caveman caveman's cat

Note 1. Each main section (with green box in the section title) is an independent topic.

Testimonials:

Quote 1:
“i agree and respect, and LOVE your approach to seperatiing TRUE from FALSE”
blap, 2018 (he was drunk)
Quote 2:
“by the way I am looking at your blog rn. this is kickass.”
MassDebates, 2018
Quote 3:
“man, this is one of the best philosophy websites on the internet”
justanotheruser, 2018

1. insulty app names

Synopsys—Some SJWs forked a FOSS software, only to rename it, because they thought former name was offensive to them. But when I did the same, by forking yet another software that I thought its name was offensive, they called my work “a joke”. Then, they freaked, and deleted all traces of this conversation (which happened on their Github issues page). But, very fortunately, this conversation got archived by some very brave Internet heroes, so that this event will be in history for generations to come!

1.1. background

As you might have heard, some trannies and faggots forked GIMP because they thought GIMP was an offensive name to them, and called it Glimpse, instead. So that, hopefully, they can finally use GIMP at school, without getting bullied by students and teachers.

So, I thought, why not? I —too— know a software that its name sounds like an insult. Henceforth, I forked Qutebrowser into Glimpsebrowser, because IMO the Q-word sounds like an insult to me.

1.2. glimpse software foundation

But why stop there? Why not extend this Glimpsetardian movement into the Glimpse Software Foundation, where SJWs unite in power to rename all software with bad names? We got a few:

So I filed an Issue in the Glimpse editor Github page, and this happened:

  1. I proposed the Glimpse Software Foundation.
  2. A faggot closed the issue, and said that what I am doing is a joke.
  3. I asked, why? I did exactly what you did. Yet you say it is a joke?
  4. A Glimpsetard locked the issue, then after a while, also deleted it entirely (I guess because it revealed that even they know that what they are doing is a joke.

Fortunately, a legendary Internet hero got all this archived, and can be found here.

1.3. deeper analysis

I'm confused. I thought that trannies and faggots are cool with immoralities, as they reportedly flash their dicks/tits in streets in front of our kids during their gay pride marches. But somehow they just can't stand a bad software name. Srsly?

2. i invented new food

I invented new food, that IMO deprecates Gordon Ramsay. See Figure 1.

Gordon Ramsay
Figure 1. Gordon Ramsay

My new invented food:

  1. Bring a thin bread.
  2. Spread 1 spoon salted butter on it.
  3. Put several layers of smoked turkey1, or smoked beef, on it.
  4. Put hand-full of uncut mushroom there.
  5. Put hand-full of some veggies.
  6. Mildly wrap similar to tacos.
  7. Eat.

Note 2. Do not heat bread/smoked turkey/meat, nor cut mushrooms. Heck, maybe don't even wash your veggies.

Pros:

  1. Close proximity—All stuff taken from fridge.
  2. Convenient storage—Ingredients can be kept in fridge for some time.
  3. Simple process—No complex processing. E.g. no heating, cutting, etc.
  4. High-protein low-carb potential—Add more beef/chicken to increase protein content.
  5. Great taste—Yes.

Cons:

  1. Probably not a general-purpose perfect food yet. But plz stay tuned for even better stuff.

  • 1. Turkey the chicken-like animal, not the country.

3. perfect food

Synopsis—Basically, a food is perfect, if and only if, it is the cheapest thing that offers you the nutritions that you require. Else, you are wasting your money.

As a result, pizza, for example, is clearly not perfect, but rather a waste, because think: do you really think the process of making a pizza slice is the cheapest way to get 285 calories, 12g protein, 10g fat, and 36g carbs?

Think of the operation cost of pizza making, which requires running an oven and baking. Imagine the energy bill, and time needed. Clearly pizza is a wasteful way of creating nutritional values, as there are many ways we can optimize the process.

On the other hand, you could get what a pizza slice would give you, by simply frying some egg, with cheese, and potatoes, for example, at a cheaper price point. I'm not saying that this is perfect either, but it suffices to show you that pizza is clearly a waste as it is very easy to think of the same (nutritional value-wise) at a cheaper price point.

But people buy pizza coz they think it's sounds crunchy when you eat it. Fuck that nonsense. There is no nutrition in crunch. This makes pizza a form of drug that creates artificial need (by the allure of its crunch and smell) to cause people to make the irrational decision of buying it. #BanFuckingPizza.

3.1. i'm smart

Say that $\mathcal{F} = \{f_1, f_2, \ldots, f_n\}$ is the set of all foods. For example, $f_1$ could be fried chicken breast, $f_2$ could be orange, etc.

Also say that for any food $f_i \in \mathcal{F}$, $c_i$ is the cost of $f_i$ (i.e. money and time needed to be spent in order to get $f_i$ into ur belly), and $n_i$ is the nutritional values that your body obtains after eating $f_i$.

Then, if your body needs nutritional values in interval $[n_a, n_b]$ (for whatever health goal you have), then:

Definition 1. Food $f_i \in \mathcal{F}$ is said to be perfect, if and only if: $$ n_a \le n_i \le n_b $$ and, for all $f_j \in \{f_l \in \mathcal{F} : n_a \le n_l \le n_b\}$: $$ c_i \le c_j $$

3.2. wat if food fails to meet Definition 1?

Well, then it's a waste of money. Period. Could be a little waste to you, depending on how spoiled you are, but it remains a waste nonetheless, and you will be at a loss.

Today's food is mostly heavily a waste of money as they fail to meet Definition 1. Sadly, the concept of food —today— is looked from the view of taste and joy, very similar to how drugs are looked at.

Therefore, it's fair to say that today's food industry has morphed into a fork of the drug industry, where unnecessary additives are added to lure people in in order to take maximum money. It is no longer only nutritional. It is now partly nutritional, and partly wasteful to fool idiots to get a slice of their money (almost everyone on this planet).

3.3. now wat?

We need to find a principled methodology to objectively guide us on the process of creating perfect food. I will keep you updated when I nail this. Plz stay tuned.

4. thoughts on prisons

4.1. what is a prison?

Definition 2. A place to store suspects until the court figures out what to do to them (aka “jail”).

Definition 3. A place to store bad peeps until they become good peeps.

Definition 4. A place to store bad peeps as a form punishment. The degree of the punishment is determined by the length of time spent in storage.

Definition 5. A Gulag.

Definition 6. Any combination of Definition 2, Definition 3, Definition 4, or Definition 5. This gives us the following number of extra variations: $$ \sum_{i=2}^{4} {4 \choose i} = 6+4+1 = 11 $$

4.2. thoughts on Definition 2

If the storage is causing no harm on the suspect, then the suspect could be stored indefinitely. This implies things like, a very comfortable storage with nice bed, food, no harm on income, no harm on psychology, no mixing with bad people that may corrupt him, etc.

But usually the storage does cause some harm (e.g. shit bed, mixing with shit people, etc). Thus, Definition 2 is only good if the expected harm with the free suspect is more than the expected harm with the stored suspect, which depends on:

Generally, I think there is a lot of room in reality of making Definition 2 a good tool in a legal system if the storage is not for too long, and the storage is not too harmful on the suspect.

4.3. thoughts on Definition 3

Definition 3 is basically a synonym to the naturally occurring concept known as “parent”:

So those who claim that prisons are as per Definition 3, they are indirectly saying that prisons are bad.

4.4. thoughts on Definition 4

Let's look at the extreme ends of punishment by storage:

On the bright side, Definition 4 can have a deterring effect via fear, as it may cause the good people feel that becoming bad people is a bad idea.

But, there are cheaper ways of achieving fear and deterrence of good people from becoming bad, that does not have the side effects of Definition 4, such as:

Such methods hardly cost any money (i.e. no money to spend on food, building maintenance, guards salaries, etc), and hardly has any effect of mixing bad people with worse people (and hence less chance of corrupting people beyond their corruption).

So, Definition 4 is surely a bad idea, as there are equally effective methods that are cheaper with less side effects.

4.5. thoughts on Definition 5

A Gulag is basically a forced labour camp, with huge negative emotional thoughts around it due to Stalin. But —philosophically— what is a forced labour camp? Is “capitalism” a huge forced labour camp? Is life a forced labour camp?

See, it's fundamentally a more complex problem. Just because Stalin abused the concept, and showed us that it can be bad, it does not mean that the concept itself is fundamentally bad. We just need to have a deeper look right now.

What if someone shits on streets, or on someone's property? IMO it's fair to have the law enforcement force him clean the streets and the properties. Is it forced labour? Yes. Is it a form of Gulag? Yes. Is it bad? No. It seems a great disciplinary action to fairly punish the bad doer in kind.

For the vast majority of cases, we don't need forced labour camps, as capitalism and the monetary system functions as a huge Gulag (which is good). Hence, often paying monetary fees to compensate for damage caused by bad doers is a good idea, and is practically a good form Gulag.

My thoughts are:

4.6. thoughts on Definition 6

Since Definition 6 is a mixture of Definition 2, Definition 3, Definition 4 and Definition 5, my thoughts on it is also a mixture of what's in Section 4.2, Section 4.3, Section 4.4 and Section 4.5.

4.7. summary

These are good:

These are bad:

The better alternatives to the bad ones are: