Manners, Politeness, Chivalry And Grace Are Despicable

First of all, what are they about? They're all about weakness. How to be weak, when you have to deal with people you hate, loathe, despise, scorn and feel utter contempt for, and can't do anything about. When you hate people but can't kill them, can't slap them, can't cut up their faces, and can't even walk away but must grin and bear it.

Now, civility I respect. Civility allows you to stare at someone frostily and stonily, to tell them clearly (if they aren't mindless) that you loathe their guts and would glady kill them, but you won't because you can't. Same for professionalism which allows you to glare at someone hatefully but still do your job (and keep your job) serving them (unfortunately).

But manners? Manners are the arbitrary rules your momma taught you. Why do you follow them? Because your momma said so. Manners are the rules you follow because you LIKE being weak. Because you're mentally stuck in your childhood, infancy and adolescence. Because you're a neurotic basketcase. Manners are arbitrary, petty and don't make sense, so are despicable.

Now, manners are petty and stupid and completely arbitrary. and politeness is about sucking up and sycophancy just in case whoever you're dealing with is bigger and meaner than you and might take offense and squash you like a bug. But grace? That's about being physically weak.

Instead of making strong deliberate movements, you make weak movements that absolutely optimize and minimize effort as if you were diseased. Yeah, that sends a wonderful image! It's incomprehensible to me that this is popular! Gracefulness is egregiously despicable. And the horrifying thing is that it is NOT in fact MOST despicable.

What is most despicable? Chivalry and gentlemanliness! But first, what are they, for those few people who are mercifully ignorant of them?

Stereotypically, a gentleman would lay his coat on the muddy street so a lady wouldn't step on the mud. rather than walking around it or carrying her. WTF? And also he would walk on the side nearest the road so that if anyone died it would be him because men are expendable, always. And this is with ANY woman, even the vilest bitchiest queen of bitches. Because women are "ladies".

Chivalry is not merely cherishing archaicisms like fedora-tipping and miladying everywhere you go. Arbitrary contemptible ossified crap from bygone ages. Chivalry is about being DESTROYED. It's about being WEAK and deciding to be destroyed. Your coat gets destroyed, your life gets destroyed too since you duel for petty "honor". The question which chivalry answers is when and where should your life be destroyed.

Savoir-vivre is about living well. Chivalry and gentlemanliness are about "dying well". The only difference is the chivalrous man runs towards danger while the gentleman runs away from it. And that's why it's worse than manners and worse than politeness. Fucktarded neckbeards can keep their chivalry because anyone with a brain can tell it's cringeworthy.

Yes, chivalry dovetails into martyrdom and castration and self-sacrifice, all of which are utterly vile and loathsome, and really should be capital crimes. No error here, martyrs should be prevented from martyring themselves then killed for attempting it. But chivalry has a particular loathsome stench to it made all the more repugnant by people being blind to it.

How Yoga, Homeopathy and Alchemy Make Sense

The personality type that goes for homeopathy, naturopathy, yoga, zen and alchemy is not merely "magical thinkers" and is not merely people utterly incapable of logic or any semblance of a concern for truth. It's far, far more specific than that.

The underpinnings of the Gaian personality type are all about trade and interaction and continuity. If you put two things together then they MUST interact and they MUST have a lasting imprint on each other (mutual contamination) due to continuity. And two things brought together are always together, which is of course one of the laws of magic.

Hell, alchemy is trading off the properties of X for the properties of Y. Want green steel? Mix in copper because it's green, or mix in leaves because they're green, or mix in green dye ... water + metal = mercury! Alchemy is magical dissociation and reassociation, nothing more. Elixir of life is made from liquid gold because gold doesn't corrode but lasts.

By ingesting liquid gold, you ingest the property of not corroding and lasting, rendering you immortal! The same way that if you ingest fat then you become fat, if you ingest meat then you become a muscleman and if you ingest sugar you become a chocolate covered waffle. You eat natural things because you want to be natural, thus ingesting the naturalness.

Now, homeopathy works by taking a poison that mimics the disease you have then diluting OUT the poison until it's non-existent. then by magical association (ie, mutual contamination) it follows that what you have left is an ANTI-poison, and this perfectly shaped anti-poison will cure you of whatever you had to begin with. Simple and oh so comprehensible.

What is yoga? It's breathing exercises for long life. Why? Because living things breathe so by practicing breathing you're making yourself better able to able to breathe which means you're able to live longer. If you could practice heartbeats, yoga would be about that. Instead, it's about "not wasting" heartbeats by lowering your heart rate. It's all about trade.

Incidentally, Gaians are also sensualists and also pro-poverty. This combines in the bizareness of "no-food dinners" where insane nutters prepare dinner then waft the smells around so they can comment on its deliciousness, then NOT eat it but continue starving. Low-calorie, don't you know?

Personally, the only pathy I believe in is telepathy. Also cyberpathy in Elf Sternberg's sense of someone who has an intuitive magical understanding of technology. I also believe in magic, but this is not enough. And I also believe in one golden glance of what should be. It's a kind of magic.

Magic? Magic!

No Interfaces Worthy Of The Name

Between self-sufficient concepts such as cars or Class Car on the one hand and large scale models on the other hand, there are interfaces. Not interactions or relationships but interfaces. The problem is that the software industry is extremely impoverished in those and as a result, dealing with it is excruciating torture to me. Because interfaces are what I'm best at and what I love. MVC is a good example of interfaces which are debilitatingly painful to me due to being hopelessly broken and low-level.

Think about it and think about how many concepts there are for large scale structure. Some patterns, architectures, frameworks, libraries, that's 4 categories already. Then how many concepts there are for small scale self-sufficient structure, probably hundreds of the latter. And then how many concepts there are for interfaces that one would be willing to use (so command and instruction and function don't count).

Events? But events are broken and not first class, so they aren't real. Object-capabilities? Disgustingly low level and broken. Object, maybe but that counts as small-scale structure really, or non-interface even. So there's message passing, inheritance, polymorphism? that one doesn't count. delegation. cloning vs instantiating, subclassing. Oh yes, aspects vs crosscutting, those are nice. Agents? Not really. Actors? Hmm maybe, maybe not. Probably not. Meh, probably yes but the problem is I just don't give a damn since it's about distribution and concurrency.

So there's no first class events, there's no first class dependencies, aspects aren't in any language I know. Transformational programming seemed in its infancy when I first heard about it, and I've never heard anyone ever ever mention it since then. Namespaces suck rocks so they're broken. Naked Objects? Oh yeah there's some guy who implemented it as a library or framework in Java, that's good for him honestly but doesn't count. Especially with the implementation being so kitsch and primitive rather than thorough and comprehensive. I mean, where's the IDE using naked objects? Nowhere.

There's remote message sends and proxy object, doesNotUnderstand: NullObject, those are another 4 interface concepts. So that makes what? 10? An even dozen? Twenty? It doesn't matter how many there are because here's the sick thing, they're enumerable. and they're not categories of things either, they're discrete instances of interfaces.

The software world forms an uncanny valley type field to me. There's large scale structure and then there's small scale structure and there's no bridges between them.

I don't think I'm the only one who loathes debugging or reverse-engineering with a passion. But I do think I'm the only one who understands why. The tools are worthless because the concepts to even minimally support asking "where did this bug come from?" and "how do I use this?" don't exist in software.

Conversation On Secure Multiplexing

I drew some insights into the execution stack from TUNES. More of them than the whole exokernel thing.

Main and only insight from exokernel was that secure multiplexing is independent of abstraction. You can have ONLY secure multiplexing enabling you to present something that looks exactly like the bare resource you're multiplexing. That insight fueled Xen and other hyper-virtualization things.

The only problem with it is it's a lie. Secure multiplexing is an abstraction by itself. You run into the limitations of the abstraction if you push it, exposing the underlayer's existence, at which point the abstraction starts to fray and reveal its nature. For example, that there ARE other OSes running on top of the hypervisor because there's "missing time". and then it becomes obvious that hiding each other and not permitting any way to cooperate or interact is a choice of abstraction.

Joe B: fuck, I comprehend nothing

Okay, say you've got a CPU. now the traditional way to multiplex (slice and share it) is with a scheduler. Problem is that OS schedulers look nothing like CPUs, they're higher level. What people managing a cloud want ideally is to present CPUs, bare and naked, and tell everyone to fuck off because hey there's your CPU, your problem.

Now they don't want those CPUs to be REAL CPUs because that's not scalable. But they also don't want them to interact, so one asshole customer can't bring the whole business crawling to its knees. They want no-stick teflon quarantine isolation from each other. better than quarantine, they want everyone stuck in their own reality with no way to guess that they're stuck in a virtual reality.

multiplexing = slicing and sharing
secure multiplexing = teflon nostick compartmentalized quarantined isolated slicing and sharing

If you're a bank, you give out gold. but you want to give out virtual gold tokens that function just like actual gold. and you want to give out as much as people will buy without collapsing your business. You don't want to give out REAL gold because most of it's just going to sit in people's homes unused rather than being consumed in jewelry and electronics. And if people are only going to trade them then they only need to be pseudo-real enough for the purposes of trading. The virtual gold tokens need to look and feel real when they're being tested by a buyer, and at no other time, which is money.

Any questions? Or is this too primitive?

Joe B: no, this is perfect

Well, the exokernel folk tried to pull the same stunt as gold => money but with CPU+memory or in general 'comp hardware'. the only problem is that nobody pretends that money ACTUALLY IS gold. nobody tries to melt money down to make jewelry. nobody tries to electroplate anything with it.  so what these guys were doing is ... debasing.

They were debasing CPU+memory+hardware and saying "it's just as good as the real thing!!" and the problem with that is inevitably they'd run into someone trying to treat it EXACTLY like the real thing (ie, someone who bought into the propaganda) and then they try to use the debased gold to electroplate something ... and feel gypped because it doesn't work.

So with exokernel, if you have a really high load on the CPU, many operating systems, you come to have missing time. and the whole mockery of it being teflon and no-stick comes crashing down. Now it's not a problem if admins in the cloud-providers keep a watch on resource utilization and add more physical computers in time ... but those admins can't pretend to themselves that it's JUST AS GOOD AS real physical computers.

And if you're going to have something that's intrinsically different from physical computers, then why not do away with some of the problems of it? So the exokernel folk's attitude that their project was somehow purer and better than everything else is just a lie.

What does the Unix scheduler provide as an execution abstraction? It provides processes. C processes to be specific. GemStone provides Smalltalk processes or smalltalk images even. The C processes *ARE* images, they're just dumb as fuck images ...

So what is the exokernel lesson? The REAL lesson? At any time, at any point in the stack of abstractions, you can insert a circular loop from a node (layer) to itself, presenting a facsimile of that layer higher up. And if you understand that then the whole exokernel project is revealed as limited in scope because it was providing ONE such circular loop among the one to two dozen layers of abstraction found in a typical operating system.

Joe B: what is this layer, and how does it loop on itself? is it the physical computer, which loops by resources being added to it?

It's any layer. you can take ANY layer and make it loop in on itself. the loop forms a layer.

Say you've got a harddisk. it presents blocks. So you can partition it and now you have four hard disks which also present blocks. And if you're smart you can make those partitions flexible.

Say you've got a monitor with 1 framebuffer. well, you can partition the monitor and present multiple framebuffers. and those are now called windows. Or you can have multiple monitors present as one framebuffer.

You generally need some OTHER resource mixed in with the first one in order to fake the first resource.

gold + paper = paper money

If you could completely supplant the underlying resource, you would do away with it and it would be called a change of technology.

TCP allows how many different sockets? That all run over a single physical copper wire. The phone company uses multiplexing to provide virtual circuits instead of real circuits.

Richard: you got what I said about OSI, right? about how SOCKS is just a circular loop of a layer?
Joe B: oh yes. I got the words, not the concept. I'd have to learn the OSI model first.
Richard: SOCKS provides a sideband and extension to the layer below but it really does nothing else. Much like barebones secure multiplexing provides a sideband, although the exokernel tried to pretend the sideband didn't exist.

application layer (protocols used by applications, supposedly close to humans)
V
transport layer (virtual circuits)
V
data layer (packets)
V
link layer (0s and 1s to the next computer)
V
physical layer (physical connectors, physical cables, electrical voltages, radio frequencies)

Joe B: okay, that makes sense

In the fibersphere model, there are no packets and the virtual circuits are pretty close to real circuits so they're fused in with the link layer. Too bad we have no fibersphere because it might have been resistant to wiretapping. since you'd need to own a substantial fraction of the world's computing resources to wiretap everybody. Not even to interpret or do analysis, JUST to wiretap.

So, the OSI's model provided two additional layers to the above, and both of them were sidebands off of the application layer and the transport layer. SOCKS takes virtual circuits and provides ... virtual circuits. + some proxying and crypto. The so-called presentation layer took in application stuff and provided ... different application stuff. MIME took text and provided images, both of them being application layer.

The fact these two layers were BESIDE the application and transport layers really confused the dumbasses that made OSI, which means moralists since this was a standard, they thought since SOCKS takes in virtual circuits we'll just ignore that it provides virtual circuits, we'll focus on the other stuff it provides and call it a higher layer. And as for the presentation layer, since there's nothing closer to humans than applications, by definition, then by stupidity it follows presentation must be below applications and let's ignore the facts to the contrary.

Joe B: yeah, I stalled at trying to distinguish application from presentation

An email is an application object. the application layer provides for emails. Well, MIME took emails and provided images and that's exactly how gmail attachments work. They just hide the MIME, as they should have in the past but didn't.

Basically, those two layers are extensions of an existing layer rather than separate layers in themselves. Extensions which aren't accepted enough to be considered part of the same layer. Or weren't at the time that OSI was made. Hence the service and presentation layers belong on the same level as transport and application ... just besides them.

Joe B: so… a loop layer is one that can take in the same entities that it can provide?

It's basically a type of extension of the layer. It's aware of the other layer and the other layer isn't aware of it.

Joe B: hmmm

Joe B: is this design, or is this analysis? well it's both. it's awesome, lol.

It's the kind of high level analysis that fuels systems design, and NOT normal design. It's part of the majestic overlayer that has been until now entirely missing. This is lesson 4?

• definitions / thinking
• manipulating datasets
• injecting values

Spacetime, Energy, Bits

Most of these I ran across in just that form ... I just accumulated insights I ran across (being able to recognize them as insights, something most people are utterly incapable of) until at some point I went beyond what anyone had thought of.

1. spacetime exists, energy exists, both are mysterious
2. we see space because it actually exists and our brains decompose it that way
3. information / entropy exists, information / entropy is NOT spacetime OR energy
4. information / entropy is JUST AS fundamental as spacetime and energy, despite physicists' lack of any grasp of this
5. energy CARRIES information / entropy
6. the universe is MATH, the only thing that distinguishes pure math from physics is "physicality" which is probably this mysterious arbitrary substance energy cause there sure as fuck are bits and dimensions in math
7. math + time = computation
8. the holographic principle says that any N-dimensional non-local theory is equivalent to an N+1 dimensional local theory
9. time is just the dimension along which information / entropy is conserved
10. information vs entropy are higher order related to values / loops and at lower order there is simply bits

Local means that bits can only interact with nearby bits. Non-local means that ANY bit can interact instantly with EVERY other bit in the whole universe.

So time is just local space + weird interaction with information. Local space is just a way we have of organizing information as "nearby" other information by moving up one dimension above what actually exists (so if 1D your brain moves up to 2D, if 3D your brain moves up to 4D). And non-local space seems very weird but also exceedingly abstract, however it's also exceedingly simple: it's the bulk effects of information. And of course Information is just bits
your mind likes. And energy is just ... your perception of math from the inside of math, the quality of existing in THIS branch of math - in logic it's the predicate "exists".

It's all incredibly simple if you understand each of those individual concepts, these are just their interrelations. What's missing is the meanings of life, mind (derived: intelligence, soul), entropy, chaos, order, energy, representation and how these interrelate. But to clearly explain those you need to understand values and loops, and those I haven't cracked yet.

There Are Two Kinds of People

Those who say there are two kinds of people and those who don't. The former are all sociopaths.

Then there's the people who say "we all". It doesn't matter whether it's "we're all in this together", or "we're all the same" or "we're all different". Retards, every single last one of them.

And then there's people who say "there are 197 different kinds of people as of last count" or "there are 21 different kinds of people in the Personality Description Language".

And those are the people who say it not because it's in some book or some fellow retard told them so, but because it's the truth. Which means, they're the people you will never trust.

Everyone is much more interested in what the sociopaths have to say.

Physics: Think Like A Narcissist

In Elder Scrolls: Skyrim, the software developers put in a Time God who controls the world's timeline. In the previous games of the Elder Scrolls series, various events happen in different ways since the gamers control the outcome.

But aha! None of that ever matters because the software developer decided to merge all those divergent timelines back together. So in-game, there is a god, the Time God, who took all the divergent timelines of previous in-game historical events and brought them back together.

The software developer is the god that decided how things really happened inside the game and made it so the actions of players never really mattered. And this is now official history and an official Theory of Time inside the game. And this is how I'm sure narcissists view the world because it's got that insane personalistic feel to it.

And because narcissists worship gods, and the time god in that game series is the king of the gods (a Narcissist slot) and because Time Gods is what the Tibetan Buddhists worship, and the Tibetan Buddhists are fucking sociopaths. So the evidence is pretty conclusive.

As well, Presentism is sociopathic. Only the Present matters, neither the past nor the future even exist. And others' perspectives on time or reality don't matter. As well, this worldview stinks of "how the cosmos was created" which is a Narcissist worldview and obsession. And is opposed to "what is the cosmos".

But Elder Scrolls isn't what I wanted to talk about. I wanted to talk about Copenhagen. In Copenhagen, physicists (empiricists every single one of them) make experiments and then they see the result of these experiments with their own eyes. And because they see the results with their own eyes, that makes them real.

Narcissists trust only what they can see with their own eyes because nobody else is real. Except of course other narcissists who can't be trusted, and psychopaths (goes double), and Nazis (same deal). The world doesn't just exist due to the evidence of their own eyes, it can only exist thanks to themselves. Thanks to their miraculous power of perceiving the world.

So then these good toadying Narcissists who've made all these experiments ask themselves how the cosmos was made. And it's fucking obvious! The cosmos was made through the miraculous power of perceiving the cosmos. Physicists create reality by observing "wavefunction collapse" so by the same token God creates the cosmos by observing the cosmos!!

It's so fucking obvious! God is just. like. them. He's just another narcissist ... exactly like everyone else. And the whole universe and the whole entire cosmos works on the principles that narcissists understand the world by!! Again, so fucking obvious. The evidence is literally as clear as your own eyes! Everyone who cares (only) about what they can see with their own personal eyes can see it's the only option!!

Niels Bohr, the great "father" of Copenhagen, was a sociopath. He isn't the first and won't be the last sociopath doing physics. And isn't it awesome how inclusive physics is that sociopaths can freely work in it and get acclaim and renown and even dictate what is and isn't physics for a whole fucking century?!

Is it any surprise then that Creationism (Big Bang) was heralded as "enlightenment"? Too bad that the truth about the universe (eternal chaotic inflation) doesn't fit so neatly the preconceptions of any idiotic retarded personality type. It literally fits the preconceptions of one of the smartest (and rarest) personality types.

Porn Exploits Women

Let's be specific here. Porn doesn't exploit any particular women. It doesn't exploit the particular women who make porn and get paid ludicrous amounts of money for it. No, porn exploits women in general, as feminists so rightly point out.

What porn does is it makes it so men are able to jerk off without resorting to dating women at all. This has lots of consequences, such as the fact that rape is disappearing because a rapist can read some rape porn rather than go to the trouble (and danger) of actually raping anyone. It also has the consequence of reducing the market value of women on the dating market.

But it especially has the consequence that ugly fat man-hating dykes can no longer get men. And losing out on any kind of advantage whatsoever (social, monetary, on and on) is being "exploited" as far as narcissists are concerned. Therefore porn models exploit women, as feminists so rightly point out, feminists being overwhelmingly narcissists and narcissist-lovers.

Porn means that men win, women who are into porn win, women who would have been raped win (except for the narcissists since they love victimhood), and porn models win. It also means women in general slightly lose and narcissist women lose big. Obviously this deserves a big hue and cry.

Words Most People Are Too Retarded To Understand

Contrary to crowd-worshipers' misconceptions, language isn't an arbitrary convention whose structure and meaning is arbitrarily determined by the crowd. The fact that most people misuse a word in a certain way doesn't mean the misuse is the correct form of the word. In fact, there are types of such misuses that never change the meaning of a word. The opposite is true of course.

So for instance, it used to be that gender meant grammatical gender of words. Then some freaks and academic retards decided to change its meaning as a linguistic weapon for their political agenda. That's how gender came to officially mean social role as opposed to sex which they limited to anatomy. Of course, their attempt failed because nowadays most people use gender to refer to both social role AND anatomy and sex means copulation or at least fornication.

The reason why the freaks' and retards' little political ploy failed isn't because their target audience are too stupid to grasp that anatomy and social role are different things. No, they fully grasp it.
The problem is that their audience *doesn't care* that anatomy and social role are different things because they think social role SHOULD be determined by anatomy. The freaks' question of "well, what if your insides don't match your outsides?" is about as valid to them as
asking for the color of invisible unicorns.

Now, in this case, the political ploy was invented by crowd-following retards (even the freaks care about following the crowd, they just studiously stay in its margins) and their target audience was other crowd-following retards. It's just that one group of crowd-following retards lost and the winning side decided to throw a sop to them to tell them "it's alright to be a freak". So now gender has replaced sex, social role matters more than anatomy, and it's still not okay for your insides (preferred social role) to mismatch your outsides (anatomy).

In this case, language DID shift but nothing really changed. Nothing changed because people still want the same things they've always wanted. And language did shift because ... the only users of those words, the ones who care most about them, are precisely the ones who collectively decided what they mean. Now let's look at some examples flowing in the other direction. The direction where no matter what some crowd-following retards say or think or strenuously believe and advocate, nothing about language changes one little bit.

Now, if a psychopath tells you "There is no Good or Evil, only Power and those too weak to seek it" like a cliché fucking Lord Voldemort (or Felipe in the comments of this blog), then that doesn't mean those words don't exist in the English language, nor does it eradicate their meaning. What it means is he's a fucking psychopath and too stupid to grasp them. And since following the crowd is a form of retardation, if a crowd-follower tells you "there is no meaning to words except what the crowd decides" again it doesn't mean words' meanings are changed at the crowds' whims, it just means the crowd-follower is a retard.

Some practical examples!

Justice is variously misinterpreted by retarded people as Vengeance (by Batman),, Revenge (by sociopaths), the Law As Written (by psychopaths), the Law As Intended (by conservatives) and it goes on.

What Justice actually MEANS is 'anti-value collapse'. Of course, various retards always think it means anti-collapse of THEIR values. And all of them are too stupid to think in the abstract and to realize that Justice has an abstract meaning.

Does the fact that retards misinterpret justice change what it means? No. What it means is that they're retards. And in this case retards do not get to determine what Justice means because Justice is a
non-retarded word invented by non-retards for their own purposes, so NOTHING the retards say about it can ever matter. Not even if retards came to compose the entire population of the Earth. Still in that case, the meaning of Justice would not change, it would merely have died in usage.

Good is another word people misinterpret. To centrists it means
'service'. To conservatives it means altruism. To sociopaths, it
simply doesn't exist and is utterly incomprehensible (because they
have evil as a value). What good ACTUALLY means is "consistent with
values". But no one said it had to be retarded values! The servants
can engage in all the do-gooderism they want, they're not actually
doing good. And more topically, they don't get to determine what good
means!

Morality is another word people misinterpret. To centrists it means
'bare minimum'. This is why centrists obsess over people being
"decent" human beings. Decent means "barely adequate". To
conservatives it means 'collective well-being'. What it ACTUALLY means is "minimum consistent with non-Evil values".

And finally we have empathy, yet another word people misinterpret. To
pop-psych retards it means attunement or identification or 'empathize with the Neutral need to identify'. To psychologists it means "not-attunement, but unsure what it means". To sociopaths it means "reading body language". What it actually means is ... something that will be hopelessly misinterpreted by retards.

Incidentally, it bugs me that anyone can be so retarded as to believe psychopaths are "masters of empathy and social navigation", a view they derive from such "facts" as Silence of the Lambs (hint: it's a fucking movie). And the fact that American corporations (which are psychopathic thus easy for psychopaths to understand) are tough for normal people to navigate. Or the fact that thousands of American CEOs are psychopaths, yeah let's forget that millions of psychopaths are in jail. Let's also forget that once they're at the top of a corporation, they only last there for a year before they manage to accidentally incinerate it down to the ground.

Psychopaths are so fucking stupid, they honestly believe if they're given a million dollars and they manage to NOT waste it within a year, then they deserve to be praised. And they will SULK if the praise isn't high enough. And there better be a reward for it too. These are the "masters of empathy and social navigation"?! Like FUCK. And anyone who worships psychopaths is stupider than they are. Yes Felipe, I'm looking at you. And no, your comments are still unwelcome and will still be deleted.

What Is An OO Language?

People who understand Smalltalk make disparaging comments about how Java is Smalltalk minus minus. Something that is literally and historically true as Java was explicitly and deliberately invented as a crippled broken-down version of Smalltalk. A version of Smalltalk made more entropic to appeal to retards who were using still more entropic languages. Because when you want pigs to play with a diamond, why not coat it in mud so it resembles what they're used to? Hard to argue with that logic.

Now as I was saying, people who understand Smalltalk make disparaging comments about Java. And they understand that Java is not at all OO. Contrary to what the cretins say, it isn't true that Smalltalk is "the purest OO language". Smalltalk is not pure, it is highly impure. Smalltalk is crap and is the crappiest of OO languages. Smalltalk is the absolute bare minimum of what an OO language is. And since Java is inferior to the bare minimum, then logically it isn't OO at all. BUT, that doesn't actually explain what an OO language is and why Smalltalk is one and Java is not.

This rabid lethal epidemic of ignorance is what enables cretins such as this guy to compare Java and Smalltalk and Self without ever realizing that "one of these does not belong" much like a monkey does not belong with a man and a woman. So let us dispel the ignorance and talk about what actually makes up OO. Which is of course not classes as the majority of (entirely retarded) people claim. Rather it is objects. And by objects we mean independent dynamic contexts.

Now, the fact classes aren't objects in Java is bad, The fact there exist non-object primitive types in Java is bad too, but the fact that as far as scoping is concerned, objects simply do not exist in Java and are totally irrelevant? That's a deal-killer. No objects in Java <=> Java not object-oriented. And now let's turn to one of the most intrinsic and yet blatantly externally obvious properties OF objects so that everyone can behold the knowledge that Java has no objects and bask in Enlightenment. The Enlightenment that even LISP manages to be OO and Java will never be.

Fermions vs Bosons

Objects in reality are made up of FERMIONS. Fractional spin particles which obey the Fermi exclusion principle. Bosons are integral spin particles which do not obey the Fermi exclusion principle and therefore stack on top of each other and FORM NO STRUCTURES. Fermions <=> exclude each other <=> form structures <=> form objects. Bosons <=> stack on top of each other <=> form no structures <=> do not form objects. Bosons are light and radio waves and fermions are planets and stars and idiots who lionize Java.

Now, in Smalltalk and in Self and in LISP, there exist dynamic contexts which EXCLUDE EACH OTHER. They DO NOT STACK. And in Java those same "dynamic contexts" STACK ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. In Java, an instance of a class can freely play with any variables of any other instance of the class. Why? Because instances do not matter, because they aren't real, because they don't exclude each other, because they stack in the same volume. In physical reality, you can stack an infinity of bosons in the same volume until the whole volume collapses down into a black hole. In Java, you can stack an infinity of instances of a class into the exact same namespace until Java runs out of memory and collapses into itself.

There are no objects in Java because there is no matter in Java because there are no fermions. This is why everyone who's ever so much as played with Smalltalk or Self or LISP has grasped intuitively the feeling that objects in those languages are more "concrete" and more "real". Because they are LITERALLY more physical than the insubstantial ungraspable bosonic crap pseudo-matter which is all you can find in Java. In OO languages, objects have SUBSTANCE, whereas in Java they do not. In OO languages, objects take up VOLUME, whereas in Java they do not. In OO languages, objects PERSIST, whereas in Java they do not. And since classes aren't real in Java, it follows the fact that Java classes DO exclude each other can't matter at all.

In Smalltalk, everything is REAL. Everything is made of REAL objects and REAL matter. Objects have volume, and they jostle each other if you try to make one object reach into the innards of another object. It is indeed possible to make them do that but only by doing surgery rather than like a holographic projection passing through you. You can FEEL the resistance against doing this. and classes are even MORE real, because all classes are objects too. You can OFTEN ask classes "you class, give me your name and ID" and "you class, are you class ThisNameIsMine?" and the browser constantly asks classes for their parents and children. and you CAN ask ClassName allInstances of a class. And that's the least of what you can do.

So, Smalltalk, LISP and Self ==> OO + real + objects + matter. Java, C++ ==> dead crap + fake + insubstantial + ectoplasm. Also, OO <=> Good, and Java <=>; Bad. The reason Java and C++ prevailed and OO lost is because most people are retarded brain-dameged idiots incapable of grasping OO. Just like they're incapable of grasping Goodness is the reason why we have capitalism and coal and disease and poverty and wars and death. Bad to the retards is "Good Enough". This is the Worse Is Better crowd.

Eat Human

Fat people are ugly and unhealthy and eating fat makes you fat therefore fat is unhealthy and harmful. By the same token, eating cow makes you stupid and placid like a cow. Eating pig is not as harmful because pigs are smarter. But the best food of all is human beings. The more humans you eat, the more human you are.

I recommend against eating gaians and greens and hipster's brains since they'll surely make you stupid. I highly recommend eating them though. Or just killing them if you can't stomach cannibalism. Not that cannibalism could apply to eating them though since they are not human beings.

To whit, gaians and green and hipsters all honestly genuinely believe that humans are absolutely identical to animals in their brains and important mental abilities. And if it's okay to kill and butcher animals because they are clearly subhuman then the same must be true for gaians and greens and hipsters: they are subhuman.

Seeing Is Believing

"seeing is believing" is an aphorism that certainly sounds innocuous. It's popularly believed among engineers, especially those fro Anglo countries and in the computer industry. But what does it really mean? When you analyze it, it's pretty fucking vile. it means everyone else's words and experiences can and should be dismissed entirely. They should be disbelieved. Why? Because they aren't you.

Seeing is believing is solipsistic bullshit which says only the narcissist exists and only the narcissist is important. It doesn't matter if a million other people saw something, THEY aren't YOU and only YOU matter. Seeing is believing just sounds innocuous because it universalizes solipsistic narcissism by claiming that EVERYONE is and should be a narcissist. That narcissism is the standard of normal behavior. Something that makes it even more vile and corrosive.

So no, seeing is not believing to anyone who deserves to live.

Dramatic Tension: Theory 101

Dramatic tension ... such an odd and oddly specific turn of phrase. It's not dramatic STRESS, it is very specifically TENSION. Dramatic TENSION is critical, not dramatic STRESS.

And why would that be significant? Because stress is tension OR compression OR shear, but dramatic tension makes very very explicit that it's ONLY tension that matters, very very specifically. Which immediately raises the question: tension in WHAT? What is it that is being pulled? From where, TO where?

In the minds of ALL authors, ALL writers, ALL literary reviewers, ALL critics, and ALL readers ... something is being pulled from somewhere to somewhere else. There is no question about that. They just have no fucking idea what it could possibly be. Well, this will be answered today.

There are three abstract elements to the interaction between a reader and their book, a gamer and their game, a viewer and their movie, a spectator and their ballet:

• datastream - the stream of their experiences in sight and sound and motion
• control metastream - the stream of their thoughts, expectations, decisions, page-flipping, mouse-clicking, game-loading, bathroom-running
• goal - not chosen by the writer, but chosen by the reader, viewer or gamer, out of the things they care for

The existence of a uniquely reader-determined goal is most obvious in games. Some people like linear games and other people like open sandboxes. This is explained by GNS - Gameism, Narrativism, Simulationism theory. Which is itself explained by personality type theory and is the reason it really should be SGN theory, not GNS. But I don't have the other isms to prove that SGN is only a tiny subpart of personality manifesting in an aspect of reality.

What is dramatic tension? It's the pull experienced by the reader towards their goal. More obvious concepts are the pace of a film and the grip of a novel. Well, tension is similar to pacing but different because pacing is external and objective whereas tension is interrelational. Tension both originates and terminates inside the reader.

If the tension is too low, this will manifest in either of the two streams becoming highly entropic. Either the datastream will become monotonous and boring, or the control metastream will become full of "why am I reading this?". Once EITEHR of those streams passes a critical threshold in entropy, it will simply collapse catastrophically: the reader will stop reading, the gamer will cease playing.

If the tension is too HIGH, this will manifest in either of the two streams becoming highly entropic. Either the datastream becomes incomprehensible and uninterpretable, effectively just noise, or the control metastream will become full of "wait, hold on, what did that mean? I need to reread this". And yes, once either of those streams passes a critical threshold in entropy, it will simply collapse catastrophically.

Feminism Is Evil

Feminism ... what is it? Who cares. Take a look through the 200+ other ISMs in the English language, everything from cynicism and romanticism to gaianism to truism to gameism to verificationism to constructionism to anthropocentrism to isomorphism to industrialism.

How many of them reference the human body and a specific subsection of the human population while specifically excluding another specific subsection of the human population? Very few. Feminism belongs to the same category as reactionism, ageism, misandrism, monarchism, racism, nazism and rape apologism.

Both majoritarianism (aka Bolshevism) and minoritarianism (aka Menshevism) reference one subsection of the population ruling over another. As does cooperativism, cronyism and clientelism. You'll never guess who believes in cronyism and clientelism. It's the same people who believe in Gaianism and Greenism, the fucking feudalist freaks!

But none of these ideologies, as Evil as they are compared to Agriculturalism, Communism, Criticism, Goodism, Nudism, and Utopianism, bothers to reference *an arbitrary biological condition you were born into* the same way that Racism and Sexism and Tribalism do. By simple linguistic analysis, Feminism is Evil.

Feminism is the "nice face" of sexist feminazism and misandrism, the same way that deconstructionism is the nice face of solipsism, or totemism is the nice face of shamanism, or fetishism is the nice face of cannibalism, or creationism is the nice face of fundamentalism, or fanaticism is the nice face of eliminationism or ecologism is the nice face of ecofascism, or Machiavellianism is the nice face of Nietzscheanism.

See how it goes? For every dark side there is a light side, for every light there is a dark. Because for every person gutsy enough to engage in violence, there is a gutless freak who shirks from it and honestly sincerely believes it is some kind of a virtue. Despite the counter-example of fetishism - gutless freaks who pay to have children butchered for their body parts to be used as magical ingredients rather than doing the job themselves the way honest cannibals do.

So if feminism is the light side, then it's obviously misandrism and feminazism that is its dark side. And so clearly feminism is the "nice face" of Evil intended to sucker in the crowd of dumbass followers of Egalitarianism. Which means feminism is Evil period. And now the psychological analysis backs up the linguistic analysis, how unsurprising.

Why Does Fight or Fuck Exist?

I once saw a retarded psychology professor giving a video lecture about emotions to undergraduates. He asked his class what the opposite of love was. Most said it was hatred, which is very inaccurate since
contempt would be better, but this moron berated them as if they'd done a great wrong. Then he proceeded to tell them as if imparting a great insight that love and hatred are both "arousal" and the opposite of "arousal" was calm or neutrality or indifference.

(This moron didn't even grasp that indifference is negative, not neutral, ah but such is life in the field called psychology.)

Setting aside the fact that it can be PROVED contempt is opposite of love, due to the fact if you feel both of them towards the same person
simultaneously they will cancel out leaving you feeling absolutely nothing towards that person. Or the further fact that hatred comes reasonably close to being another opposite.

Yes, setting aside the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, let's examine this retarded moron's (and all psychologists are retards, whether they're clinicians or researchers or professors since they do not acknowledge their own minds' limitations, the fact they are idiots at best, despite working with minds) idiotic claims that negative emotions and positive emotions are similar because magnitude is more important than quality.

Arousal ... there's another type of arousal than this retard talked about, it is sexual arousal. Now, in comedies it's often the case that two people who are angry and hate each other get sexually aroused and suddenly start lusting after each other and tearing each other's clothes off. But this cliché humour is not cliché because it is true of real life. It is true because it is absurd. It is funny because it is nonsense.

But, and some people will object, why does one sometimes become sexually aroused during a fight with a loved one? Doesn't this prove that love and anger are closely related and that "arousal" is "arousal"? No, because if it were true then a fight with a complete stranger would lead to people fucking in the streets. However, that doesn't fucking happen, does it?! In fact, the notion is fucking retarded. ABSURD. NONSENSE.

So ... here we have a phenomenon which has 3 important characteristics:

1. it's very mysterious and no one can quite explain it.
2. ordinary people reject as absurd the simple-minded explanation.
3. psychologists believe themselves deep thinkers for embracing the retarded explanation that is total nonsense contradicted by the evidence. And in fact, psychologists believe themselves better than ordinary people because they bite the bullet of logically self-contradictory "explanations". Idiots.

What is the explanation? It's really beautiful and elegant once you know it, and obviously very deceptive since people don't talk about it. The explanation is that when you feel anger or hatred at a loved one and your love for them is almost completely canceled you will still desire to feel close to them ... and sex is the only positive intimate act left to you. Anger or hatred (and especially the partial anger left over during the makeup phase of a fight with a loved one) forces your love and desire / need for intimacy into unconventional channels. Much the same way dropping a big boulder into a reservoir will cause the dam to overflow.

Ahh, but such wisdom is not for the "deep thinkers" of psychology. Facts and evidence are not for the "deep thinkers" of psychology. Sick disgusting fucks.

Other wisdom I've found about relationships that turned out to be literally and absolutely true

• relationships are built on trust and trustworthiness <- formally="" li="" provable="">
• love is an emotion - the emotion that is the merger of affection and fondness intensified to the next level
• so-called moments of connection (ie, attunement) really do bond people together
• lovesickness literally is when someone else's happiness is essential to your own

Because love is an emotion it feels like something. Love is ALSO not at all an emotion. It has in total three different meanings. It is annoying that way. Also, sex-as-love isn't a separate meaning at all but dovetails right in the primary meaning of love.

Also, so-called "romantic gestures" are sickeningly close to narcissists' notions of love and empathy. Hint: narcissists can only love themselves and have no empathy. These two categories are not identical but they are close enough for romantic gestures to be repulsive to most mentally healthy people.

The Internet's Fascist New World Order

They call themselves "moderators" but you'd have to be an idiot to believe they have any resemblance to moderators in religious or political debate groups. Of course, being being retarded idiots, most people actually take the name "moderator" seriously. Most people disgustingly RESPECT moderators.

In real life, moderators don't go around with guns and a license to kill spraying bullets at anyone they don't like the way cops and Nazis do. In real life, moderators' actions aren't invisible to the participants the way Stasi's are. In real life, moderators can't execute "power plays" to kick out other moderators and "usurp power".

In real life, moderators don't go around with magic gags that can erase everything you've ever said. In real life, moderators don't go around complaining about how the (few) people who hate them are whiners, enemies of the state, and the disgruntled few who are astroturfing anyways.

Real life moderators of discussion groups have ZERO connection with internet "moderators" of internet forums. You might as well be trying to compare a warm breeze in the middle of winter to the very fires of Hell.

It just proves how condemnable, contemptible, and downright Evil the bulk of humanity is that when faced with the raw vileness of "moderators" that they shrug their shoulders and say ... "well, unmoderated forums are crap anyways" as if fascism and right-libertarianism were the only political ideologies and the only forms of social control around.

Internet participants EXPECT Evil. It's just a question of whether it's right-libertarian slavery and omnipresent death or fascist servitude and homicide everywhere. 6 eggs on one hand or half a dozen ovoids on the other. And why do they expect Evil? Because programmers are overwhelmingly Evil and/or worthless retarded morons.

Ward Cunningham created his "noble experiment in totalitarian communism" which failed utterly once it scaled up about two to three orders of magnitude (I'm being generous). And what did he resort to when it failed? FASCISM! Because of course there's no middle ground, and certainly there's no alternative. Utmost marxism and fascism (and psychopathy) are the ONLY alternatives on offer.

Because of course, the Internet is NEW and it's not like the THREE MILLENIA of human political history have anything to teach anyone at all!! No, rather than start with democracy or shoot beyond it for anarcho-communism, we need to go BACK to fascism or FEUDALISM or murderous infanticidal tribalism!

And of course, the fact that these worthless retarded cretins are resurrecting dead and buried ideologies from political history doesn't imply that political history is RELEVANT to the Internet! No, we'll bake our cake, sell it, and then we'll use it as collateral to get a bank loan! Where have I heard that one before?

Fuck, I despise people who can't do logic. They should all burn in Hell! If you're going to do politics fucking do it right. And if you're not then you'd better stand out of the way of people who CAN do politics, and bend over to get the ass-rape you deserve!

Against: Food Miles and Vertical Farming

Greens being idiots believe that the cost of goods and services are ultimately based on energy. They are totally wrong. Everything's cost is based on labour. Energy ceased to be a factor sometime in the 1970s or 1980s. In other words, they are living in a bygone age.

Back in the dinosaur era from which they hail, the value of the economy was precisely proportional to the energy consumption of the economy. Industrial planners MEASURED the economy's output by its
energy input! But ever since then, the two measures have radically diverged.

Green foodists and local-vores are dinosaurs and maladaptive. They believe in some "food miles" crap when trucking has not and never will be an issue. They're the same breed of people as the futurologists who believe in molecular disassemblers and recovery of "resources" from garbage dumps (something which will never happen as recovery from seawater is easier). It's people who don't understand entropy and what the term 'ore' means.

To sum up, nowadays the economy has fuck all to do with energy. It's a non-issue which doesn't and never will matter anymore.

What's worse is these local-vores go the extra mile of advocating the destruction of cities, which of course they totally deny. But let's face it, they want to stick uninhabited buildings in the middle of the city. When "city" is defined as a congregation of PEOPLE.

Well, you know what? The sublimation or evaporation of cities (aka, their destruction) is never going to happen. Never fucking going to fucking happen. Put it to a song and sing it. NEVER. GOING. TO. HAPPEN. Even when humans are extinct and AIs rule the world, they'll do so in CITIES.

I hate pretend-rural fucks. Hey, here's a clue: 90% of rural people want to live in cities if given a choice. And here we have gutless city boys who want to destroy cities and remake them into the country, rather than just fucking moving there!

AI and robots

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/technology/10274420/Artificial-intelligence-will-take-the-place-of-humans-within-five-years.html

Assuming the pseudo-AI replaces 1000 operators in each of 4 shifts then that's 4000 humans 20 years 20k a year = 160 million. That's what it's WORTH so if it costs less than that then the difference is profit.

There will be interesting times in China and India in the near future, with AI and robots. But especially with India that fashioned itself the call center of the world. Because its population is largely uneducated and used to a corrupt ineffective government.

Violence vs Gutlessness

It seems to me that the policies put in place with the intent to curb violence are often misguided.

Why are you surprised? Why are you sad that this is happening? This is predictable.

These gutless retards are saying that violence itself is the problem. That if everyone just held hands and sang kumbaya then everything would be fine. They're delusional lunatics without any grasp of the real world.

But let me ask you this, if some genocidal cannibal was raping your wife, do you believe he would DESERVE violence on him? Or that he should be "stopped"?

In the gutless mindset, the guy raping your wife isn't any worse than her getting a papercut. Both of them are bad and they are as bad as it gets. It certainly isn't the case that some injury is WORSE than another injury.

And since Gutless people don't recognize the existence of Evil (things that are more than slightly bad), they also don't recognizethe existence of Evil people. Therefore, they don't believe it's GOOD when Evil people receive violence.

Gutsy people think Evil people getting pounded is exactly how it should be and exactly what they deserve and exactly what they've been asking for. Gutless people meanwhile think that Evil doesn't exist and that the answer to Evil is to ignore it. That the PERCEPTION of Evil is the problem.

Violence isn't the problem, it is the solution to many, many problems. The problem of violence perpetrated by Evil people. Or the existence of Evil people period.

So why are you so surprised when after blind retards eliminate the solution to a great many of life's problems, they cause more problems?

It's as if there were a CONNECTION there. It's like it's MAGIC. It'sas if calling the blind retards "misguided" is like calling the oceana little wet or a salt mine a little salty.

Rationality

What is rationality? It's the ability to make life plans which reach your goals. Funny thing though, the INABILITY to (care about) making such plans is the defining trait of psychopaths. In other words, Narcissists qualify as rational. No wonder Narcissist shitheads like Yudkowsky go on and on and on about rational this and rational that. He's basically crowing in triumph "I am not a psychopath!!" like it's this marvelous achievement worthy of acclaim. Worthy of adulation even!

And for your information, I first heard that definition of rationality many years before I'd ever heard of Yudkowsky or even knew what Narcissism or Psychopathy were. I heard about it from a philosophy book trying to justify Good according to Evil principles. It was a disgusting exercise but for the exercise to work the disgusting fucker obviously had to admit Narcissists and Right-Wing Authoritarians. You know, to even HAVE Evil in his assumptions.

Man, it sounds so self-aggrandizing to hear "I am not a psychopath!! HAHA. IN YOUR FACE PERSON WHO ISN'T LIKE ME!"