I second the sentiment, that working through a book is the absolute best education. I worked through many.

I copied down all the code in ANSI Common Lisp and answered all the questions in the book explicitly, wrote down my answers and everything. Except for the object-oriented part which the author says not to read. Says it was a requirement for the book in the 90s, he didn't want to include it. I didn't read it on his advice. That book also includes cryptic objections to political correctness, in a simulation you're supposed to run about a contest in an alien race that always ends in a tie or near-tie. The simulations the book proposes reveal equality of outcome in these contests is due to manipulation. You don't get even representation from fair contests. Whereas university admissions in general do end up with a lot of "underrepresented minorities"--and this Daniel Cussen saying that, my torturer said that I'm a "minority of one"--but the ties and near-ties are because of fixing. The game is rigged.

But a book! That is an education! Then I attended Stanford and it was like, what is this shit? I gotta cheat to pass, the fuck? If you say I can't cheat and then you say I can cheat in a specific manner, eg asking a TA for all the answers, what do I do? My Chilean logic says, if they say you can't and say you can, you can't. Same rules as Magic: the Gathering, negative prevails over positive--and it's a matter of integrity, there's reasoning for this, both in Chile and in Magic, it makes perfect sense to me. Basically it's conservative. Not "negative" in the pejorative sense.

Hell, weight loss is negative, is it bad to lose fat? Fatness is positive, bigger number on the scale. Why is negativity worse? Further I'm in the Southern Hemisphere, the negative hemisphere, there's a physical definition for its negativity. Is this wrong? Does negative magnetism translate to negative morality, which I truly do recognize as wrong? Manicheanism, yes, right is positive wrong is negative. I basically buy that. But with all physics? And of course technically positive current is incorrectly defined, it should be the other way around, electrons are what moves so they should be positive.

Stanford I guess thinks can prevails over can't, should go over that in orientation. There shouldn't be contradictions like this in the first place, though. Admitted students have to be able to pass all courses without any cheating. I guess that's where I fucked up. Getting myself lobotomized, guess I'm no longer Stanford material despite having already been admitted.

No longer have the brains. Literally no longer having the brains. That's literally it.

But Stanford refused to protect me from lobotomy, I kept telling them how much harm I would go through, crying in my lynching meeting on February 6 2009, begging for a trial and always getting denied, going to every office I could, writing emails nobody gave any replies in writing to, telling my whole dorm I was getting lynched (apparently nobody does this). Stadmin only pushed me further into that system, jammed me further into the meat grinder. Meat grinder. Think of it like a blender, what happens to meat that goes in? Does it retain its shape? No it gets diced right?

Just watched gloatingly as I got put through the system. Watched with relish. Young white man getting lynched. That is the consummation of the Civil Rights Movement, young white man getting lynched. It's not as platonic, abstract and noble as it pretends to be. White is negative. Young white man getting lynched? Justice.

But back to my point: the book. It used to be, before universities monopolized annointing the intelligent as such, that it wasn't about going to the right schools. It was about being well-read. Universities didn't exist before AD 1000, University of Bologna. And even then it started slow.

Books are better.