OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Historical Rhetorics/A Little Aristotle and the Other Socrates/Papillion, Terry. "Isocrates' Techne and Rhetorical Pedagogy."

Terry Papillion. "Isocrates' Techne and Rhetorical Pedagogy." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 25 (1995): pp. 149-163.
Papillion extracts from Isocrates an interpretation of techne that resists the more literate (Ong), logocentric, or ontological sense supplied by Plato and Aristotle. Rather than providing fixed rules, Isocrates attempted to develop more of a kairotic, situational awareness through a mix of practice, performance, and analysis (151, 156). This pedagogical difference is rooted in a theoretical one, for Papillion suggests that "Isocrates' refusal to use the term rhêtorikê shows his desire to avoid the abstraction that Plato sought" (151). Similarly: "Plato and Aristotle fought to separate rhetoric and philosophy; Isocrates sought to keep the interest in communication, in logos, together. [...] Isocrates saw himself in a synthetic role, not an analytic one: rhetoric and philosophy were not separable in his view" (153). Papillion's distinction between synthesis and analysis predicts Latour's distinction between construction and critique; Isocrates occuplies a pragmatic middle ground between a chaotic refusal of systemization (which Papillion connects to Derrida and poststructuralism) and insistence upon fixed systems (which he associates with Plato and Aristotle).
Papillion concludes re-appraising epideictic from an Isocratic perspective. Part of Aristotle's ontological project involved breaking rhetoric into species, and Papillion suggests that he created the species of epideictic as praise and blame. But Isocrates would have rejected such a distinction, arguing that praise and blame were a part of any rhetorical situation. Papillion:
I would propose here that what Isocrates did, what Isocrates taught, was not epideictic rhetoric, not judicial rhetoric, not even deliberative rhetoric; Isocrates practiced what I shall call hypodeictic rhetoric. This is rhetoric that uses praise and blame-- mostly praise-- and a strong sense of comparison to set out situations as examples for those around to learn and from which those around could create policy for the future. [...] I offer "hypodeictic" here as a new term to show the importance for the community of such discourse. (158 emphasis original)
I believe this sense of hypodeictic can be read across Isocrates' concept of paideia, and in line with the sense of ethos developed by Halloran, the sense of nomos developed by Jarratt, and the more robust articulation of epideictic offered by Sullivan. For Isocrates, our sense of community is what drives any persuasive situation; like Burke's concept of identification, Isocrates' notion of paideia insists that we must first occupy a position as a we before any logical (or even emotional) appeal will have affect.
# Historical Rhetorics/Cicero's Public and the Greek Tradition/Jarratt, Susan C. "Sappho's Memory." RSQ 32.1 (2002): 11-43.

* Through careful analysis of the fragments of Alcaeus and Sappho, (male and female lyric poets respectively, writing during the same time period), considers depictions of memory to show how gender differences were foregrounded in ancient lyric. Jarratt shows that Sappho’s appeals to memory exemplify women-as-excluded from public (political) spaces and contrasts to Alcaeus masculinity memory of (political) inclusion. Jarratt argues that these gendered practices of memory, because lyric is the precursor for rhetoric, pervaded through the memory systems of classical Greek and Roman rhetoricians, in particular Cicero’s de Oratore and Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria.
* Notable Quotations:
** Coverting desire to memory is a rhetorical process: “In these references to memory in Sappho’s works lies an impulse related to rhetoric’s desire to shape the ideas, feelings, and practices of those it reaches . . . it is because one can feel desire, can yearn for a different future, a just response to a past act, a fair valuation of a leader, that one can persuade and be persuaded” (20).
** Simonides was dining at nobleman Scopas’ house, where he chanted lyric poem he recited. Scopas was not a fan and threatened to only pay half of the agreed fee because Simonides spent half the time talking about Castor and Pollux rather than his host. Simonides was sent a message to go outside. The roof collapsed and later, Simonides was able to help family members identify the deceased based on where they were sitting because he had committed it to memory so he could refer to them in his speech. Cicero: “. . . the best aid to clearness of memory consists in orderly arrangement” (2.86.353).
** Jarratt: In Cicero and Quintilian, “The rhetor creates a subject/object relationship of the items—including people—to be remembered . . .” and this “emphasizes the acquisitive quality of memory, and focuses on sight about other senses” (29).
** The Simonides story makes something that you assume would entail mourning to an “emotionless techne”—but what remains, Jarratt argues, is that “co-presence (or absence) of people in a space of rhetorical practice” (30).
** Sense of loss is prevalent in De Oratore—the dialogue takes place outside of Rome, Crassus’ absence is felt in 3.3.6, and it would be known to the readers that 2 of the speakers had violent deaths in political struggles (32).
** Cicero & Sappho: Both desire to “give shape to what is not immediately present,” but Cicero seeks to “fix memory in the form of an internalized object” (33)—he wants everyone to form a specific picture of Crassus, etc.
** Quintilian rejects Simonides’ system of memory and is more in favor or natural memory because “arranging ideas in their natural order creates a perfect, and perfectly memorable, set of connections” (11.2.36-37).
** Quintilian shows the importance of others in the formation of memory—space is not a “container for things” but rather a place where people can “meet, relate, feel each other’s presence” (11.2.17-18).
# Historical Rhetorics/Cicero's Public and the Greek Tradition/Goodwin, Jean. "Cicero's Authority." ''Philosophy & Rhetoric'' 34 (2001): 38-60.

Goodwin, Jean. "Cicero's Authority." Philosophy & Rhetoric 34 (2001): 38-60.
In this essay Jean Goodin explores the interaction of speaker and audience and the role of ethos as a means of persuasion. As a case study, Goodin focuses on Cicero’s representation of a man named Sulla, who is a defendant in a conspiracy trial. In his official capacity as Roman Consul, Cicero had previously investigated the same conspiracy that eventually led to the execution of five conspirators. In this case, by defending another charged in the same conspiracy, Cicero is now batting from the other side of the plate. In today’s legal world, bar officials would undoubtedly censure him for violating ethical standards prohibiting conflict of interest. Despite this apparent ethical dilemma, Cicero bases his defense of Sulla, not on the evidence, but on the merit of Cicero’s own reputation. In essence, the defense he raises is ‘you should find Sulla not guilty because I tell you he is not guilty. Trust me.’
After describing the prosecution’s attack on Cicero’s situation (that his conflict of interest cancels his ethos) Goodin carefully evaluates the considerations facing the jury members in context of the concept of ethos as it existed in ancient Rome. By Roman standards, a respected public figure must be given credibility and respect until there is proof that the respect and authority has been forfeited. In the same way the presumption of innocence gives and accused an advantage in a criminal trial, the orator with the best reputation is given a presumption of believability. Unless there is good reason to question the great one’s ethos, the audience should defer to his or her judgment. To do otherwise would show disrespect and invite public disfavor.
Cicero counters the prosecution’s attack on his ethos by serving up and even bigger dose of ethos by arguing ‘would I be so mad as to risk my reputation, to sully my grand achievements to act falsely in this case.’ In other words, would anyone in Cicero’s position be crazy enough to risk everything for anything other than a just cause. Would such an argument prevail in a modern courtroom? No. In fact such an argument would not be allowed because it is considered irrelevant. Was the argument effective in Sulla’s case? Suffice it to say the jury found Sulla not guilty.
# Historical Rhetorics/A Little Aristotle and the Other Socrates/Welch's ''Electric Rhetoric'', chapters 2 & 3
## Welch, Kathleen E. Electric Rhetoric / Classical Rhetoric, Oralism, and a New Literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 1999.
### Isocrates's Rhetoric

    "For Isocrates, rhetoric consists of language as it constitutes part of thought (that is, interior discourse) and language as it constitutes one's negotiations with the world (that is, exterior discourse). Writing, speaking, and thinking are mutually dependent for him and, I contend, heavily conditioned by the technology of writing" (34).
    "[...]rhetoric works toward more complex thinking, part of which derives from the act of writing, which brings with it the ability to construct a disembodied audience" (43).
    "[...] logos signifies not simply speech but rather can signify thought, reflection, a story, history, or reasoning" (46).

### Nomos or Physis / Rhetoric as Metaphysics or Ornament (Or, [the Paradox of] Sub.stance v. Sytle)

Here's how I interpret Welch's interpretation of Isocrates (pg. 31). Welch turns the physis/nomos binary on its head. It is not that we are physis-ically perfect and then corrupted by nomos (as, say, we appear in the allegory of the cave, such that by transcending our human institutions, relations, and neighbors we reach a higher ethical/moral knowledge); rather, it is through our ability to come together as neighbors, relations, institutions that we transcend (if that is the right word), our baser human instincts.
Another way I frame her project: instead of thinking about Isocrates in terms of style, let's think of him as articulating a metaphysic. Here's how she puts it:
    What happens to classical rhetoric when Isocrates' rhetorical theories are interpreted as a central, and not merely a decorative, part of the ideology that incorporates a traditionally received body of material? (33).

### Rhetoric as Ethics

Words Welch uses to describe Isocrates' logos and rhetoric: associative (pg 32) (vs. abstract), belief (32) (vs certainty), judgment (39-40) (vs. knowledge). For Welch's discussion of judgment vs. philosophy see 39-40. Important for Welch's recasting of Isocrates: he equally insists that strong external discourse equates to strong internal discourse. Fake it to you make it(?)
Welch: "Isocrates claims that rhetorical study can produce wise interior discourse, or deliberation with oneself across a range of subject areas" (35).
    "Isocrates returns repeatedly to the development of judgment through the development of language ability. Writing constitutes a central role in this agenda. Crucially, Isocrates uses the word "philosophia" to signify the development of judgment, not just the gathering of knowledge, so that everyday issues as well as more momentous ones can be negotiated as they develop" (38)
There is a strong ethical basis for Iscorates' rhetoric (see Vitanza's discussion of Isocrates' logos (NSHoR 174). Question: do you train people how to write, or how to live? In other words, to what extent are you responsible (um, Socrates) for the moral choices of your students?
# Historical Rhetorics/A Little Aristotle and the Other Socrates/The Praise of Isocrates

Coulter, James A. "Phaedrus 279A: The Praise of Isocrates." Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 8 (1967): 225-236.
In “Phaedrus 279A: The Praise of Isocrates,” James A. Coulter attempts to reexamine a specific portion of the text that classical scholars up to the point he was writing in 1967 had speculated but never before tried to conclude that Socrates’ judgment of Isocrates’ character in section 279A of the Phaedrus contained any trace of sarcasm about or irony within it. As such, the aim of Coulter’s article is to reexamine this passage in light of his position that Socrates’ seemingly well-intentioned “praise” towards Isocrates actually reveals deeply embedded jabs at his rhetorical counterpart.
Coulter analyzes closely and methodically a series of references Socrates makes that signify he used in a very subtle and inferential manner hints of intertextuality referring to previous negative encounters Isocrates has had in the past with his other counterparts, particularly Alcidamas and Antisthenes. Coulter concludes that while on the surface Socrates’ assessment of Isocrates’ thought and character may seem flattering and quite frankly rather innocent, in actuality Socrates’ choices of nuanced terminology, textual organization, and subtle intertextuality within the paragraph length pseudo-encomium contain elements that would intentionally “infuriate the recipient” (225).
While Coulter does not take the time to evaluate the overall usefulness of his arguments within the field as a whole, it can only be assumed that rightly repositioning Plato as infinitely disdainful and oppositional of Isocratean rhetorical philosophy only serves to reinforce our own previously – and comfortably – held belief that Plato (not even while on a long, relaxing walk outside the friendly confines of Athens) would never truly “praise” Isocrates.
# Historical Rhetorics/A Little Aristotle and the Other Socrates/Papillion, Terry. "Mixed Unities in the Antidosis of Isocrates."

Antidosis is not the rambling, disjointed plea for vindication of an old man, but rather a skillfully designed, unified speech modeled upon Plato’s Apology. Isocrates uses the word miktos (mixed) to refer to the speech. Miktos does not occur frequently in Greek texts of this era. Papillon interprets it as "appropriate mixture." Papillon believes that Isocrates designed the Antidosis to have two contrasting sections; the first relates Isocrates’ effects on the state and the second explores the means by which Isocrates produced these accomplishments. These two sections roughly correspond to Isocrates’ public life and to his private life.
Papillon identifies two genres which comprise the speech; parts of the speech resemble nothing more than a judicial defense; “it has a proem, a partition and proof…, an ethical digression, and a peroration” (57). The second genre “consists of making the speech, which is in response to questions about his teaching, an example of his teaching” (57). Isocrates’ public and private lives inhered so closely that he could not help but see an attack on the one as a call to defense of the other. “Thus the private issue of the antidosis became for him the public issue of his value to Athens” (58), because “he saw no real distinction between the public and the private” (58) in his own life and thought.
# History of video games/Platforms/K-Magic
## History

The system was developed jointly by the Ohio Art Company and K's Kids. Notably the Ohio Art Company had previously worked on the Etch-A-Sketch Animator 2000.

## References

* ↑ "K-Magic Offers The Very Best in Educational Entertainment for Infants and Toddlers" (in en). www.newswire.com. September 8, 2011. https://www.newswire.com/news/k-magic-offers-the-very-best-in-educational-entertainment-for-infants-and-93111.
# History of video games/Platforms/KW-501
## History

The KW-500 and KW-501, were a family of unlicenced Sega Mega Drive clones which achieved some popularity in certain markets.

## References

* ↑ "KW-501". Sega Retro. 16 October 2021. Retrieved 31 October 2021.
# How to Solve the Crazy 3x3 Plus Cube

The Crazy 3x3 Plus Cube, manufactured by mf8 and DaYan, is a puzzle similar to the Rubik's cube. It has a centre portion on each side that may or may not rotate along with the rest of the layer when that layer is turned, depending on which side of which version of the puzzle it is. This puzzle comes in eight variations (one named for each planet).
Knowing how to solve a normal Rubik's cube consistently is the first step to solving this puzzle. Follow the links to know more:
* Mercury
* Venus
* Earth
* Mars
* Jupiter
* Saturn
* Uranus
* Neptune

## Notation and terminology

There are several notations; please refer to this notation guide.
Briefly:
* There are six sides to the cube, presented as Front, Back, Left, Right, Up and Down. They are usually referred to by their one-letter abbreviations.
* In the isometric diagrams below, where a corner points out at you, you see the F, R and U sides. The F faces to the left.
* Quarter-rotations of that face's layer default to clockwise. Counter-clockwise rotations are often referred to as "inverted" and indicated by ′, for instance, R′. (The ′ is commonly read as "prime", "apostrophe", "tick mark", "anti-clockwise", "anti" or "i" for inverted). Half-rotations (180 degrees) are indicated by the digit "2", for instance, R2 (meaning 2 quarter-rotations following the one-letter abbreviation).
* To see what is happening on the sides of the other three colors, rotate the cube as a whole, described as rotating along the x, y, z space axis, all pointing out of the page. x is a cube rotation in the direction of R, y is U and z is F, but since this sort of move also changes the colors of the center-tiles, it is used sparingly.
| B | D | F | L | R | U |
* Notations for slice turns or inner layer turns include M (the slice between L and R, same direction as L), E (slice between U and D, same direction as D, rarely used), S (slice between F and B, same direction as F, rarely used) and M′, M2, etc. That is to say, M is the same as L′ R x′.
* Notations for double layer turns are Fw, Bw, Uw, Dw, Lw, Rw, etc. "Rw" is a turn of the right two layers; that is to say, it is the same thing as L x.
* Pieces of the cube can be referred to using the F, B, U, D, L and R letters. For example, FUR is the corner piece at the intersection of F, U and R and UB is the edge piece between the U and B layers, or either of the corners beside it.
* For these specific puzzles, we will need additional terms and notations to refer to the pieces within the circle. We will call the pieces that belong inside the circle inner edges and inner corners. We will designate their position in the format X(YZ) where X is the side they are on and Y and Z are the other layers that they are on (Z is not necessary for inner edges). For example, F(UR) is the inner corner on the F side which is also a member of the U and R layers.
* Using the terminology on the box that probably came with your puzzle, sides whose centers turn with the layer will be called 1 sides and the other sides whose centers do not turn with the rest of the layer will be called 0 sides.

## See also

* Puzzles
* How to Solve the Rubik's Cube
# How to Solve the Rubik's Cube/CFOP

The Fridrich method or the CFOP method (cross, F2L, OLL, PLL) is a fast method for solving the Rubik's Cube created by Jessica Fridrich. It consists of four steps: Cross, F2L (First Two Layers), OLL (Orient Last Layer), and PLL (Permute Last Layer). Although it requires you to memorise many (up to 78) different formulas, it's one of the fastest speedcubing methods.
It is recommended that you should start learning using the beginner method first, then use the Fridrich method once you have become proficient at that.

## The Cross

The cross is done intuitively. It is usually done starting with the white colored squares. You should do it on the bottom because then it's easier to locate the other pieces. The cross is done in eight moves or less (this will take a couple of days of practicing), though in over 99%of the cases it can be done in 6 moves. A tip for training is to do the cross blindfolded. This will allow you to focus on the next step, F2L while doing the cross. Make sure that the colors of the other stickers on the edges are in this order: blue, red, green, orange. Don't forget to align the center's pieces of the cube!

## First two layers (F2L)

The strategy here is to join a corner of the first layer with the edge that goes above it, then insert that pair. The cases for this step can all be solved intuitively if you have enough experience. The cases described below are designed to help you gain that intuition.
* 1 Here, be sure to insert the pair that is already formed using U'F'UF (or FR'F'R), but not RUR', which would destroy the pair.
* 2 For this one, R will join the pair, then UR' will insert it.
* 3 You can "hide" the corner using F', then U2F will join the pair, then this becomes case 1 to the left. This differs from case 2 only by the orientation of the edge (blue is up, not orange)
* 4 This can be solved with URU'R' (join the pair) then U'F'UF (insert the pair)
* 5 Here, the white side of the corner is facing up. To join the pair, UR will move the edge into a position where the corner can attach to it properly, then U will join the pair and R' will put it on the top. Now insert the pair into its slot.
* 6 In cases where the pair is joined wrong, the strategy is to separate the pair and turn it into another case. If you do UF'U2, you can turn this case into case 2 above. If you do RU2R', you can turn this into case 3.
There are, of course, many more cases than this, but most can be solved with the strategies above or can be reduced to one of the above cases.

## External links

* Jessica Fridrich's page
# How to Solve the Rubik's Cube/Jar Method

The Jar1 method is a complicated Rubik's cube method that involves many algorithms consisting of advanced techniques to not only save time, but improve time of solving the Rubik's Cube. The Jar1 method was created by J.A.R or Jacob Alexander Rowley. After studying numerous methods, including the Petrus and the Fridrich, and finally analyzing and memorizing the algorithms, he created studies and came up with an algorithm of his own. Rowley's Algorithm was to create a straight line through the middle of all the colored pieces. Then he would combine other algorithms including to switch corners and middles to finally solve the cube in well under a minute.
# How to Solve the Rubik's Cube/Beginner2
## Terminology

* Cubie- one of the small cubes inside the giant one
* Solved- an edge is considered solved if each side is next to the right center (eg. the red-yellow edge is between the red and yellow centers)
* Center- the cubie in the center of each side, they don't move relative to each other

## Scrambling the Cube

For consistency's sake, we will all scramble our cube as such for this Wikibook with White being the front and blue on top:
U B′ R2 D′ U′ R U2 B R′ B2 L2 R F2 R2 U2 R B U2 F2 L2 F2 D R B2 R2
http://www.cosine-systems.com/cubestation/imagecube/imagecube.php?stickers=gworbyrwwyggwwgrgyobbooyoob&size=100
http://www.cosine-systems.com/cubestation/imagecube/imagecube.php?stickers=bbrrggwrrgbybrybwogywoyryow&size=100

## Step One- The Cross

The goal of this step is to make a plus sign out of solved edges.

### Step 1a

Pick a color. We will use white. When you get good, it is advisable to pick the color to the cube.

### Step 1b

Make the cross. Unfortunately, there are no patterns (from here on, algorithms) for this step
R' U L F' R' B' U' L U
Turn the cube so the cross is on bottom before you proceed.