maintainence

18 files changed, 715 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/txt/albumthoughts.txt b/txt/albumthoughts.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4bb7ded
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/albumthoughts.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+November 27th, 2022. Sunday, 2 am. Text written by "radio." It is not a proper "review" of the albums, since it only discusses what I liked. By my definition, a review would include an evaluation. Although subjective, one would try to take on a neutral view of the medium and measure quality according to the factors that matter to the reviewer (me) or possible users of the medium, but I digress. This definition is loose, but that's what it means in this context. Therefore, I did not review the albums. I did not state strengths and weaknesses, but my positive impressions.
+
+The Power and the Glory by Gentle Giant is a unique progressive rock album with very catchy and captivating melodies. Each song is a strong entry. The callback in the second half is a great touch that ties the theme together. The cohesiveness of the tone makes this album a solid one from start to finish. I listened to it multiple times. Many prog rock albums feel ahead of their time. I love songs where a lot is happening, going from section to section, rather than a droning repetition. I can definitley enjoy and love the latter if done well, of course. I do not limit myself when enjoying music.
+
+Folk is one of the many genres that I deeply love, so it is only fair to talk about the beautiful classic by Nick Drake. Drake managed to create complex tracks with only an acoustic guitar, and occasionaly with a gorgeous backing of cello. The artistry is admirable, and I would like to listen to the album again. I do not have much else to say about the album, other than the fact that I slightly prefer it to his other two, because sometimes less is more. Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy his other works.
+
+Besides that, it saddens me to see photos of him. There is often a sad air surrounding music of artists who have passed away young. Unlike other famous artists, Nick Drake wasn't in his booming prime as a musician when he passed away, which adds a painful tinge if you think about it while listening to the music.
+
+Pink Moon is a more haunting record than his other works, but it holds the same flavour to them in terms of song-writing, but with a richer sound and generally sadder lyrics. Tracks 5 to 9 were especially interesting to me. The flavour comment is stating the obvious, but to rephrase, I meant that one can essentially pick out what makes a Nick Drake song a Nick Drake song after listening to many tracks, because that is maintained over his studio albums.
+
+Regardless of record, the best part is its core: the soft, warm singing, and the beautiful progressions. Sentiment and feelings surrounding untimely death aside, I would state, objectively, that the man was skilled at guitar and was a great writer. The melodies are tastefully written. Something I learned from listening to Nirvana is that being able to write a great melody is just as important as being able to write an interesting or complex song. In the case of Nick Drake's first and third records, this was predominately guitar and nothing else, yet the resulting music is beautiful, rich, and interesting. I plan on listening to his cover compilation album.
+
+Next up, I also listened to Bjork. I don't think there is much to be said, as it would echo what countless critics have already said. I listened to four of her earlier albums, and I loved them all.
+
+I listened to Pink Floyd in this order: Ummagumma, Atom Heart Mother, then their iconic record. Despite the negativity it gets for straying from prog to experimental, I loved Ummagumma, but I found it to be more of a record to be experienced than listened to as music, but I'm down to that, and enjoy such works (a lot). The musical parts of the album were amazing. I don't have much to say about AHM, because I don't remember much. I will have to hear it again.
+
+I listened to The Dark Side of the Moon twice to make sure that I absorb it fully, and it's as amazing as they say. I wouldn't say that it is *the* best prog album that I've ever heard, but it was a very wonderful ride. Without a doubt, besides the clever intrsumentation itself, the seamless transitions between the tracks was heavenly. My jaw dropped several times. I loved this album more on my second listen, because I paid better attention, but the second half won me over on the first listen. If I listen to it again, it would in full, rather than individual tracks.
+
+Raise Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven by Godspeed You! Black Emperor is one of the most beautiful works I've ever heard, others being In the Court of the Crimson King by King Crimson and two albums by The Fall of Troy. I don't think I can put my feelings to words. It is an incredibly unique work. I've actually listened to half of this album before, but didn't finish it until this week (of course, I started over.) No matter how many times I listen to it, the song Sleep transports me somewhere else, and I truly never get tired of the part leading up the drum fill at 16:49. It such a beautiful moment at and after it, and my favourite on the album.
+
+I will now briefly talk about two more albums.
+
+I discovered Motionless by Chokebore while browsing the 90s TV website (https://www.my90stv.com). One of the channels was playing the album, and I was interested. I immediately listened to the full thing, and I loved every track on it. It's a very underrated work. To be fair, its sound isn't out of ordinary for its time, but that doesn't make it any less of a great record. I enjoyed it very much. I would like to hear it again sometime.
+
+To wrap things up, I want to state that I have mad respect for Jimi Hendrix. Hendrix has been talked about to death, but what can I say? He's amazing.
+
+Hey. Actually, instead of focusing on a few, I will try to highlight lesser known albums in the future. I did now with Motionless. Another is Power and the Passion by Eloy. It's 70s' prog. Like TDSOTM, the transitions on this album are a strength. It is melodically beautiful, too. I listened to it again now, and I love it still. I will share the list of albums from the past two weeks soon, maybe by the end of the month.
diff --git a/txt/alive.txt b/txt/alive.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..02e5983
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/alive.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+It all looks so alive. While the large-scale orchestrations and biological systems
+within and around us are near-perfect, working like clockwork in a manner that has
+been unchanged for millions of years, the tiny little bits themselves aren't as perfect,
+which is not only beautiful in a sense, but is also a testimony to why the systems are
+"perfect". In other words, they work. They work and that's what matters. Such things as
+the ones I'm about to describe are insignificant on their own, yet those are traits of
+the most important units that make you.
+
+Here I focus on structure in looks and ordering, not structure in it function.
+The latter is beautifully perfect already, or, well, near-perfect. Again, if it didn't
+work so well, it wouldn't have lasted, and that's an important point, and why I want to
+connect "aliveness" with "imperfection."
+
+Now you're probably confused by the jumble of all the "perfects" and "imperfects" in the
+above text, but I will clarify what I was thinking about a while ago. The systems inside
+us—think of small ones like cellular functions, and big ones like entire organ systems.
+(I will later touch into a bigger one: organisms themselves and ecosystems.*) I want you
+to think of a microscope image of cells together. You're thinking of it? Good. It doesn't
+matter what type of cells they are yet. I want you to focus on the structure. Due to the
+nature of how things grow, those aren't geometrically perfect. They're lumpy and variant
+in size, even if subtly. They're in fluid and contain fluid, so their insides move too.
+When cells split, I doubt that they split wholly "perfectly".
+
+(I digress, but maybe they do, since due to how forces work, the mother cell, when
+squeezing to split, has a tension form in the middle, and as it splits, the two resulting
+parts should be similar in size or volume to maintain enough tension to successfully split
+into two, I believe.)
+
+That aside, my point still stands: the forming cells aren't perfectly circular, or perfectly
+any shape, for that matter.
+
+To me, their floating, jiggling, and nature are among what makes them look so alive, which
+they are, of course, but what is "aliveness" to us? How do we look at a cow and identify
+that it is a living creature? Isn't it its little movements, like its ears', the warmth of
+its blood, its heartbeat, its little sounds here and there? That's a living being. Now back
+to the microscopic. Cells that share a function—say, skin cells—are going to work identically.
+Every cell destined to do something is ideally capable and does it, like being able to
+recieve neurotransmitters, or have the miniscule bits of chemicals have an effect on it,
+such that reactions within it can alter its behaviour. In a cell, there are exchanges going
+on across membranes. There is DNA being copied and packages being transported. If it weren't
+for the existence of disorders that the body cannot deal with, or errors of varying degrees
+occuring at a cellular level, then this system is perfectly and flawlessy functional. And I
+am going to state that regardless of errors that can and do frequently happen inside, because
+such things are what I percieve as the aliveness of it all. In other words, you are alive
+because your body is working. Your parts are playing their role, and your body is equipped
+with the ability to deal with things, expected and unexpected.
+
+The final line is crucial, because those who are disabled aren't less (less perfect,
+less "functional" or less anything). They are still alive and their bodies still work
+enough for them to be alive, not just people but any living thing that doesn't match the
+image of a fully perfect, unrealistically ideal member of its species.
+
+Let's go back to my main topic, which is imperfection in apperance of things that are alive.
+
+What prompted this entire thought process was me thinking about palisade mesophyll, a part
+of leaf tissue that, when viewed in cross-section, has a regular formation of rectangular
+palisade cells. I was thinking; we call them rectangular because that is what they look like,
+and it's perfectly logical to call them that, but they aren't perfect rectangles.
+They are bumpy and uneven and I doubt they sit together in perfect, even, brick-like alignment.
+
+Because of the way those cells form and grow, they won't look like perfect geometrical shapes,
+yet the function is there, and they can form that orderly structure that they are supposed to
+form, and work as intended, and I think that's beautiful. The same idea applies to the spongy
+mesophyll, which are like the opposite of the palisade in a way, consisting of rounder cells
+that aren't evenly placed. In fact, there's no rule to the pattern besides the idea that the
+cells should have gaps between them. This doesn't prevent some cells from lumping together,
+though, as long as the necessary vaccuum exists for the structure to perform its duty normally.
+
+This naturally brings us to the next topic: stem cells. Now let's focus on animals again.
+Stem cells are incredible. You start as a little ball of cells, an embryo, yet your "code"
+"knows" that cells are supposed to be different in order to perform different functions, and
+those cells do "latch" onto their designated functions and grow accordingly. Isn't it amazing
+how cells just "know" that they're supposed to form an ear, and can indeed follow with creating
+an ear? And I mean, an actual ear, one whose outer structure they don't start with and work
+around, yet create from essentially and structurally nothing but the genetic definition of an
+ear! It works the same for everyone. The ears are similar for all humans. They're meant to be,
+and are programmed to be. How did it come to that, the ability to have an ear that looks like
+that across a species? Yes, evolution, but *how*? I can think of the details of how, from the
+parts of an ear, since those parts each have a reason they're there, and we can trace each to
+what made them a need, but that's a different topic, and you can probably find a decent text
+on evolution that isn't this ramble.
+
+This is also applied to the fact that we have skeletons. It amazes me how an embryo can grow
+into a baby with organs and a skeleton. Let's take it even further. At some point, life was
+merely boneless aquatic creatures, yet they eventually became creatures of flesh, blood, and bones.
+
+Ears, faces themselves livers, and skeletons, too—none of those are meant to look perfectly
+even. Your and my liver aren't identical. They're the same organ and they work the same, but
+they wouldn't look exactly the same, and I don't think they should. Again, it's the result of
+how tissue forms: imperfectly! The cells aren't all the exact same shape and size, and that
+combined with them growing over time, forming the organ as they go, relying on a genetic
+blueprint and not some physical outline to build on, will create a liver, which is liver-like
+in shape and can do the function of a liver. That's simply what a liver is, and that's what
+my cells and your cells have successfully gathered into. Our livers do the same thing; we are
+the same species, and we are both alive. Unless you're reading this in the future, in which case,
+I was alive at some point, and this is proof that I was. Anyway, moving on.
+
+Before I conclude with the biggest point of this passage ("what is aliveness in appearance"),
+I will explore two last examples: offspring of asexual reproduction in plants. The mental
+image I had was that of succulents or small plants with many small thick leaves lined up.
+While each of those leaves are identical to each other, and the plant itself being
+genetically identical to its parent plant, neither are 100% perfectly identical. The genes
+are identical, but, yet again, it is how those cells form tissues that have these little
+imperfections which create the life that we see.
+
+The final example is the existence of mathematical patterns in nature. Designs on insects
+or spirals in the form of some plants are technically perfect, but the aliveness factors
+into this again and produces little imperfections in the form of bumps or curves or
+varied-sized parts in lumps. (A reader added wax honeycombs when discussing this and it made
+me look up images. It's very stunning how perfect they look geometrically, but those too,
+because of both the nature of the matter they're made of and the fact that they were made by
+living animals, fall victim to the idea presented here. You'll have too look closely to see
+it, though.)
+
+Perhaps inanimate things can look alive as well. What to you, would make a robot look alive?
+I am thinking of a robot with many appendages or arms: a spider-like giant robot (something
+similar to "can't help myself" by Sun Yuan & Peng Yu. I imagine its base to be stationary
+but it has many arms sticking out, whose movement is anchored to that base). To me, a pure
+mechanical motion that is identical in each movement, predictable and repetitive isn't alive,
+but it can move in ways that make it seem alive. After thinking, I noticed what I'm looking
+for: what makes a motion look alive? I found it to be how it interacts with and is influenced
+by its surroundings. A robot arm that moves purely based on how it's programmed to move is,
+well, functioning, but it doesn't feel alive in any way. It's a machine. Yet a machine, say
+the spider-thing, moves imperfectly, such as a motion that isn't even or predictable
+(it stumbles around, hesitates, doesn't move its arm for the same distance each time, and
+so on), can perhaps make me sympathise with a lifeless machine, and even make me see it as
+a very large metal animal.
+
+You were never meant to look perfect. You were meant to be alive. Biologically, your body
+is perfect enough to keep you alive.
+
+*I ended up not mentioning ecosystems here, but briefly, it was about the sheer diversity
+of life on Earth, and the food chains that dominate the flow of the living part of nature.
+I don't have anything to say that you can't reach yourself, but the key idea is the systems
+that simply work.
diff --git a/txt/aliveness.txt b/txt/aliveness.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..66d6f4e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/aliveness.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
+    It all looks so alive. While the large-scale orchestrations
+    and biological systems within and around us are near-perfect,
+    working like clockwork in a manner that has been unchanged
+    for millions of years, the tiny little bits themselves aren't
+    as perfect, which is not only beautiful in a sense, but is also
+    a testimony to why the systems are "perfect". In other words,
+    they work. They work and that's what matters. Such things as
+    the ones I'm about to describe are insignificant on their own,
+    yet those are traits of the most important units that make you.
+    
+    Here I focus on structure in looks and ordering, not structure
+    in it function. The latter is beautifully perfect already, or,
+    well, near-perfect. Again, if it didn't work so well, it
+    wouldn't have lasted, and that's an important point, and why
+    I want to connect "aliveness" with "imperfection."
+	
+    Now you're probably confused by the jumble of all the "perfects"
+    and "imperfects" in the above text, but I will clarify what
+    I was thinking about a while ago. The systems inside us—
+    think of small ones like cellular functions, and big ones like
+    entire organ systems. (I will later touch into a bigger one:
+    organisms themselves and ecosystems.*) I want you to think of
+    a microscope image of cells together. You're thinking of it?
+    Good. It doesn't matter what type of cells they are yet.
+    I want you to focus on the structure. Due to the nature of how
+    things grow, those aren't geometrically perfect. They're lumpy
+    and variant in size, even if subtly. They're in fluid and
+    contain fluid, so their insides move too. When cells split,
+    I doubt that they split wholly "perfectly".
+	
+    (I digress, but maybe they do, since due to how forces work,
+    the mother cell, when squeezing to split, has a tension form in
+    the middle, and as it splits, the two resulting parts should be
+    similar in size or volume to maintain enough tension to
+    successfully split into two, I believe.)
+    
+    That aside, my point still stands: the forming cells aren't
+    perfectly circular, or perfectly any shape, for that matter.
+	
+    To me, their floating, jiggling, and nature are among what makes 
+    them look so alive, which they are, of course, but what is
+    "aliveness" to us? How do we look at a cow and identify that
+    it is a living creature? Isn't it its little movements, like
+    its ears', the warmth of its blood, its heartbeat, its little
+    sounds here and there? That's a living being. Now back to the
+    microscopic. Cells that share a function—say, skin cells—
+    are going to work identically. Every cell destined to do
+    something is ideally capable and does it, like being able to
+    recieve neurotransmitters, or have the miniscule bits of
+    chemicals have an effect on it, such that reactions within it
+    can alter its behaviour. In a cell, there are exchanges going
+    on across membranes. There is DNA being copied and packages
+    being transported. If it weren't for the existence of disorders
+    that the body cannot deal with, or errors of varying degrees
+    occuring at a cellular level, then this system is perfectly
+    and flawlessy functional. And I am going to state that regardless
+    of errors that can and do frequently happen inside, because such
+    things are what I percieve as the aliveness of it all. In other
+    words, you are alive because your body is working. Your parts
+    are playing their role, and your body is equipped with the
+    ability to deal with things, expected and unexpected.
+    
+    The final line is crucial, because those who are disabled
+    aren't less (less perfect, less "functional" or less anything).
+    They are still alive and their bodies still work enough for
+    them to be alive, not just people but any living thing
+    that doesn't match the image of a fully perfect, unrealistically
+    ideal member of its species.
+    
+    Let's go back to my main topic, which is imperfection in
+    apperance of things that are alive.
+    
+    What prompted this entire thought process was me thinking
+    about palisade mesophyll, a part of leaf tissue that, when
+    viewed in cross-section, has a regular formation of rectangular
+    palisade cells. I was thinking; we call them rectangular
+    because that is what they look like, and it's perfectly
+    logical to call them that, but they aren't perfect rectangles.
+    They are bumpy and uneven and I doubt they sit together
+    in perfect, even, brick-like alignment.
+    
+    Because of the way those cells form and grow, they won't
+    look like perfect geometrical shapes, yet the function is there,
+    and they can form that orderly structure that they are
+    supposed to form, and work as intended, and I think that's
+    beautiful. The same idea applies to the spongy mesophyll,
+    which are like the opposite of the palisade in a way,
+    consisting of rounder cells that aren't evenly placed.
+    In fact, there's no rule to the pattern besides the idea
+    that the cells should have gaps between them. This doesn't
+    prevent some cells from lumping together, though, as long
+    as the necessary vaccuum exists for the structure to 
+    perform its duty normally.
+    
+    This naturally brings us to the next topic: stem cells.
+    Now let's focus on animals again. Stem cells are incredible.
+    You start as a little ball of cells, an embryo, yet your
+    "code" "knows" that cells are supposed to be different in
+    order to perform different functions, and those cells do
+    "latch" onto their designated functions and grow accordingly.
+    Isn't it amazing how cells just "know" that they're supposed
+    to form an ear, and can indeed follow with creating an ear?
+    And I mean, an actual ear, one whose outer structure they don't
+    start with and work around, yet create from essentially and
+    structurally nothing but the genetic definition of an ear!
+    It works the same for everyone. The ears are similar for all
+    humans. They're meant to be, and are programmed to be. How
+    did it come to that, the ability to have an ear that looks like
+    that across a species? Yes, evolution, but *how*? I can think
+    of the details of how, from the parts of an ear, since those
+    parts each have a reason they're there, and we can trace each
+    to what made them a need, but that's a different topic, and
+    you can probably find a decent text on evolution that isn't
+    this ramble.
+    
+    This is also applied to the fact that we have skeletons.
+    It amazes me how an embryo can grow into a baby with organs
+    and a skeleton. Let's take it even further. At some point,
+    life was merely boneless aquatic creatures, yet they eventually
+    became creatures of flesh, blood, and bones.
+    
+    Ears, faces themselves livers, and skeletons, too—none of
+    those are meant to look perfectly even. Your and my liver
+    aren't identical. They're the same organ and they work the
+    same, but they wouldn't look exactly the same, and I don't
+    think they should. Again, it's the result of how tissue forms:
+    imperfectly! The cells aren't all the exact same shape and size,
+    and that combined with them growing over time, forming the
+    organ as they go, relying on a genetic blueprint and not
+    some physical outline to build on, will create a liver, which
+    is liver-like in shape and can do the function of a liver.
+    That's simply what a liver is, and that's what my cells and
+    your cells have successfully gathered into. Our livers do the
+    same thing; we are the same species, and we are both alive.
+    Unless you're reading this in the future, in which case,
+    I was alive at some point, and this is proof that I was.
+    Anyway, moving on.
+    
+    Before I conclude with the biggest point of this passage
+    ("what is aliveness in appearance"), I will explore one
+    last example: offspring of asexual reproduction in plants.
+    The mental image I had was that of succulents or small
+    plants with many small thick leaves lined up. While each
+    of those leaves are identical to each other, and the plant
+    itself being genetically identical to its parent plant,
+    neither are 100% perfectly identical. The genes are identical,
+    but, yet again, it is how those cells form tissues that have
+    these little imperfections which create the life that we see.
+    
+    Perhaps inanimate things can look alive as well. What to you,
+    would make a robot look alive? I am thinking of a robot with
+    many appendages or arms: a spider-like giant robot (something
+    similar to "can't help myself" by Sun Yuan & Peng Yu. I
+    imagine its base to be stationary but it has many arms
+    sticking out, whose movement is anchored to that base). To me,
+    a pure mechanical motion that is identical in each movement,
+    predictable and repetitive isn't alive, but it can move in ways
+    that make it seem alive. After thinking, I noticed what I'm
+    looking for: what makes a motion look alive? I found it to be
+    how it interacts with and is influenced by its surroundings.
+    A robot arm that moves purely based on how it's programmed
+    to move is, well, functioning, but it doesn't feel alive in
+    any way. It's a machine. Yet a machine, say the spider-thing,
+    moves imperfectly, such as a motion that isn't even or
+    predictable (it stumbles around, hesitates, doesn't move its
+    arm for the same distance each time, and so on), can perhaps
+    make me sympathise with a lifeless machine, and even make
+    me see it as a very large metal animal.
+    
+    You were never meant to look perfect. You were meant to be alive.
+    Biologically, your body is perfect enough to keep you alive.
+    
+    *I ended up not mentioning ecosystems here, but briefly,
+    it was about the sheer diversity of life on Earth, and the
+    food chains that dominate the flow of the living part of
+    nature. I don't have anything to say that you can't reach
+    yourself, but the key idea is the systems that simply work.
diff --git a/txt/audience.txt b/txt/audience.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e69de29
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/audience.txt
diff --git a/txt/birth.txt b/txt/birth.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..190fb79
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/birth.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+I will use this page to express whatever I want to, especially thoughts I have a lot and want to
+discuss, given that nobody in my life is down to ever having a discussion. I want to keep it minimal
+as the words are more important than the look, but with a bit of CSS, I wanted it to look comfortable 
+to read. This page was ironically inspired by the No-CSS club. I originally wanted to write pure pages
+for my thoughts, with zero styling. I already had the habit of storing thoughts in plaintext files, 
+and when I saw its potentional in websites, I wanted to do the same. However, when I created this
+file and was greeted by Neocities' placeholder code, I realized that I liked my default style (mute
+background plus page margins). I avoided JavaScript as well, as I deem it to be excessive.
+
+As for my audience, I know who they are. It's people who think similarly to me, or otherwise anyone
+who thinks too deeply about everything. I consider it a curse of some sorts but we'll see where it
+takes me.
+
+The internet is wide, so not everyone who comes across this will understand me, and if they do,
+they could disagree. Thing is, I'd like that. I appreciate disagreements as they get me out of my
+head. I love getting insight into how others think if it differs from my own thinking. I'm sick of
+living inside of my head, so this is a great outlet. Ideas exist to be shared in a way, whether
+directly or through application and implementation, or however you want to put it. Like I've said
+before, my online existence isn't worth more or less than anyone else's, and my opinions aren't
+anything special, but I think and I need to put use into these thoughts. Thinking alone won't change
+a thing in my life, but it sure makes the days more eventful than they really are. My life wouldn't
+have looked the same if it weren't for my understanding of it being the way it is. I've seen people
+whose lenses I want to share, people who, when you look through their eyes, refresh my vision. For
+some of them, I'd love to see life the way they do, but only for a little while, as changing
+something so big about myelf won't make me the *me* I know anymore.
+
+Enjoy.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/txt/brain.txt b/txt/brain.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4dd4a5f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/brain.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+    Sometimes, people are seen as their disorder. Other times,
+    the disorder is completely erased. Neither is good.
+    
+    On one hand, I want people to see me as a person like them,
+    and to speak to me on grounds of us both being human. I want
+    them to talk to me as myself, not just as an autistic person,
+    or a depressed person, or whatever else. They're not talking
+    to my mental illness. In truth, I don't know and can't be sure
+    of how others really perceive me, especially since I do not
+    have my issues plastered on my face. Well, usually. ADHD and
+    autism can be pretty visible on me. Regardless, I don't know
+    whether people attach it to my existence in their heads.
+    However, all through school years, I was infantilised by my
+    classmates. I was younger than them. This frustrated me
+    as I grew up. Sometimes I leaned into it because it meant
+    they can easily dismiss my strange behaviour as childish
+    instead of pathologizing it. Part of me doesn't want being
+    strange to be the main component of somebody else's perception
+    of me when they are talking to me.
+    
+    On the other hand, I'm sick of trying to act normal. I don't
+    want to continue pretending that my mental illness doesn't
+    affect me and to try and be seen as normal. I'll never be
+    normal by common standards. Maybe by someone else's standards,
+    I'm perfectly fine (see anti-psychiatry). ADHD is actually not
+    the concern here. It's a very common disorder. Acceptance is
+    increasing, too. Other issues people may have, however,
+    remain stigmatized, especially personality disorders and
+    schizophrenia spectrum, but I digress. The other part of me
+    wants to embrace the times I've been called mad. If people
+    are going to hate me or be scared of me, I'm going to give
+    them a reason to. I'm going to become a vampire. On a more
+    serious note, I want people to acknowledge that the way I think
+    and act, no matter how odd, is because of my mental illness.
+    I don't want them to reduce me to it, but to acknowledge it as
+    a part of me.
+    
+    Some people insist that creativity is separate from mental
+    illness, and I agree. Human creativity isn't indicative of
+    an issue. Making colorful geometric art does't mean you've
+    taken psychedelic drugs, for example. And you don't need to
+    be depressed to make meaningful or poignant art. Despite that,
+    I've noticed that the works of mine that I like most come
+    from deep in my psyche, and my psyche is ill.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/txt/core.txt b/txt/core.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..122fd1b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/core.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+The actions of human beings can be cruedly classified
+into either those that increase pleasure and comfort
+or those that minimize pain, but you could argue
+that these are one and the same. It is a very simplistic
+way of viewing humans, but long have I seen myself and
+others as mere animals -- that is, through animalistic
+lenses. Every action, to some, seems to have a biological
+reason, but there are a lot of gaps to this line of
+thinking. Human emotions are largely illogical, and
+human thought is similarly unexplainable. Innovation,
+compassion, and so on, have more to do with our role
+in a community than with our interpersonal relationship.
+It made me think, where, in this idea, does the
+concept of sacrificing yourself to a loved one fall?
+You are increasing your own pain, and certainly not
+adding to your own comfort, unless you consider the
+safety of a loved one to be a contributor to your
+wellbeing, which, if true, isn't something you can feel
+after death. What do you think?
+
+P.S. Some Things We Do by Swans is a song I love for this
+reason.
diff --git a/txt/email.txt b/txt/email.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..62cc176
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/email.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+  I recently changed the email shared on the site, so heads up for that unless
+  you never contacted me on the previous address (radiohotline pm.me). If you
+  still have my ****onproton@proton.me address, you can keep that, because I
+  still use it. Honestly, if there's any provider I want to use, it's RiseUp.
+  
+  The only issue with Disroot is that you have to encrypt your own emails, and
+  while this isn't a problem, given I know how to, I might forget to, or I
+  might be communicating with someone who doesn't use PGP, and who wouldn't
+  want to go through the hassle of decrypting mine or encrypting theirs, or
+  whatever. Anyway, RiseUp emails are encrypted, so there's an extra layer
+  of security. The problem is that I can't get an invite code.
+  
+  However, I don't use email much, and I have nothing that I am trying to
+  protect. It's just good practice to get into the habit of keeping all of my
+  comms secure, because who knows how bad the world could get?
+  
+  To close this up, my email change should only matter to people who are in
+  or want to join one of my two webrings, since that's where the old email
+  was displayed. Well, it's not like there is anyone who personally contacts
+  me through email, anyway.
+  
+  Oh right, if you have a RiseUp code, I would appreciate one unless you don't
+  trust me or something. I could wait this one out. It's just a matter of
+  feeling more comfortable with a provider whose views align with mine,
+  knowing that my communications would be safe in case I express any opinions.
+  
+  Speaking of, if you've ever saved my public key, you should replace that.
+  I put back my old key. I doubt anyone did, but it's just an extra measure.
+  
+  (Extra note, but using these files to speak my thoughts is a lot more
+  comfortable than declaring things on my Neocities profile. I don't really
+  like using the comment system much as it puts me "out there." I was going
+  to declare the email switch over there, but that would be very "in your face."
+  Nobody cares. I don't, either. Dunno who does.)
+  
+  Addition:
+  The only reason I'm not terminating the protonmail address that I'm keeping
+  is because I still use it on some accounts, so I need a while to change it
+  on every one before deleting the email. I've been meaning to switch away
+  from Proton for a long time, actually, but have only postponed it because,
+  again, I don't talk to anyone, but I was aware of them working with
+  authorities when it comes to VPN. I didn't care, but honestly even though
+  I'm not involved with anything suspicious, I don't trust them.
+  
+  I suddently remembered that the email I use most is actually freaking Gmail.
+  For various reasons, I'm not going to do anything about that.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/txt/hello.txt b/txt/hello.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e3b69d5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/hello.txt
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+WW91J3JlIGhlcmUgdG9vIGVhcmx5LiBDaGVjayBhZ2FpbiBsYXRlci4=
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/txt/isolation.txt b/txt/isolation.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9fea6ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/isolation.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+We are not immune to influence. We are surrounded by all kinds of opinions, and a human,
+when deciding how they feel or think about something, will be influenced by those around
+them. In addition, all creative works are sourced from around the creator. Even art that
+is born from within us has been inspired by something or somebody that we have seen before.
+(Yes, even if the art was inspired by a hallucination, other mind tricks, or geometric
+shapes.) We cannot truly conjure something that our brain has never had any contact with.
+Our imagination is limited to what we have visual input for. Creativity exists when we can
+create something new out of our past knowledge. We can split and stick parts together and
+create something never seen before, but I digress. I am saying that one cannot be 100%
+original. This is not to discredit any artists, of course. In fact, what I'm talking about
+isn't a negative thing at all. Instead, it's somewhat unifying.
+
+Back to opinions. We may not all consciously look around and see what others are thinking
+before declaring what we think, even though it has become the norm to be considerate in
+some way or another to our surroundings. My point here is that we  all want to conform to
+those with whom we feel that we belong. Don't deny it. Even if you are willing to go against
+the grain in every aspect of your life, you are still trying to conform to something, and
+that something could be your own mental image. However, in most cases, we want to belong
+with others. We feel that we must not think or feel in a way that defies or contradicts
+those with whom we want to share a bond. That bond does not always exist either. It could
+be an invisible tie that none of us acknowledge, which appears in cases where our only
+similarity is intellectual. Those who think the same can be grouped together.
+
+Nobody likes to be isolated. In ancient times, isolation from a tribe meant death. That
+is the proposed origin of why loneliness is painful. How does this apply in our times?
+We may want to participate in the same activities that people we like participate in. We
+may want to incorporate into our creative works things that will draw in those similar to
+us, or those with whom we want to be grouped or part of. Actually, there is a fallacy in
+what I said, because, as you know, many artists do not create with a label in mind. They
+do not create in order to be similar to another artist or to fit a title, style, or genre,
+as it defeats the self-expression and individuality that comes with creative human
+expression. However, for things as general as style or genre, one cannot be truly one of
+a kind. There will always be something similar, even if distantly, or something that has
+been a source of inspiration. That is not a bad thing. There could be two poets who write
+a similar poem, yet they don't know that the other nor their poem exists. Things like that
+can happen, as there is only so much originality that a human being could produce.
+
+There is another distinction in this topic. There are those who do not want to be
+associated with any existing principle or group, those who want to be completely
+solitary in their individualism. Those people could be hermits, recluses, or otherwise
+anyone who wants to separate themselves as much as possible from society and/or to
+actively defy and fight the norms placed by it. Like most other things in the world,
+this can be good and bad. It's good to think for yourself and to try to eliminate as
+much influence as possible from your decision-making, but it's only natural to be
+influenced in some way. While one is capable of making a perfectly neutral and logical
+decision, part of what makes us human is our reasoning. We can decide what *we* find best.
+And that itself will be influenced by our past experiences, and in a lot of cases, our
+feelings. Thoughts and feelings in decision-making will be discussed in "Heart and Mind"
+and not here.
+
+The bottom line is that human beings do not want to be isolated or ostracized. We prefer
+decisions and opinions that will draw us closer to and not further apart from our people.
+However, I want to declare that you don't have to. You don't have to conform. You aren't
+a slave to others' opinions, so who cares whether or not you achieve the similarity to
+others, if you seek it? If you don't, then that's good. In this day and age, it is always
+better to draw your own conclusions and opinions. People you like aren't necessarily "more
+correct", so think for yourself before you let an influence choose your thoughts and feelings
+for you. This can apply to anything, big and small.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/txt/mind.txt b/txt/mind.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..62b7e0a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/mind.txt
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+wip
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/txt/minimal.txt b/txt/minimal.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e69de29
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/minimal.txt
diff --git a/txt/num.txt b/txt/num.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..80b5b5d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/num.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+    It's true. A number that doesn't end with a zero or a five won't kill you.
+    I've recently come to terms with the fact that nobody will kill me
+    (figuratively) for using precise values in my code if they don't change by
+    increments of five.
+    
+    Numbers are numbers. That's all they are.
+    
+    
+    Responses (paraphrased).
+    
+    Jan 28 -
+    thricegreat:
+    [...] Logically, yes. But I think
+    giving some numbers divinity [...] is good though.
+    
+    
+    teethinvitro:
+    I am perfectionistic with designs (specifically in measurements, almost to
+    a weird level) ... [so] I strive for even-ness in almost everything.
+    Imagine a drawing, geometric painting, or a web page. Divisions of odd
+    numbers can have a beauty as well, even though they could be visibly off.
+    One could even those out to fix the "off-looking" aspects.
+    
+    Technically, a lot of numbers have special importance, especially in
+    geometry, and I wouldn't disagree that I find myself a slave to such
+    perfection, ... but it wouldn't hurt to break notions like that.
+    
+    For example, we can misjudge what is and isn't in a straight line,
+    especially since most of us don't change our angle of vision but instead of
+    the angle of the thing we're looking at ... One may intuitively decide on
+    what looks best if ruler measurements don't "feel" right (but they are).
+    
+    Heck, even this file is a victim to me unnecessarily and manually wrapping
+    words around a certain line length, and I judge that length by eye.
+    
+    
+    thricegreat:
+    ... So is it similar to why I changed the left-right tile size ratio
+    (in a tiling WM) from the divine golden ratio to the simplicity of 1:1?
+    In this case looking good instead of simplicity.
+    
+    
+    teethinvitro:
+    Pretty much.
+    
+    ----------
+    
+    Update on January 7th, 2025:
+    
+    There are "no" imperfect numbers in the sense that any number can be
+    multiplied by any other number, meaning all whole numbers have factors.
+    Prime numbers' prime factors are 1 and themselves. Any number can be
+    divided by 2 to give its half. Theoretically, any number can be halved,
+    so when it comes to something like page design, odd numbers are half of
+    something too, so they are "allowed." They are clean. You can divide an apple
+    of any size into half and it will split into a clean cut. However, if any
+    imperfect number exists, it's all the repeating numbers. Those feel unclean to
+    use. Dividing with them is impractical. Getting them as a result is impractical.
+    Despite that, things perfect thirds do exist, if you change the decimal to a fraction.
+    A graphical representation of a third is beautiful and perfect, but it's decimal
+    is not, because when you multiply 0.3333333333... by 3, which should be 1, you get
+    0.9999999999.... Not good. The number stretches infinitely towards 1, yet it is
+    never 1, but multiplying 1/3 by 3 yields 1. How come, then, a value like pi
+    does not have a perfect fraction that represents it that we know of? It should
+    theoretically exist. If you divide decimals by each other, they can be multiplied
+    by certain numbers until their fraction is whole-to-whole. The simplest number
+    to use is 10.
diff --git a/txt/point.txt b/txt/point.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e742e26
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/point.txt
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+    aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/txt/shower.txt b/txt/shower.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..83c104c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/shower.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+    How many outcomes are there to a shower?
+    
+    We have to set our scope and threshold. You're probably
+    thinking that there is one outcome: getting clean.
+    However, there are infinite outcomes to any event if
+    you're not careful.
+    
+    First, I will limit the observation to the instant the
+    shower is done. What if I don't? If you count the process,
+    then every footstep you take in the shower will impact
+    how the shower goes on a microscopic level that, with 
+    just the right chance, might snowball into a visible effect,
+    like slipping and injuring yourself. I will not count footsteps.
+    I will not count the way your muscles contract and relax unless
+    they are a factor in the success of the shower. Therefore,
+    I will assume the shower is successful; that is, complete.
+    
+    Second, I will limit the impact of the shower to external
+    physical cleanliness. I will not count psychological effects,
+    nor will I count the effect (if any) it has on the movement
+    of red blood cells inside of you, whether they hit the walls
+    of your vessels in certain ways as they squeeze through, nor will
+    I pretend that such movement affects the process of showering.
+    If I count it, there will be infinite outcomes, most of which have
+    no real discernible value, because the useful data is cleanliness.
+    I will assume that the way soap bubbles on your skin has no impact,
+    because there are infinite manners in which the bubbles will appear,
+    if they appear at all in the foam. I will count, however, whether
+    the soap covers every picometer of your skin. If not, then how much
+    of the skin it touches. This is important in assessing the totality
+    of the cleansing.
+    
+    With that out of the way, because there are infinite numbers, there
+    are infinite "levels" of cleanliness. The percentage can be any number
+    between 0 and 100. However, some people don't use soap or shampoo
+    at all. Sometimes, people have a quick shower to rinse off sweat and
+    nothing else. In cases like this, and in all cases really, it may be
+    more useful to measure the change in cleanliness level. In other
+    words, we will count how much cleaner you got. This should exclude
+    obvious extreme cases like not turning on the water. A shower must
+    constitute of water at the very least, and the water must touch you.
+    Usage of soap is not a must, but another factor in cleanliness.
+    A shower using a bit of soap cleans more than a shower without any.
+    That translates meaningfully into the calculation and measurement.
+    
+    To reduce the number of outcomes from infinite to usable, we can
+    define ranges and conditions. For example, we can produce a binary
+    of "clean" and "not clean" based on a threshold of cleanliness. If your
+    cleanliness at the end of the shower is above a certain percentage, you
+    are clean. An issue with this is that you may have been clean before the
+    shower too, so this does not show the effect of the shower. We can thus
+    return to the change-measuring method: a shower is effective if its
+    net cleanliness change meets the amount required by the showerer. This
+    gives room for relative usefulness of the shower. Someone entering the
+    shower might not be looking for the deepest cleanse. I disagree with
+    that personally, but that does not matter.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/txt/soda.txt b/txt/soda.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b7aa28d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/soda.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+I got so fucked up last night. I had just eaten dinner and went to get a drink.
+I wanted to get soda but when I opened the fridge I saw the tasty minty lemonade
+bottle. I took the bottle out, and I took a bottle of soda and a glass and set
+them all on the table. I was breathing like a drug addict. After feeling stable
+(there was some talk about the recent death in the background), I began by pouring
+juice up to half of the glass. Then I opened the soda and poured lemon soda into
+the rest of the glass. I began drinking, quickly. I loved that shit. I slurped it
+up and felt too much of it in my mouth. Too tasty and fizzy. I felt sick. I
+repeated the process. I drank it. My heart was beating so fast. There was a very
+tiny bit of soda left so I slurped that. I felt sick. I had 1 million burps trapped
+inside me that I were to release later
diff --git a/txt/where.txt b/txt/where.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..36db120
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/where.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+  Through logic alone, you are existing now. Your existence
+  on a literal level is the presence of your physical body.
+  In a more abstract sense, you may continue to exist as
+  a person or concept if you're carried as knowledge or
+  as a memory. These are common ideas, and with them out
+  of the way, I would like to ask something.
+  
+  How do you define your existence?
+  
+  Do you exist when you are alone or do you base your
+  existence around others? Specifically, do you base
+  it on how you are percieved?
+  
+  Do you see it as simply existing in a body that will
+  eventually pass into dirt once it ceases biological
+  function or as your connection to others? In other words,
+  you have an existence in other people, sure, but what
+  is its value? Most importantly, to you.
+  
+  If I were to cut off all existence around others and
+  continue to exist as somebody that nobody interacts
+  with, I still exist literally. I can still think and
+  act and do whatever. Do I still exist to others?
+  If nobody knew me, if everyone forgot, I don't exactly
+  exist in a, let's say, "global" sense.
+  
+  Does it matter?
+  
+  That's not what I was thinking of. I was thinking about
+  whether cutting off people entirely would give me
+  a break from existing. Since I have no actions, I have
+  no impact, and thus no consequences that could shape
+  my bonds with others and their perception of me.
+  
+  How do you define your existence?
+  
+  I did not answer my own question. I don't want to
+  reach an answer. I've long ago come to terms with the
+  concept of ceasing existence. I don't need to think about
+  it again. I was just wondering about the difference between
+  my existence solely and in relation to others.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/txt/world.txt b/txt/world.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0206abc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/txt/world.txt
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+    The world is rotten to its core.