless, although of technical nature, aspects of paradigms are subjective, for example the question of drawing borders between them -- just like [music](music.md) genres or human [races](race.md), paradigms are [fuzzy](fuzzy.md) concepts, they have different definitions in different books, come in different flavors and are often combined; sometimes it's unclear how to classify paradigms (if one strictly falls under another etc.) or even if something is or isn't a paradigm at all. In a wider sense the term *paradigm* may also be used outside of programming languages, for example a paradigm of a [physics engine](physics_engine.md) might be "everything's a sphere" etc.
 
-For example the [functional](functional.md) paradigm is built on top of [lambda calculus](lambda_calculus.md) (one of many possible mathematical systems that can be used to perform general calculations) which performs calculations by combining pure mathematical [functions](function.md) -- this then shapes the language so that a programmer will mostly be writing mathematical functions in it, AND this also usually comes with the natural "philosophy" of subsequently viewing everything as a function, even such things as loops or [numbers](number.md) themselves. In contrast [object oriented](oop.md) (OOP) paradigm tries to solve problems by constructing a network of intercommunicating "objects" and so in OOP we tend to see most things as objects.
+For example the [functional](functional.md) paradigm is built on top of [lambda calculus](lambda_calculus.md) (one of many possible mathematical systems that can be used to perform general calculations) which performs calculations by combining pure mathematical [functions](function.md) -- this then shapes the language so that a programmer will mostly be writing mathematical functions in it, AND this also usually comes with the natural "philosophy" of consequently viewing everything as a function, even such things as loops or [numbers](number.md) themselves. In contrast [object oriented](oop.md) (OOP) paradigm aims to solve problems by constructing a network of intercommunicating "objects" and so in OOP we tend to perceive everything as objects.
 
-**Most common** practically used paradigm is the **[imperative](imperative.md)**, one based on the plain and simple concept of issuing "commands" to the [computer](computer.md) -- even though nowadays it almost always gets combined with some other [bullshit](bullshit.md) paradigm, most infamously [object orientation](oop.md). Prevalence of imperative paradigm is probably due to more than one factor, most important of which is most likely its simplicity (it's possibly the closest to human thinking, easiest to learn, predict etc.), efficiency thanks to being closest to how computers actually work (compilers have very small overhead in translation, they perform less "[magic](magic.md)"), [historically](history.md) established status (which is related to simplicity; imperative was the first natural approach to programming) etc. Even more abstract paradigms are ultimately built on top of imperative system, so imperative is just present everywhere.
+**Most common** practically used paradigm is the **[imperative](imperative.md)**, one based on the plain and simple concept of issuing "commands" to the [computer](computer.md) -- even though nowadays it almost always gets combined with some other [bullshit](bullshit.md) paradigm, most infamously [object orientation](oop.md). Prevalence of imperative paradigm is probably due to more than one factor, most important of which is most likely its [simplicity](kiss.md) (it's possibly the closest to human thinking, easiest to learn, predict etc.), efficiency thanks to being closest to how computers actually work (compilers have very small [overhead](overhead.md) in translation, less "[magic](magic.md)" is required), [historically](history.md) established status (which is related to simplicity; imperative was the first natural approach to programming), compatibility with [minimalism](minimalism.md) (AKA good design) etc. Even the more abstract paradigms are ultimately erected on top of an imperative system, so imperative computation is present in one way or another.
 
 **List of notable paradigms** follows (keep in mind the subjectivity and fuzziness that affect classification):
 

programming_language.md

@@ -112,42 +112,43 @@ Judging languages may further be complicated by the question of what the languag
 
 Here is a table of notable programming languages in chronological order (keep in mind a language usually has several versions/standards/implementations, this is just an overview).
 
-| language                | minimalist/good? | since | speed   | mem.     | ~min. selfhos. impl. LOC |DT LOC|spec. (~no stdlib pages)|           notes                                                         |
-| ----------------------- | ---------------- | ----- | ------- | -------- | ------------------------ | ---- | ---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
-|"[assembly](assembly.md)"| **yes but...**   | 1947? |         |          |                          |      |                        | NOT a single language, non-[portable](portability.md)                   |
-| [Fortran](fortran.md)   | **kind of**      | 1957  | 1.95 (G)| 7.15 (G) |                          |      | 300, proprietary (ISO) | similar to Pascal, compiled, fast, was used by scientists a lot         |
-| [Lisp](lisp.md)(s)      | **yes**          | 1958  | 3.29 (G)| 18 (G)   | 100 (judg. by jmc lisp)  | 35   | 40 (r3rs)              | elegant, KISS, functional, many variants (Common Lisp, Scheme, ...)     |
-| [Basic](basic.md)       | kind of?         | 1964  |         |          |                          |      |                        | mean both for beginners and professionals, probably efficient           |
-| [Forth](forth.md)       | **YES**          | 1970  |         |          | 100 (judg. by milliforth)| 77   | 200 (ANS Forth)        | [stack](stack.md)-based, elegant, very KISS, interpreted and compiled   |
-| [Pascal](pascal.md)     | **kind of**      | 1970  | 5.26 (G)| 2.11 (G) |                          | 59   | 80, proprietary (ISO)  | like "educational C", compiled, not so bad actually                     |
-| **[C](c.md)**           | **kind of**      | 1972  | 1.0     | 1.0      | 10K? (judg. by chibicc)  | 49   | 160, proprietary (ISO) | compiled, fastest, efficient, established, suckless, low-level, #1 lang.|
-| [Prolog](prolog.md)     | maybe?           | 1972  |         |          |                          |      |                        | [logic](logic.md) paradigm, hard to learn/use                           |
-|[Smalltalk](smalltalk.md)| **quite yes**    | 1972  | 47 (G)  | 41 (G)   |                          |      | 40, proprietary (ANSI) | PURE (bearable kind of) [OOP](oop.md) language, pretty minimal          |
-| [C++](cpp.md)           | no, bearable     | 1982  | 1.18 (G)| 1.27 (G) |                          | 51   | 500, proprietary       | bastard child of C, only adds [bloat](bloat.md) ([OOP](oop.md)), "games"|
-| [Ada](ada.md)           | ???              | 1983  |         |          |                          |      |                        | { No idea about this, sorry. ~drummyfish }                              |
-| Object Pascal           | no               | 1986  |         |          |                          |      |                        | Pascal with OOP (like what C++ is to C), i.e. only adds bloat           |
-| Objective-C             | probably not     | 1986  |         |          |                          |      |                        | kind of C with Smalltalk-style "pure" objects?                          |
-| [Oberon](oberon.md)     | kind of?         | 1987  |         |          |                          |      |                        | simplicity as goal, part of project Oberon                              |
-| [Perl](perl.md)         | rather not       | 1987  | 77 (G)  | 8.64 (G) |                          |      |                        | interpreted, focused on strings, has kinda cult following               |
-| [Bash](bash.md)         | well             | 1989  |         |          |                          |      |                        | Unix scripting shell, very ugly syntax, not so elegant but bearable     |
-| [Haskell](haskell.md)   | **kind of**      | 1990  | 5.02 (G)| 8.71 (G) |                          |      | 150, proprietary       | [functional](functional.md), compiled, acceptable                       |
-| [Python](python.md)     | NO               | 1991  | 45 (G)  | 7.74 (G) |                          | 32   | 200? (p. lang. ref.)   | interpreted, huge bloat, slow, lightweight OOP, artificial obsolescence |
-| POSIX [shell](shell.md) | well, "kind of"  | 1992  |         |          |                          |      | 50, proprietary (paid) | standardized (std 1003.2-1992) Unix shell, commonly e.g. [Bash](bash.md)|
-|[Brainfuck](brainfuck.md)| **yes**          | 1993  |         |          | 100 (judg. by dbfi)      |      | 1                      | extremely minimal (8 commands), hard to use, [esolang](esolang.md)      |
-| [FALSE](false.md)       | **yes**          | 1993  |         |          |                          |      | 1                      | very small yet powerful, Forth-like, similar to Brainfuck               |
-| [Lua](lua.md)           | **quite yes**    | 1993  | 91 (G)  | 5.17 (G) | 7K (LuaInLua)            |      | 40, free               | small, interpreted, mainly for scripting (used a lot in games)          |
-| [Java](java.md)         | NO               | 1995  | 2.75 (G)| 21.48 (G)|                          |      | 800, proprietary       | forced [OOP](oop.md), "platform independent" (bytecode), slow, bloat    |
-| [JavaScript](js.md)     | NO               | 1995  | 8.30 (G)| 105 (G)  | 50K (est. from QuickJS)  | 34   | 500, proprietary?      | interpreted, the [web](web.md) lang., bloated, classless [OOP](oop.md)  |
-| [PHP](php.md)           | no               | 1995  | 23 (G)  | 6.73 (G) |                          |      | 120 (by Google), CC0   | server-side web lang., OOP                                              |
-| [Ruby](ruby.md)         | no               | 1995  | 122 (G) | 8.57 (G) |                          |      |                        | similar to Python                                                       |
-| [C#](c_sharp.md)        | NO               | 2000  | 4.04 (G)| 26 (G)   |                          |      |                        | proprietary (yes it is), extremely bad lang. owned by Micro$oft, AVOID  |
-| [D](d.md)               | no               | 2001  |         |          |                          |      |                        | some expansion/rework of C++? OOP, generics etcetc.                     |
-| [Rust](rust.md)         | NO! lol          | 2006  | 1.64 (G)| 3.33 (G) |                          |      | 0 :D                   | extremely bad, slow, freedom issues, toxic community, no standard, AVOID|
-| [Go](go.md)             | **kind of** maybe| 2009  | 4.71 (G)| 5.20 (G) |                          |      | 130, proprietary?      | "successor to C" but not well executed, bearable but rather avoid       |
-| [LIL](lil.md)           | **yea**          | 2010? |         |          |                          |      |                        | not known too much but nice, "everything's a string"                    |
-| [uxntal](uxn.md)        | **yes** but SJW  | 2021  |         |          | 400 (official)           |      | 2? (est.), proprietary | assembly lang. for a minimalist virtual machine, PROPRIETARY SPEC.      |
-| [T3X/0](t3x.md)         | **yes**          | 2022  |         |          | 4K                       | 66   | 130, proprietary       | T3X family, minimalist, Pascal-like                                     |
-| [comun](comun.md)       | **yes**          | 2022  |         |          | 4K                       | 76   | 2, CC0                 | "official" [LRS](lrs.md) language, WIP, similar to Forth                |
+| language                            | minimalist/good? | since | speed   | mem.     | ~min. selfhos. impl. LOC |DT LOC|spec. (~no stdlib pages)|           notes                                                         |
+| ----------------------------------- | ---------------- | ----- | ------- | -------- | ------------------------ | ---- | ---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+|[Lambda calculus](lambda_calculus.md)| **yes**          | 1936  |         |          |                          |      | 1                      | mathematical functional language, not used for practical programming    |
+|"[assembly](assembly.md)"            | **yes but...**   | 1947? |         |          |                          |      |                        | NOT a single language, non-[portable](portability.md)                   |
+| [Fortran](fortran.md)               | **kind of**      | 1957  | 1.95 (G)| 7.15 (G) |                          |      | 300, proprietary (ISO) | similar to Pascal, compiled, fast, was used by scientists a lot         |
+| [Lisp](lisp.md)(s)                  | **yes**          | 1958  | 3.29 (G)| 18 (G)   | 100 (judg. by jmc lisp)  | 35   | 40 (r3rs)              | elegant, KISS, functional, many variants (Common Lisp, Scheme, ...)     |
+| [Basic](basic.md)                   | kind of?         | 1964  |         |          |                          |      |                        | mean both for beginners and professionals, probably efficient           |
+| [Forth](forth.md)                   | **YES**          | 1970  |         |          | 100 (judg. by milliforth)| 77   | 200 (ANS Forth)        | [stack](stack.md)-based, elegant, very KISS, interpreted and compiled   |
+| [Pascal](pascal.md)                 | **kind of**      | 1970  | 5.26 (G)| 2.11 (G) |                          | 59   | 80, proprietary (ISO)  | like "educational C", compiled, not so bad actually                     |
+| **[C](c.md)**                       | **kind of**      | 1972  | 1.0     | 1.0      | 10K? (judg. by chibicc)  | 49   | 160, proprietary (ISO) | compiled, fastest, efficient, established, suckless, low-level, #1 lang.|
+| [Prolog](prolog.md)                 | maybe?           | 1972  |         |          |                          |      |                        | [logic](logic.md) paradigm, hard to learn/use                           |
+|[Smalltalk](smalltalk.md)            | **quite yes**    | 1972  | 47 (G)  | 41 (G)   |                          |      | 40, proprietary (ANSI) | PURE (bearable kind of) [OOP](oop.md) language, pretty minimal          |
+| [C++](cpp.md)                       | no, bearable     | 1982  | 1.18 (G)| 1.27 (G) |                          | 51   | 500, proprietary       | bastard child of C, only adds [bloat](bloat.md) ([OOP](oop.md)), "games"|
+| [Ada](ada.md)                       | ???              | 1983  |         |          |                          |      |                        | { No idea about this, sorry. ~drummyfish }                              |
+| Object Pascal                       | no               | 1986  |         |          |                          |      |                        | Pascal with OOP (like what C++ is to C), i.e. only adds bloat           |
+| Objective-C                         | probably not     | 1986  |         |          |                          |      |                        | kind of C with Smalltalk-style "pure" objects?                          |
+| [Oberon](oberon.md)                 | kind of?         | 1987  |         |          |                          |      |                        | simplicity as goal, part of project Oberon                              |
+| [Perl](perl.md)                     | rather not       | 1987  | 77 (G)  | 8.64 (G) |                          |      |                        | interpreted, focused on strings, has kinda cult following               |
+| [Bash](bash.md)                     | well             | 1989  |         |          |                          |      |                        | Unix scripting shell, very ugly syntax, not so elegant but bearable     |
+| [Haskell](haskell.md)               | **kind of**      | 1990  | 5.02 (G)| 8.71 (G) |                          |      | 150, proprietary       | [functional](functional.md), compiled, acceptable                       |
+| [Python](python.md)                 | NO               | 1991  | 45 (G)  | 7.74 (G) |                          | 32   | 200? (p. lang. ref.)   | interpreted, huge bloat, slow, lightweight OOP, artificial obsolescence |
+| POSIX [shell](shell.md)             | well, "kind of"  | 1992  |         |          |                          |      | 50, proprietary (paid) | standardized (std 1003.2-1992) Unix shell, commonly e.g. [Bash](bash.md)|
+|[Brainfuck](brainfuck.md)            | **yes**          | 1993  |         |          | 100 (judg. by dbfi)      |      | 1                      | extremely minimal (8 commands), hard to use, [esolang](esolang.md)      |
+| [FALSE](false.md)                   | **yes**          | 1993  |         |          |                          |      | 1                      | very small yet powerful, Forth-like, similar to Brainfuck               |
+| [Lua](lua.md)                       | **quite yes**    | 1993  | 91 (G)  | 5.17 (G) | 7K (LuaInLua)            |      | 40, free               | small, interpreted, mainly for scripting (used a lot in games)          |
+| [Java](java.md)                     | NO               | 1995  | 2.75 (G)| 21.48 (G)|                          |      | 800, proprietary       | forced [OOP](oop.md), "platform independent" (bytecode), slow, bloat    |
+| [JavaScript](js.md)                 | NO               | 1995  | 8.30 (G)| 105 (G)  | 50K (est. from QuickJS)  | 34   | 500, proprietary?      | interpreted, the [web](web.md) lang., bloated, classless [OOP](oop.md)  |
+| [PHP](php.md)                       | no               | 1995  | 23 (G)  | 6.73 (G) |                          |      | 120 (by Google), CC0   | server-side web lang., OOP                                              |
+| [Ruby](ruby.md)                     | no               | 1995  | 122 (G) | 8.57 (G) |                          |      |                        | similar to Python                                                       |
+| [C#](c_sharp.md)                    | NO               | 2000  | 4.04 (G)| 26 (G)   |                          |      |                        | proprietary (yes it is), extremely bad lang. owned by Micro$oft, AVOID  |
+| [D](d.md)                           | no               | 2001  |         |          |                          |      |                        | some expansion/rework of C++? OOP, generics etcetc.                     |
+| [Rust](rust.md)                     | NO! lol          | 2006  | 1.64 (G)| 3.33 (G) |                          |      | 0 :D                   | extremely bad, slow, freedom issues, toxic community, no standard, AVOID|
+| [Go](go.md)                         | **kind of** maybe| 2009  | 4.71 (G)| 5.20 (G) |                          |      | 130, proprietary?      | "successor to C" but not well executed, bearable but rather avoid       |
+| [LIL](lil.md)                       | **yea**          | 2010? |         |          |                          |      |                        | not known too much but nice, "everything's a string"                    |
+| [uxntal](uxn.md)                    | **yes** but SJW  | 2021  |         |          | 400 (official)           |      | 2? (est.), proprietary | assembly lang. for a minimalist virtual machine, PROPRIETARY SPEC.      |
+| [T3X/0](t3x.md)                     | **yes**          | 2022  |         |          | 4K                       | 66   | 130, proprietary       | T3X family, minimalist, Pascal-like                                     |
+| [comun](comun.md)                   | **yes**          | 2022  |         |          | 4K                       | 76   | 2, CC0                 | "official" [LRS](lrs.md) language, WIP, similar to Forth                |
 
 NOTES on the table above:
 

soydev.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Sodevs are incompetent wanna-be programmers that usually have these characterist
 - Being [pseudoleftist](left_right.md) (fascist) political activists pushing [tranny software](tranny_software.md) and [COCs](coc.md) while actually being mainstream centrists in the tech world (advocating "[open-source](open_source.md)" instead of [free_software](free_software.md), being okay with [proprietary](proprietary.md) software, [bloat](bloat.md) etc.).
 - Trying to be "cool", having friends and even spouses and kids, wearing T-shirts with "[coding](coding.md) [jokes](jokes.md)", having [tattoos](tattoo.md), piercing and colored hair (also trimmed bear in case of males), having that ugly [snowflake](snowflake.md) (i.e. bizarre) kind of look to catch attention, [signaling virtues](virtue_signaling.md) on social networks.
 - Only being hired in tech for a no-brainer job such as "coding websites" or because of diversity quotas.
-- Being actually bad at programming, using meme high-level languages like [JavaScript](javascript.md), [Python](python.md) or [Rust](rust.md). { I shit you not, I learned from a friend who lives in India that "universities" there produce "security experts" who don't even have to know any programming and math. They just learn some sysadmin stuff and installing antiviruses, without having any clue about how encryption works etc. These people get regular degrees. Really makes me wanna kys myself. ~drummyfish }
+- Being actually bad at programming, scoring high on the retardation spectrum and using meme high-level languages like [JavaScript](javascript.md), [Python](python.md) or [Rust](rust.md). { I shit you not, I learned from a friend who lives in India that "universities" there produce "security experts" who don't even have to know any programming and math. They just learn some sysadmin stuff and installing antiviruses, without having any clue about how encryption works etc. These people get regular degrees. Really makes me wanna kys myself. ~drummyfish }
 - Using a [Mac](mac.md).
 - Thinking they're experts in technology because they are familiar with the existence of [Linux](linux.md) (usually some mainstream distro such as [Ubuntu](ubuntu.md)) and can type `cd` and `ls` in the terminal.
 - Having only shallow awareness of tech culture, telling big-bang-theory HTML jokes (*sudo make sandwich*, [42](42.md) hahahahahahaha).

sw.md

@@ -2,10 +2,12 @@
 
 Software (SW) are [programs](program.md) running on a [computer](computer.md), i.e. its non-physical parts (as opposed to [hardware](hw.md)); for example an [operating system](os.md), the Internet [browser](browser.md), [games](game.md) etc. Software is created by the act of [programming](programming.md) (and related activities such as [software engineering](sw_engineering.md) etc.).
 
-Usually we can pretty clearly say what is software vs what is hardware, however there are also edge cases where it's debatable. Normally software is that about the computer which *can relatively easily be changed* (i.e. reinstalled by a typing a few commands or clicking a few buttons) while hardware is [hard-wired](hard_wired.md), difficult to modify and not expected or designed to be modified. Nevertheless e.g. some [firmware](firmware.md) is kind of software in form of instructions which is however many times installed in some special kind of memory that's difficult to reprogram and not expected to be reprogrammed often -- some software may be "burned in" into a circuit so that it could only be changed by physically rewiring the circuit (the [ME](intel_me.md) spyware in [Intel](intel.md) [CPU](cpu.md)s has a built-in [minix](minix.md) operating system). And this is where it may on occasion become difficult to judge where the line is to be drawn. This issue is encountered e.g. by the [FSF](fsf.md) which certifies some hardware that works with free software as *Respects Your Freedom* ([RYF](ryf.md)), and they have very specific definition what to them classifies software.
+Usually we can pretty clearly say what is software vs what is hardware, however there are also edge cases where it's debatable. Normally software is that about the computer which *can relatively easily be changed* (i.e. reinstalled by a typing a few commands or clicking a few buttons) while hardware is [hard-wired](hard_wired.md), difficult to modify and not expected or designed to be modified. Nonetheless [firmware](firmware.md), for instance, is a kind of software in form of instructions which many times are stored in a special kind of memory that's difficult to be reprogrammed and not expected to be reprogrammed often -- some software may be "burned in" into a circuit so that it could only be changed by physically rewiring the circuit (the [ME](intel_me.md) spyware in [Intel](intel.md) [CPU](cpu.md)s has a built-in [minix](minix.md) operating system). See also [FPGA](fpga.md). There are cases where it may on occasion become difficult to drawn the line and distinguish hardware from software -- the issue was encountered for example by the [FSF](fsf.md) which certifies some hardware powered solely by free software as *Respects Your Freedom* ([RYF](ryf.md)): as part of the certification requirements they define what exactly they mean by "software".
 
 ## See Also
 
 - [algorithm](algorithm.md)
+- [free software](free_software.md)
 - [shitware](shitware.md)
-- [rapeware](rapeware.md)
+- [rapeware](rapeware.md)
+- [hardware](hw.md)

unicode.md

@@ -18,11 +18,11 @@ In Unicode every character is unique like a unicorn. It has all the diverse char
 
 **More detail**: Unicode codepoints go from U+0000 to U+10FFFF (1114111 in decimal), i.e. there is a place for over a million characters (only 1112064 are actually valid characters, a few are used for other purposes). These codes are subdivided into **17 planes** by 2^16 (65536) characters, i.e. U+0000 to U+FFFF are plane 0, U+10000 to U+1FFFF are plane 1 etc. Planes are further subdivided to blocks that group together related characters. There are even so called "private areas" (perverts BTFO), for example U+E000 to U+F8FF, which are left for third party use (for example you may use them to add custom emoji in your game's chat). As mentioned, the first 128 codepoints are equivalent to [ASCII](ascii.md); furthermore the first 256 codepoints are equivalent to ISO 8859-1. This is for high backwards compatibility.
 
-The Unicode [project](project.md) is indeed highly ambitious, it's extremely difficult to do what they aim to do because, naturally, many hard to answer questions come up, such as what even IS a character (Do we include every possible emoji? Icons and pictograms used on road signs? Their upside down versions? Fictional alien language characters from sci-fi movies? ...), which characters to distinguish (Are same looking characters in different scripts the same character or a different one? Are the same characters in Chinese and Japanese different if they have different meaning in each language? ...), how to organize and assign the codes (How much space to allocate? What meaning will the code have? ...), how to deal with things such as accents, AND there are many crazy writing systems all over the world (Some write right to left, some top to bottom, some may utilize color, some compose characters by combining together multiple other characters etcetc.). And, of course, writing systems evolve and change constantly, new ones are being discovered by archaeologists, new ones are invented by the [Internet](internet.md) and so on and so [forth](forth.md). And what if we make a mistake? Do we correct it and break old documents or leave it in for backwards compatibility?
+Unlike chad ASCII, the Unicode [project](project.md) reaches biblical proportions and is indeed highly ambitious, it's exceptionally difficult and challenging to do what they aim to do because, naturally, many hard to answer questions come up, such as what even IS a character (Do we include every possible emoji? Icons and pictograms used on road signs? Their upside down versions? Fictional alien language characters from sci-fi movies? ...), which characters to distinguish (Are same looking characters in different scripts the same character or a different one? Are the same characters in Chinese and Japanese different if they have different meaning in each language? ...), how to organize and assign the codes (How much space to allocate? What meaning will the code have? ...), how to deal with things such as accents, AND there are many crazy writing systems all over the world (Some write right to left, some top to bottom, some may utilize color, some compose characters by combining together multiple other characters etcetc.). And, of course, writing systems evolve and change constantly, new ones are being discovered by archaeologists, new ones are invented by the [Internet](internet.md) and so on and so [forth](forth.md). And what if we make a mistake? Do we correct it and break old documents or leave it in for backwards compatibility?
 
 It's also crucial for Unicode to very clearly state its goals and philosophies so that all the issues and questions that come up may be answered and decided in accordance with them. For example part of the Unicode philosophy is to treat the symbols as abstract entities defined by their usage and meaning rather than their exact graphical representation (this is left to specific typesetting/rendering systems, [fonts](font.md) etc.).
 
-**Is Unicode [crap](shit.md) and [bloat](bloat.md)?** Yes, it inevitably has to be, there's a lot of obscurity and crap in Unicode and many systems infamously can't handle malicious (or even legit) Unicode text and will possibly even crash (see e.g. the infamous *black dot of death*). A lot of that mess previously caused by different encodings now just poured over to Unicode itself: for example there are sometimes multiple versions of the exact same character (e.g. those with accents -- one versions is a composed plain character plus accent character, the other one a single "precomposed" character) and so it's possible to encode exactly the same string in several ways and a non-trivial Unicode [normalization](normalization.md) is required to fix this. Unicode can be raped and abused in spectacular ways, for example using homoglyphs (characters that graphically look like other characters but are in fact different) one may create text that won't be detected by simple exact-comparison algorithms (for example you may be able to register a username that graphically looks like someone else's already registered username). There are also ways to combine characters in queer ways, e.g. make very tall text by creating chains of exponents or something (see the rabbithole around so called *composing characters*), which can just similarly nuke many naive programs. With Unicode things that were previously simple (such as counting string length or computing the size of rectangle into which a text will fit) now become hard (and slow) to do. Still it has to be said that **Unicode is designed relatively well** (of course minus the fascist political bias in its choice of characters) for what it's trying to do, it's just that the goal is ultimately an untameable beast, a bittersweet topic and a double edged sword -- for [LRS](lrs.md) it's important especially that we don't have to care much about it, we can just still keep using [ASCII](ascii.md) and we're good, i.e. we aren't forced to use the bloated part of Unicode and if we get Unicode text, we can quite easily filter out non-ASCII characters. Full Unicode compliance is always bloat and shouldn't be practiced, but it's possible to partially comply with only minimum added complexity. On one hand it [just werks](just_werks.md) -- back in the [90s](90s.md) we still had to trial/error different encodings to correctly display non-English texts, nowadays everything just displays correctly, but comfort comes with a price tag. Unicode has, to some degree, fucked up many texts because soyboys and bloat fans now try to use the "correct" characters for everything, so they will for example use the correct "multiplication sign" instead of just *x* or * which won't display well in ASCII readers, but again, this can at least be automatically corrected. Terminal emulators now include ugly Unicode bullcrap and have to drag along huge fonts and a constantly updating Unicode library. Unicode is also controversial because [SJWs](sjw.md) push it too hard, claiming that ASCII is [racist](racism.md) to people who can only write in retarded languages like [Chinese](chinese.md) -- we say it's better for the Chinese to learn [English](english.md) than to fuck computers up. Other controversies revolve around emojis and other political symbols, SJWs push crap like images of pregnant men and want to [censor](censorship.md) "offensive" symbols. Unicode also allowed noobs to make what they call "[ASCII_art](ascii_art.md)" without having any actual skill at it.
+**Is Unicode [crap](shit.md) and [bloat](bloat.md)?** Yes, it inevitably has to be, there's a lot of obscurity and crap in Unicode and many systems infamously can't handle malicious (or even legit) Unicode text and will possibly even crash (see e.g. the infamous *black dot of death*). A lot of that mess previously caused by different encodings now just poured over to Unicode itself: for example there are sometimes multiple versions of the exact same character (e.g. those with accents -- one versions is a composed plain character plus accent character, the other one a single "precomposed" character) and so it's possible to encode exactly the same string in several ways and a non-trivial Unicode [normalization](normalization.md) is required to fix this. Unicode can be raped and abused in spectacular ways, for example using homoglyphs (characters that graphically look like other characters but are in fact different) one may create text that won't be detected by simple exact-comparison algorithms (for example you may be able to register a username that graphically looks like someone else's already registered username). There are also ways to combine characters in queer ways, e.g. make very tall text by creating chains of exponents or something (see the rabbithole around so called *composing characters*), which can just similarly nuke many naive programs. With Unicode things that were previously simple (such as counting string length or computing the size of rectangle into which a text will fit) now become hard (and slow) to do. Still it has to be said that **Unicode is designed relatively well** (of course minus the fascist political bias in its choice of characters) for what it's trying to do, it's just that the goal is ultimately an untameable beast, a bittersweet topic and a double edged sword -- for [LRS](lrs.md) it's important especially that we don't have to care much about it, we can just still keep using [ASCII](ascii.md) and we're good, i.e. we aren't forced to use the bloated part of Unicode and if we get Unicode text, we can quite easily filter out non-ASCII characters. Full Unicode compliance is always bloat and shouldn't be practiced, but it's possible to partially comply with only minimum added complexity. On one hand it [just werks](just_werks.md) -- back in the [90s](90s.md) we still had to trial/error different encodings to correctly display non-English texts, nowadays everything just displays correctly, but comfort comes with a price tag. Unicode has, to some degree, fucked up many texts because [soyboys](soydev.md) and bloat fans now tryhard to use the "correct" characters for everything, so they will for example use the correct "multiplication sign" instead of just *x* or * which won't display well in ASCII readers, but again, this can at least be automatically corrected. Terminal emulators now include ugly Unicode bullcrap and have to drag along huge fonts and a constantly updating Unicode library. Unicode is also controversial because [SJWs](sjw.md) push it too hard, claiming that ASCII is [racist](racism.md) to people who can only write in retarded languages like [Chinese](chinese.md) -- we say it's better for the Chinese to learn [English](english.md) than to fuck computers up. Other controversies revolve around emojis and other political symbols, SJWs push crap like images of pregnant men and want to [censor](censorship.md) "offensive" symbols. Unicode also allowed noobs to make what they call "[ASCII_art](ascii_art.md)" without having any actual skill at it.
 
 Here are some **examples** of Unicode characters:
 

wiki_stats.md

@@ -3,9 +3,9 @@
 This is an autogenerated article holding stats about this wiki.
 
 - number of articles: 629
-- number of commits: 987
-- total size of all texts in bytes: 5192169
-- total number of lines of article texts: 37792
+- number of commits: 988
+- total size of all texts in bytes: 5199344
+- total number of lines of article texts: 37808
 - number of script lines: 324
 - occurrences of the word "person": 10
 - occurrences of the word "nigger": 114
@@ -29,66 +29,81 @@ longest articles:
 - [internet](internet.md): 44K
 - [bloat](bloat.md): 40K
 - [iq](iq.md): 40K
-- [copyright](copyright.md): 40K
 - [human_language](human_language.md): 40K
+- [copyright](copyright.md): 40K
 - [cheating](cheating.md): 36K
 
 top 50 5+ letter words:
 
-- which (2850)
-- there (2249)
-- people (2193)
+- which (2849)
+- there (2251)
+- people (2189)
 - example (1812)
-- other (1620)
-- about (1449)
+- other (1624)
+- about (1453)
 - number (1342)
-- software (1293)
-- because (1195)
-- their (1108)
-- would (1084)
-- something (1081)
-- program (1061)
+- software (1294)
+- because (1198)
+- their (1109)
+- would (1086)
+- something (1084)
+- program (1062)
 - being (1053)
-- things (966)
-- language (963)
-- called (947)
-- without (872)
+- language (967)
+- things (964)
+- called (948)
+- without (876)
 - simple (869)
 - function (866)
-- computer (850)
+- computer (849)
 - numbers (835)
-- different (806)
+- different (807)
+- however (793)
 - these (792)
-- however (792)
-- programming (776)
-- world (767)
+- programming (777)
+- world (768)
 - system (750)
 - should (732)
-- doesn (724)
+- doesn (728)
 - still (721)
 - games (696)
-- while (685)
-- drummyfish (685)
+- while (686)
+- drummyfish (686)
 - society (677)
-- point (675)
-- possible (664)
+- point (674)
+- possible (665)
 - simply (658)
-- probably (654)
+- probably (657)
 - using (648)
 - always (647)
-- similar (620)
-- course (614)
-- someone (599)
-- actually (597)
+- similar (621)
+- course (613)
+- someone (600)
+- actually (600)
 - https (591)
 - though (588)
-- really (584)
+- really (585)
 - basically (578)
 - first (570)
 
 latest changes:
 
 ```
+Date:   Sun Mar 16 21:57:16 2025 +0100
+  anorexia.md
+  bill_gates.md
+  chess.md
+  gnu.md
+  history.md
+  human_language.md
+  internet.md
+  minimalism.md
+  npc.md
+  random_page.md
+  reactionary_software.md
+  soyence.md
+  wiki_pages.md
+  wiki_stats.md
 Date:   Sat Mar 15 23:42:07 2025 +0100
   3d_rendering.md
   abstraction.md
@@ -113,21 +128,6 @@ Date:   Sat Mar 15 23:42:07 2025 +0100
   kiss.md
   left_right.md
   less_retarded_society.md
-  lotr.md
-  lrs.md
-  main.md
-  often_confused.md
-  oop.md
-  political_correctness.md
-  random_page.md
-  rationalization.md
-  rationalwiki.md
-  usa.md
-  wiki_pages.md
-  wiki_stats.md
-  woman.md
-  youtube.md
-Date:   Wed Mar 12 21:04:56 2025 +0100
 ```
 
 most wanted pages:
@@ -155,19 +155,19 @@ most wanted pages:
 
 most popular and lonely pages:
 
-- [lrs](lrs.md) (338) 
+- [lrs](lrs.md) (339) 
 - [capitalism](capitalism.md) (310) 
 - [c](c.md) (239) 
-- [bloat](bloat.md) (234) 
-- [free_software](free_software.md) (199) 
+- [bloat](bloat.md) (235) 
+- [free_software](free_software.md) (200) 
 - [game](game.md) (153) 
-- [suckless](suckless.md) (149) 
+- [suckless](suckless.md) (150) 
 - [proprietary](proprietary.md) (134) 
 - [modern](modern.md) (124) 
 - [minimalism](minimalism.md) (121) 
-- [censorship](censorship.md) (118) 
-- [computer](computer.md) (117) 
-- [kiss](kiss.md) (113) 
+- [censorship](censorship.md) (119) 
+- [computer](computer.md) (118) 
+- [kiss](kiss.md) (114) 
 - [programming](programming.md) (111) 
 - [fun](fun.md) (107) 
 - [math](math.md) (106) 
@@ -177,12 +177,12 @@ most popular and lonely pages:
 - [woman](woman.md) (100) 
 - [fight_culture](fight_culture.md) (97) 
 - [corporation](corporation.md) (97) 
-- [bullshit](bullshit.md) (96) 
+- [bullshit](bullshit.md) (97) 
 - [art](art.md) (94) 
 - [hacking](hacking.md) (93) 
 - [less_retarded_society](less_retarded_society.md) (92) 
 - [free_culture](free_culture.md) (91) 
-- [history](history.md) (89) 
+- [history](history.md) (90) 
 - [chess](chess.md) (87) 
 - [public_domain](public_domain.md) (86) 
 - ...

woman.md

@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ A woman in emergency situations even presents a **deadly danger**: not only do w
 
 Of course, [LRS](lrs.md) loves all living beings equally, even women. In order to truly love someone we have to be aware of their true nature so that we can truly love them, despite all imperfections.
 
-**Is there even anything women are better at than men?** Well, some say they're for example better at [multitasking](multitasking.md), i.e. doing multiple things at once, though it gets questioned a lot, but it would possibly make some sense evolutionary speaking, men had to usually focus sharply on one thing while women had to keep an eye on kids, maintaining fire, cooking, cleaning, talking with other women and watching out for danger -- all at once. Women could also find their "strength" exactly in the fact that they're DIFFERENT from men, they seem for example more peaceful or at least less violent on average (although feminism of course views this as a "weakness" and already diminished this moral advantage women used to possess), however they seem to be e.g. more passive-aggressive and love to plot behind the scenes. A man may fall victim to his overly competitive nature or "pride", being less competitive will sometimes be an advantage -- a truly smart woman will know this and won't try to mimic men, she will try to be good at being woman. There have been a few successful queens in history, women can sometimes perhaps be good in representative roles (and other simple chair-sitting jobs), in being a "symbol", which doesn't require much of any skill (a statue of a god can do the same job really). They have also evolved to perform the tasks of housekeeping and care taking at which they may excel, but still it seems that if men fully focus on a specific task, they will beat women at anything, for example the best cooks in the world are men (in Japan it is common knowledge that sushi made by women is not as good because their hands are too warm). Sometimes women may be preferable exactly for not being as "rough" as men, e.g. as singers, therapists, sex workers etc. There were also some good English female writers actually, like Agatha Christie and J. K. Rowling, though that's still pretty weak compared to Hemingway, Goethe, Tolkien, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoevsky etcetc.
+**Is there even anything women are better at than men?** Well, some claim they're for example better at [multitasking](multitasking.md), i.e. doing multiple things at once, though it gets questioned a lot, but it would possibly make some sense evolutionary speaking, men had to usually focus sharply on one thing while women had to keep an eye on kids, maintaining fire, cooking, cleaning, talking with other women and watching out for danger -- all at once. Women could also find their "strength" exactly in the fact that they're DIFFERENT from men, they seem for example more peaceful or at least less violent on average (although feminism of course views this as a "weakness" and already diminished this moral advantage women used to possess), however they seem to be e.g. more passive-aggressive and love to plot behind the scenes. A man may fall victim to his overly competitive nature or "pride", being less competitive will sometimes be an advantage -- a truly smart woman will know this and won't try to mimic men, she will try to be good at being woman. There have been a few successful queens in history, women can sometimes perhaps be good in representative roles (and other simple chair-sitting jobs), in being a "symbol", which doesn't require much of any skill (a statue of a god can do the same job really). They have also evolved to perform the tasks of housekeeping and care taking at which they may excel, but still it seems that if men fully focus on a specific task, they will beat women at anything, for example the best cooks in the world are men (in Japan it is common knowledge that sushi made by women is not as good because their hands are too warm). Practically speaking no matter what discipline, a woman can never get as skilled as man at it, although on occasion a man can get as bad as a woman. Women can make good assistants to men, e.g. nurses to doctors. Sometimes women may be preferable exactly for not being as "rough" as men, e.g. as singers, therapists, sex workers etc. There were also some good English female writers actually, like Agatha Christie and J. K. Rowling, though that's still pretty weak compared to Hemingway, Goethe, Tolkien, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Dickens, Dostoevsky etcetc.
 
 **Can women be allowed in [technology](tech.md)?** Well yes, sure, we don't forbid anyone from doing anything. Can a [dog](dog.md) become a writer? Maybe -- it'll be awesome when he does, but we shouldn't encourage dogs to become writers or see lack of dog writers as a problem. In any case **we need fewer women doing important intellectual tasks**, forcing women to do tasks vital for functioning of society has led to those tasks being done poorly and society is getting destroyed, it's not [fun](fun.md) anymore, the world is literally [collapsing](collapse.md) because women were forced to do important tasks for [political reasons](feminism.md), it is now time to prioritize saving society before [political correctness](political_correctness.md). Just admit women are dumb, stop forcing women everywhere and the numbers will get back to healthy levels. In general something like 1 woman for 1000 men doing intellectual task such as [programming](programming.md), writing or [science](science.md) is about the ratio we are probably looking for.
 
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ And we'll close with an extra pro tip, the **one ultimate, simple, fast and 100%
 
 ## 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.
+Here is a comparison of men and women in [numbers](number.md) that are still possible to be found in already highly censored sources. Of course, the numbers aren't necessarily absolutely [up to date](update_culture.md), at the time or reading they may be slightly outdated, also keep in mind that in the [future](future.md) 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 measured performance of men and "women" as what in the future will be considered a "woman" may be just a man pretending to be one.
 
 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.
 
@@ -101,13 +101,13 @@ Don't!
 
 Any girl that has ever seen the [Internet](internet.md) is spoiled beyond grave, avoid these for any cost. If you seriously want to live with a woman, it's best to consider diving into the jungle and find some half ape indigenous girl not touched by capitalism yet, those may be unironically cool.
 
-If you really really want a woman, you have to accept one basic fact and behave in accordance with it: **women are incapable of romantic love**. This is a fact very hard to accept by young men, but it really is so -- if you don't believe it (and you 100% don't), you will discover it yourself. This is not to say that a woman feels nothing in a relationship, but as a man you just have to realize a woman does NOT feel the same romantic feelings you feel towards her EVEN IF she looks like she does -- she WILL mimic the feelings because YOU, the man, need this for the relationship, she will behave so that to you it seems like she is feeling great romantic love, and she probably is feeling something -- most likely even believing it's the real love -- but it is NOT the same thing you are feeling. The truth is woman is calculating (not always consciously), she doesn't love YOU but rather what you PROVIDE for her, i.e. usually [money](money.md), security, protection, genes for her offspring, possibly social status etc. Again, this is not to say a woman is a monster incapable of love -- she can for example feel a much stronger (absolutely [selfless](selflessness.md)) love than a man for her children, but NOT for the partner. It's all evolution: a man's role is to spread his seed as much as possible (that's why he may be cheating) and protect women (that's why he loves her so much), whereas a woman is supposed to take care of children (that's why she before anything looks for the best partner that will ensure the best for her children). Women learn to externally behave in ways that are compatible with you, i.e. she will reward you with affection for what you provide her, but please realize that INTERNALLY she works absolutely differently than you, men and women are different creatures. Even if a man cheats on his woman, he will often love her so much he would die for her, but the woman will never do the same, in fact she will leave you at the first opportunity that allows her to safely get a better partner, no matter how many roses and love letters you bring her. It is similar to cat and dog love: a cat will cuddle with you and behave cute, but it NEVER feels the same kind of love a [dog](dog.md) feels towards you: the cat behaves like it does because it gets something out of you; it will leave you if it finds a better place to live and it will never miss you. In emergency a dog will defend you to his death, a cat will run away and leave you to your fate. Once again this is not to say a cat is necessarily a bitch and an evil animal, you only have to take its personality for what it is and behave accordingly, you can never treat cat like you would treat a dog.
+If you really so desire the warmth a female body, you have to accept one basic fact and behave in accordance with it: **women are incapable of romantic love**. This comes as a staggering fact to many and a painful one to accept by young men, but it really is so -- if you don't believe it (and you 100% don't), you are about to discover it through unpleasant experience. This is not to say that a woman feels nothing in a relationship, but as a man you just have to realize a woman does NOT feel the same romantic feelings that's present in your heart EVEN IF she looks like she does -- she WILL mimic the feelings because YOU, the man, require this for the relationship, she will behave so that to you it seems like she is feeling great romantic love, and she probably is feeling something -- most likely even believing it's the real love -- but it is NOT the same thing you are feeling. The truth is woman is calculating (not always consciously), she doesn't love YOU but rather what you PROVIDE for her, i.e. usually [money](money.md), security, protection, genes for her offspring, possibly social status etc. Again, this is not to say a woman is a monster incapable of love -- she can for example feel a much stronger (absolutely [selfless](selflessness.md)) love than a man for her children, but NOT for the partner. It's all evolution: a man's role is to spread his seed as much as possible (that's why he may be cheating) and protect women (that's why he loves her so much), whereas a woman is supposed to take care of children (that's why she before anything looks for the best partner that will ensure the best for her children). Women learn to externally behave in ways that are compatible with you, i.e. she will reward you with affection for what you provide her, but please realize that INTERNALLY she works absolutely differently than you, men and women are different creatures. Even if a man cheats on his woman, he will often love her so much he would die for her, but the woman will never do the same, in fact she will leave you at the first opportunity that allows her to safely get a better partner, no matter how many roses and love letters you bring her. It is similar to cat and dog love: a cat will cuddle with you and behave cute, but it NEVER feels the same kind of love a [dog](dog.md) feels towards you: the cat behaves like it does because it gets something out of you; it will leave you if it finds a better place to live and it will never miss you. In emergency a dog will defend you to his death, a cat will run away and leave you to your fate. Once again this is not to say a cat is necessarily a bitch and an evil animal, you only have to take its personality for what it is and behave accordingly, you can never treat cat like you would treat a dog.
 
 Jerking off is the easiest solution to satisfying needs connected to fucking women. If you absolutely HAVE to get laid, save up for a prostitute, that's the easiest way and most importantly won't ruin your life. Or decide to become [gay](gay.md), that may make matters much easier. You may also potentially try to hit on some REAL ugly girl that's literally desperate for sex, but remember it has to be the ugliest, fattest landwhale that you've ever seen, it's not enough to just find a 3/10, that's still a league too high for you that will reject you unless you pay her. Also consider that if you don't pay for sex, there is a 50% chance you will randomly get sued for rape sometime during the following 30 year period. If you want a girlfriend, then rather don't. The sad truth is that to make a woman actually "love" you, as much as one is capable of doing so, you HAVE TO be an enormously evil ass that will beat her to near death, abuse her, rape her and regularly cheat on her -- that's how it is and that's what every man has to learn the hard way -- as we know, the older generation's experience cannot be communicated by words, the young generation always thinks it is somehow different and will never listen. Sadly this is simply how it is -- even if you think you have found the "special one", the one that's different, the intelligent introverted one that's nice and friendly to you, nope, she is still a woman, she won't love you unless you're a murderer dickass beating her daily (NOTE: we don't advocate any violence, our advice here is to simply avoid women). If you think getting close to her, being nice and listening to her will make her love you, you're going to hit a brick wall very hard -- this road only ever leads to a friendzone 100% of the times, you will end up carrying her purse while she's shopping without her letting you touch her ever. If you just want a nonsexual girl friend, then it's fine, but you will never make a girlfriend this way. This is not the girl's fault, she is programmed like that, blaming the girl here would be like blaming a child for overeating on candy or blaming a cat for torturing birds for fun; and remember, THE GIRL SUFFERS TOO, she is literally attracted only to those who will abuse her, it is her curse. If anyone's to blame for your suffering, it is you for being so extremely naive -- always remember you are playing with fire. You may still get a girl to stay with you or even marry you and have kids if you have something that will make her want to be with you despite not loving you, which may include being enormously rich, being so braindead to have million subscribers on YouTube, having an enormous 1 meter long dick or literally giving up all dignity and succumbing to being her lifelong slave dog doing literally everything she says when she says it, but that will still get you at most 4/10 and is probably not worth it. { From my experience this also goes for trans girls somehow, so tough luck. Maybe it's so even for gay men in the woman role. ~drummyfish } All in all rather avoid all of this and pay for a prostitute, buy some sex toys, watch porn and stay happy <3
 
 ## Notable Women In History
 
-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.md) (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 general if there is some famous woman in science, technology or a similar field, she is not famous for extraordinary achievements but rather for the fact that she is a woman in that field -- like the horse who could count was also not famous for being able to count but for being able to count while being a horse -- again, this just confirms women are much less capable than men and seeing a woman with abilities comparable to those of men is something special.
+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.md) (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 general if there is some famous woman in science, technology or a similar field, she is not famous for extraordinary achievements but rather for the fact that she is a woman in that field -- like the horse who could count was also not famous for being able to count but for being able to count while being a horse -- again, this just confirms women are much less capable than men and seeing a woman with abilities comparable to those of men is something special. Every such woman furthermore stands eclipsed by ten thousand men for whom her achievements would be only mediocre.
 
 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. Some rare specimen of women openly oppose feminism -- **these are the truly based women**.