1. me not like decoration; here why

1st, let's define a couple of things. Definition 1 defines what is a smart dude, and Definition 2 defines what is a decorative item.

Definition 1. A dude $x$ is said to be smart if, and only if, $x$ does stuff that maximize his survivability, and avoids stuff that limit him from maximizing his survivability. This implies that he eats healthy food, learns juicy mathy sciency stuff, avoids wasting his time, etc.

Definition 2. For a given world $w$, a thing $t_w$ in world $w$ is said to be decorative if, and only if, $t_w$ does not help its owner maximize his survivability in world $w$. I.e. has no real use. E.g. bunch of pretty pics hanging on the wall of your toilet.

Think a bit. If you agree with Definition 1 and Definition 2, then Theorem 1 is true by definition.

Theorem 1. In a world with only smart dudes, then they will not allocate any resource, e.g. money/time, to make/buy decorative stuff. i.e. no fancy pics hanging on walls, statues, fancy stitching on clothing, etc. but all resources will be used to maximize their survivability.

Based on Theorem 1, it's easy to see why Theorem 2 is also true.

Theorem 2. A world with dudes investing some resource in making/buying decorative items, is necessarily a world that has at least 1 non-smart person.

Now let's be more specific on how the world with some non-smarties, as in the Theorem 2, would look like:

• Possibility 1: Non-smarties are doing a mistake for making/buying useless stuff that don't help maximize their survivability.
• Possibility 2: Smarties make/buy decorative items because it happens that some non-smarties get manipulated this way more effectively for the selfish gains of the smarties.
• Possibility 3: A mixture of the other possibilities above.
• Possibility 4: What else? I can't find any.. This list seems complete, IMO.

As you can see, they are all sad cases. I.e. either exploiting smarties, or misguided non-smarties. This is why I dislike decorative items: because they seem to only reflect sad underlying realities (possibilities above are sad cases IMO, and decorative items remind me of them).

2. a simpler way for users to reply to blogs

Commonly, a web server that's hosting a blog should:

• Be able to handle uploaded users data (e.g. post or get or whatever requests).
• Then, the web server runs some dynamic code that reads the user upload data.
• And then writes/saves something somewhere (e.g. to store the end-user's comment). The comment is usually stored in some back-end database, like some evil SQL stuff.
• Additionally, the user usually also needs to register an account for the blog.

We all know that, right? In fact, it's so common that most people don't even realize a sad aspect: all of the points from (1) to (5) are redundant, and we already have a system for it, that almost everyone uses: the email system. It's so obvious that most people are unable to see. But here is how:

• Email clients already have highly capable upload forms, with capacity of handling attachments, cryptographic signatures, etc.
• Email servers can already run some dynamic code that reads the user upload data and reacts accordingly. Some use this feature to dynamically create support tickets from email.
• Email servers can obviously writes/saves something somewhere (e.g. to store the end-user's comment).
• The email system allows user registration (e.g. registering to free email providers, or registering for a domain name and let user host his own mail servers, etc). The email registration is also powerful in that, it already has an infrastructure to handle abusers if needed.

So much redundancies. Since I'll already have an email server, here is how I'll solve this problem for this blog, in order to less-redundantly allow for user posts:

• Blog's web server will be a read-only NGINX. Nothing dynamic, just vanilla NGINX.
• Each blog post will have a unique identifier, say, the identifier is 123456 for this post.
• The reply link will be a mailto anchor to the email address 123456.reply@caveman.sexy.
• The user posts his reply to that email address, and will get to set various options by using special tags in the body of the email, in order to set his nickname, or whether he wants to be notified when someone replies to his comment.
• The mail server will get the message, parse it dynamically, if things are OK, then translate it into a HTML/CSS content, and update the static pages of this blog.
• Users will then see the updated site html files with the newly posted reply.

As a side effect:

• I'll not need to create user registration forms.
• I'll not need to create post-reply forms.
• Since NGINX will be fully dealing with static content, if-modified-since will work conveniently out of the box, and be mega fast.

This might not be necessarily new, but it is certainly at least an extremely uncommon method of handling blog posts/replies. IMO we live in a very sad time where most people, even standard bodies, needlessly create redundant systems.

3. the godly prisoner's dilemma is better imo

You have probably heard of the prisoner's dilemma. I call it the Godless prisoner's dilemma for the obvious reason: it lacks God. this should be fair enough.

A quick reminder of the Godless dilemma: it says something like, 2 dudes in a prison with these options: if one snitches, but the other doesn't, the snitcher gets out of prison immediately, and the snitched will be there for a very long time, like 10 years or something. If none snitch, they will be imprisoned for 3 months. If both snitch, then they will be imprisoned for 1 year.

But what about the Godly prisoner's dilemma, where we modify it to include the following clause: you are always being watched by a fair God, who will reward you accordingly based on how truthful and honest you are. Then suddenly we are dealing with a different problem, where the imprisoned dudes have more incentives to just be honest, and say the truth..

I expect the Godly prisoner's dilemma to be more likely to result in a solution that is more optimum for the greatness of the individuals, and humanity as a whole. After all, it places more incentives to say the truth, thanks to believing in God.

4. multi column text. nice?

Try to adjust the width of the browser's window, or adjust the text size. You'll notice that the text will be distributed in columns, automatically, to maximize screen's utility. Most websites don't do this, unfortunately..

This is a demonstration of a website whose content gets distributed in multiple columns, depending on the width of the browser window, just like news papers (as shown in Figure 1). The goal is to make sure that a column is never too wide, nor screen space is. IMO this is the best idea for maximizing screen's utility.

Much like how news papers make efficient use of their wide papers by using multiple columns (instead of too wide lines of texts, or wasting paper sides). But unfortunately many websites, today, don't respect our wide screens, and rather opt to waste side pixels.

5. godly general public license v3 (ggplv3)

GNU/RMS pushed towards freeing software, but not free enough. The GGPL3.0 addresses a key limitation in GPLv3.

Basically, GPLv3 ensures that the software remains free, but it ignores the fact that software could be used to push humanity towards extinction. In such a case, what use would free software make if there are no humans to use it?

The GGPLv3 effectively prefixes GPLv3 by The Ten Commandments. This means you won't be allowed to use GGPLv3-licensed stuff to, say, run a fornication website, operate an abortion clinic, dishonour your father, etc.

This is nice, because the things banned in The Ten Commandments seem to result in higher divorce rate, higher std, lower birth rate, etc; generally humanity's extinction. Stats also seem to suggest this. So, unless you want to have a world with free code but no humans -to use the code-, your need to adopt the GGPLv3 license.

6. testing mathjax

When $a \ne 0$, there are two solutions to $ax^2 + bx + c = 0$ and they are $$x = {-b \pm \sqrt{b^2-4ac} \over 2a}.$$ more fancy things to test mathjax's things: $$f(x) = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{ if } x = 1\\ 1 & \text{ otherwise}\\ \end{cases}$$