I go by many names to many different people, but you can simply call me "Max" (short for Maxwell) or "Joy".

Joy-beyouk

A former confederate state.

You have plenty of information about me to formulate a judgement about me without looking at what immutable characteristics I have. Please spend your time to get to know me rather than using a tool ment for quick and dirty judgement to judge me.

Personally, I couldn't care less about someone's immutable characteristics. Immutable characteristics (such as race, sex, ethnicity, place of origin, sexual orientation etc.) are not perfect identifiers to someone's intellectual alignment. While yes, a Japanese man is more likely to associate himself with Japanese culture and a European man to European culture and men to men and women to women (of course in a social aspect), that doesn't mean I will conflate the cultures of a people with the individual apart of that group. Personally, I find the identification of immutable characteristics with traits useful insofar as I do not know the person. I will play by useful knowledge I have gained about a population to judge a person apart of a population before I properly meet them. Some may say that this is "prejudice" and "evil", but to those I must ask if they do this too. Not all people act, walk, or do a certain way are of a certain culture group, but it for sure can give hints to the culture group the individual belongs to. The same is true for many immutable characteristics. If you see someone who looks like a "redneck", would you not think they'd partake in some "redneck" cultural activities? If you see someone who is black (in the American sense), would you not think that said black person would partake in some "black" cultural activities? Most people would say yes to the first with the redneck, but then become defensive over the black question (since that is a hot topic in America). Now, of course, rednecks aren't the only group that people assume things about and, if you looked into each individual, there would likely be some group with immutable characteristics that people pass judgement upon (people are very quick to pass judgement upon those who do not share the same moral axioms as them even though these too can be immutable characteristics). When the judgement becomes immoral and irrational is when someone has knowledge of something contrary to their belief yet sticks with the original belief (some would claim all blacks are violent despite the fact that this is simply not the case). These judgements usually come out of ignorance of a group rather than a proper study of the group. Such judgements passed are unfounded and should be dismissed upon further study. No opinions about those with immutable characteristics should also ever pass upon the individual post-knowledge of said individual. If someone is an anomaly, they are an anomaly (or your judgement is wrong) and that must be accepted. Judgement passed in the start must wear off unless proven true to be a rational individual.

Thankfully I am confident in my ability and am therefore able to produce with confidence. This doesn't mean that what I make is perfect, but I know and understand my skill level enough to be able to know and understand my abilities (and those abilities, quite frankly, are high and are unlikely to cap-out any time soon). My confidence shouldn't be misconstruded for arrogance. Arrogance is not having skills to back up confidence. I believe I am a quite skilled person (a controversial statment in an era of self-deprecation and cynical jabs at the self) and this website should be enough to prove my capabilities on some level (even if you disagree with me). Most skilled people are confident in their work (that is after all why people know them as skilled), but I am much more abrazen in my confidence due to a blunt personality. I am also really not one to sugarcoat what I say to strangers (I am not here to appease you after all, I barely even know you!) If this displeases you for any number of reasons (simple personality clash, envy, or hated of confidence action and talk due to a deeprooted desire for everyone to self-deprecate) then please do not talk to me. It will save me time and yourself the heartache.

Mostly logistical skills in philosophy, rhetoric, and technology. I like rule-sets and axioms that are easy to work with and are consistant. Logic is a very simple system that can be used to find truthes in the world. Same with Mathamatics and Programming (although, I was never the best in math, I would like to blame much of that on the poor way math is taught and the poor teaching I recieved. Despite this poor teaching though, I usually remained above average in my classes relating to it). While rhetoric is a bit more abstract and less useful on its own, it can be used to make a logical claim more poignant. Humans are creatures of emotion and they need emotional convincing.

Years ago when I was much more arrogant than confident and achieved nothing, I would say no one. However, in recent years, I have found that anyone who is able and pious to be of great respect in their own ways. Plenty of people I have met throughout the years have great virtues that, in some cases, outclass me. Those capable in the visual arts I look up to, those who have gone through worse tribulations and came out better I look up to, those who have carved their own success I look up to, those who fight for what they believe in I look up to. To give recognizable names though: Richard Stallman and Luke Smith would be two public figures I look up to. Although, on a more personal level, I have great respect for my Mother for her paitence and those in my close social circles that are talented or otherwise trustworthy people.

Three reasons: I hate social media and wanted a place instead of that to broadcast what I think in a good way, I wanted to practice HTML and see how it goes, and I was inspired by Luke Smith's website and wanted to make something similar for myself.

In terms of layout, I enjoy old HTML pages and websites easy to view in a terminal. Its good on the bandwidth, good for older hardware, and over all makes the experience simple and enjoyable. If you don't need something, don't put it on. The fonts, colors, etc. come from an appreciation for the monospace fonts of a terminal. My web page looks like a terminal emulator and I find that pleasing on the eyes.

I probably will change things like positions, color schemes, or ways of look, but I will adhere to the KISS design philosophy as much as possible.

I want to eventually buy out my own domain and use it, but the traction gained from neocities' activity page is too nice to give up. I might end up becoming a neocities supporter to take advantage of the lack of file type restrictions and the custom domain, but I also want to use the site to host libre web services akin to what snopyta.org does.

Librewolf.

Not only is free software more practical than non-free software (as a free code base allows anyone to change, distribute, and modify code in such a way that code can never be lost so long as someone has a copy, code can be refactored for other systems and implementations, code can be used for reference by other developers, and code can be audited for security issues), but it is also more ethical. The ethics of free software comes in the form of the ability to modify and the right to repair that comes with it. To explain by analogy: having free code is akin to having the tools, instruction manual, and ability to modify a home appliance. Lets take a blender for example. If said blender breaks, all that needs to happen is that you take the manual, figure out the problem, take your tools, and then repair it. If you want to modify your blender to be faster, all you need to do is check the manual, see how it spins, modify that, and then there you go. If you wished to sell your modified blender, you can easily do that too. To relate this to software, Replace a blender with a program and the usefulness of open software becomes way more tangible.

This question is complex and depends on what you are doing. Send me your budget and the most intensive thing you will be doing and I will get you a tailored suggestion free of charge. You will have to build the computer yourself though (unless its a laptop), so be prepared to do that.

There is two good ways: Having common sense and having an anti-virus. If you're using Windows You're screwed already you should be safe with just Windows defender. If you want a more niche, on-the-spot file analyzer, I'd suggest ClamWin. I use ClamAV (The GNU/Linux CLI version) when scanning files I send out to people and it has yet to fail me. ClamWin is just a GUI version of ClamAV. If you still don't trust a file, even after ClamWin and Windows Defender, toss it into VirusTotal and it will scan a file with up to 40 anti-viruses. You should get a good gage of how trustworthy a file is after that.

See this article and this article. Make sure to properly read both. Yes, nuking your system is a tall order, but it is the only way you can absolutely know that you aren't harboring internet AIDS.

Most web browsers are not hardened to protect against fingerprinting and thus you will give off a unique fingerprint to whatever site you are going to. This is especially true of proprietary browsers. This fingerprint can be used to trace who you are by cross-referencing variables associated with your browser. For example, your browser\'s default language along with installed font combinations are usually are enough to uniquely identify you. This language and font combination can be picked up by websites that may detect for these things and will make a paper trail. This is especially bad if multiple sites use the same JavaScript calls: i.e if you visit 3 websites and they all use Google\'s font and language JavaScript for rendering their page, Google can pick up on who you are by recognizing your language and font combinations. This doesn\'t even cover if you are signed into an account. If you have a Google account and are signed into it on a browser, then you will have to deal with the fact that almost any call to Google that is made via JavaScript has a high likelihood of instantly de-anonymize you. This is due to your login information being sent to Google to verify you are signed in to Google, and that login information is linked to that browsing session and all the other fingerprints and variables associated with your browser. The best way to combat this is to use a browser that respects your privacy and freedoms and to learn about browser fingerprinting.

No. If you want to torrent, use Tribler.

Generally speaking, the internet as a whole is comprised. Tor is not completely secure, but it is the best that we have in terms of trustable privacy. Your VPN could be logged and backdoored, especially if you have no way to audit it. Tor's structure, security suggestions, and flaws are all well documented, open, and legible for anyone to see or read. This improves over all security as Tor can easily be audited for bugs and problems that can compromise security. The notion that Tor is totally and fundamentally compromised is also a large claim. One would need to provide massive amounts of evidence for such a claim. If this claim can be justified to be really the case, then I will likely concede and swap to something more secure, until then, I will stick with what has proven itself as stronger than nothing. Also, as an anecdotal side note, the only people I have ever seen push the "Tor is compromised" montra are people that are trying to justify doing nothing or have a financial incentive to push an agenda. I have seen numerous VPN websites bring up old 2006 articles of long patched bugs and issues and give biased opinions and cherry-picked interpretations of such information. The individuals I have seen shill the idea of Tor being compromised aren't security folk either, they're the average Google Chrome using, Windows running, Steam-library having, consumer who cares about privacy and control in the slacktivist, superficial way. These people usually parrot these "Tor is compromised!" phrases as a way to justify them doing nothing about the issue. I seldom see a I2P user or freenet user try to convince me that Tor is fundamentally broken and that their software is better, but instead I see a doomer who has fallen for the idea that "nothing can be done" and has merely embraced the botnet and is now using experiencing cognitive dissonance, leading to them scrounge up what little evidence there is to justify their apathy. These are the types of people who don't even read the articles they're referencing, they're just referencing them because its convenient. They are also the people that, whenever you prove them wrong, won't do anything about it and will either move the goalpost or just stick with their ideas. They aren't worth fighting with and are best ignored when they rear their ugly heads.

The best way to make an entertaining piece is to choose a topic that is interesting, discussable, and you are knowledgeable of. Although that is a bit obvious, some schooling institutions would like to ignore this fact and assign topics to people (in the end though, the writer just ends up turning the prompt around to talk about something that is more interesting or personal to the writer, but this makes ill-structures work that has a topic appendix on it for no other reason than to appease an institution). Once a good topic is found, a thesis should be formed, once a thesis is formed then ideas should naturally will fall into place in relation to one another as you justify a thesis. The formatting part is easy, but to make a paper lively rather than dry one must make a structure that flows. It is best to have some sense of rhythm when writing. Following an agreeable, almost musical pattern when writing will make a piece sound better when read, especially when read out loud. The adherence to a rhythmic pattern need not be strict, but is should sound fine when coming out as spoken word. It is also good to avoid strict adherence to structure, tangents are sometimes good when they, in the end, can segway to another related topic or point. The best way to judge your own writing is to read it out loud as if it was a speech. If what you are saying doesn\'t come off natural or well sounding, it is best to start tinkering with wording, position of phrases, and transitions until it sounds fine.

When a logical claim is being made, it is best to never assume or leave out details. It is also best to put a deductive claim into a deductive logical structure. This structure is one where there are premises to an argument that lead to some form of conclusion. This makes sure that all claims are legible, easy to understand, are irrefutable by structural flaws. With inductive claims, one must supply as much evidence and much background behind a claim as possible to make the data as transparent and trustable as possible.

Deductive Argument

1. Dogs, by the merit of being dogs, have fur
2. My pet is a dog
3. Therefore my pet has fur

Assuming all premises are true, the conclusion must be true, this is opposed to a Slippery Slope fallacy in where they use language to cover the wrongness of the predicates:

Slippery Slope Fallacy

1. If you go down this alley way you will be attacked
2. If you are attacked you will go to the hospital
3. If you go to the hospital, your mother would be upset
4. Therefore, if you go down this alley way you will upset your mother due to going to the hospital

The predicates of this claim assume that you will be attacked upon going down the alleyway, assume that you will go to the hospital if you are attacked, and also assumes your mother would be upset if you went to the hospital even though all are very chance based. Due to the nature of these chances becoming even less likely as more predicates are compounded, the end result cannot be definitive. Though, to correct this argument, one should say it like this:

Corrected Slippery Slope Fallacy

1. If you go down this alley way there is a chance you could be attacked
2. If you are attacked you have a chance of being put into a hospital
3. If you are in the hospital, there is a chance that your mother will be upset due to said hospital visit
4. Therefore, if you go down this alleyway, you have a low, but statistically probable chance of upsetting your mother due to a hospital visit

Although, this corrected fallacy is now correct, it doesn't play well with human bias. To enumerate something and bring it to attention influences how we observe something. By enumerating all these chances, we aren't simply saying that these chances just exist, but we are saying that they exist and are worthy of discussion. If something is worthy of discussion, it has more assigned value and importance to the observing individual. If an individual sees a chance as more important, then the discussed chances may seem more relevant and likely than they would if they weren't discussed at all. In essence, mere discussion of chances makes humans believe they are statistically more probable and relevant than they actually are and thus any representation of non-definitive statistics in an argument gives an argument unwarranted credence. If one wishes to remain truthful and ethical while making arguments, its best to leave these out.