Thursday, June 30, 2016

Brexit and democracy

I have several times in the past predicted that some time in the future, in the western countries, limits will be imposed on democracy (perhaps even to the point that it will be ended completely or, more likely, a system of "faux democracy" will be instituted which keeps up a flimsy pretense of democracy, but in reality is just a full-on oligarchy.) The reason for this is that the modern western culture zeitgeist is going more and more into the direction that "democracy is bad because it allows people to vote for the wrong people and the wrong things."

I predicted this mostly because of the quasi-religious multicultural feminist social justice culture that is permeating the western world, and is stronger than ever, an ideology of self-hatred which sees western culture as completely and irreparably corrupt to the core, which must be eradicated. Because reasons.

However, a very concrete example of this anti-democratic ideology has surfaced from a slightly different tangent: The "Brexit" referendum of the United Kingdom.

The "remain" side lost the referendum, and now they are throwing a hissy fit that's just incredible. Not only do they demand a second referendum (because, you know, if the people vote the wrong way, the solution to that problem is to keep organizing the voting again and again until the people vote the right way), but they are throwing all kinds of anti-democratic sentiments.

For example, one common sentiment is that "old people" should not have the right to vote. You know. These "old people" who fought against the nazis and helped liberating Europe and the western world from genocidal authoritarianism, so that us young people could live in a free democratic society. A democratic society where everybody has the same rights, including universal suffrage. The right that now these young people who didn't get their way want to remove.

Yeah, because that's the solution to all our problems, isn't it? Just bring down democracy and human rights, and build an oligarchy where only the people with the correct opinions are allowed to vote and have a voice, and people with the "wrong" opinions are stripped from their rights.

And, of course, the "elite" of the UK are also having a hissy fit, and openly stating that they should fight against the "masses". They aren't even trying to masquerade it: They want an oligarchy, plain and simple. They want to override and veto the vote of the people, and have the people in charge make all the decisions even if it's against the majority vote.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

So what do VR games look like?

Now that VR has had a bit of time to mature, what do the best-rated VR games on Steam look like?

(Now, don't get me wrong. I understand that developing games takes quite a lot of time. For example, it took over a year for the PS4 to have a sizeable library of new big-budget triple-A games. But on the other hand, the Oculus Rift development kits have been available for like 3 years, so developers have had plenty of time to make games, or even add VR support to existing games.)

Note that I'm not cherry-picking the worst examples. These are literally the top-rated VR games on Steam as of writing this blog post. (You can click on the images to get slightly larger versions.)

The Lab:

Valve's flagship tech demo is not exactly bad-looking at parts, but on the other hand, it's pretty crappy at others, like above. (Note that the guy in the picture is not part of the game. That's just video footage of a real person.) I think even the PlayStation 2 had better graphics than this.

Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes:

Yet another barely-even-PS2 game. And what is it about? I think the Steam description says it all: "Find yourself trapped alone in a room with a ticking time bomb. Your friends have the manual to defuse it, but they can't see the bomb, so you're going to have to talk it out – fast!"

So it's a party game, which may entertain you for... what? Fifteen minutes? Yay. What a blast.

Vanishing Realms:

While at first glance it doesn't look really bad at first, if you look more closely (especially at full resolution), you'll start noticing that this is, yet again, at PS2 level. Low-polygon, low-res textures, simplistic lighting, and models look like crap.

The FOO Show featuring Will Smith:

WTF is this? We seem to be descending to PS1 territory. This looks almost like a MS-DOS game. Look at all those flat-shaded untextured polygons, on low-poly models. Which are posed like geriatric dolls.


Again at a quick glance it might look better than it really is, but a closer look reveals, once again, PS2 grade graphics. (Are we seeing a pattern here?) In fact, I think many PS2 games had better graphics than this. And of course gameplay consists of you standing still like a buffoon shooting around.

Battle Dome:

This is getting ridiculous. Save for the higher-res photo of the Earth in the background, this looks like a PS1 game.


Yay. Look at all those graphical effects. Ok, there aren't any, but I'd look at them if there were.

Unseen Diplomacy:

I have no words. Is this some kind of joke?

Maybe the only two games in the top rated list that slightly resemble modern games are Pool Nation VR and Space Pirate Trainer:

And with "slightly resemble a modern game" I mean perhaps barely an early PS3 game.

Not much of a story in a pool game. Might be fun to experience, but I don't envision myself playing it for hours. Although if I had to choose from all these games, this one would be the one, by a really large margin.

As for the "Space Pirate Trainer", it's once again just you standing still like a buffoon, shooting at incoming little robots. Yay.

Is this really the best that VR has to offer?

And no, the answer is not "but VR requires so much rendering power that games can't look like the best modern games!" That's just not true.

The minimum required specs for a VR-capable PC is a fast i5 CPU and a GTX970. Take the best-looking PS3 game you can think of, and such a PC will be able to render it at 2160x1200 @ 90Hz easily. It would probably not even get close to 100% CPU/GPU usage. And we are talking about PS3 games that look like this:

Friday, June 24, 2016

Why the term "mansplaining" is sexist

Modern feminism has invented this neologism: "Mansplaining."

The irony here is that, while they claim to be all about equality, equal rights, and treating all people equally without distinction, they come up with such sexist terms.

What the term does is to belittle and dismiss somebody's opinion based solely on their gender. It gives less value to an argument because of an innate characteristic of the person making it. It's essentially an ad hominem. It doesn't even address the argument being made; it simply dismisses the argument based on who is making it. Or, more precisely, what the gender of the person making the argument is. Which is a textbook example of sexism.

Well, I would like to introduce a new term: Feminisplaining.

Feminisplaining is any attempt, made by a feminist or social justice warrior, at silencing or dismissing someone's opinion based solely on the innate characteristics of that person, ie. via an ad hominem, without addressing what is actually being said. The silencing is done by namecalling, shaming, and making all kinds of accusations of things that the other person is not guilty of, and is based on prejudice.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

"Tank controls" in video games

3D games are actually surprisingly old. Technically speaking some games of the early 1970's were 3D, meaning they used perspective projection and had, at least technically speaking, three axes of movement. (Obviously back in those days they were nothing more than vector graphics drawn using lines and sprites, but technically speaking they were 3D, as contrasted to purely 2D games where everything happens on a plane.) I'm not talking here about racing games that give a semi-illusion of depth by having the picture of a road going to the horizon and sprites of different sizes, but actual 3D games using perspective projection of rotateable objects.

As technology advanced, so did the 3D games. The most popular 3D games of the 80's were mostly flight simulators and racing games (which used actual rotateable and perspective-projected 3D polygons), although there were obviously attempts at some other genres as well even back then. It's precisely these types of games, ie. flight simulators and anything that could be viewed as a derivative, that seemed most suitable for 3D gaming in the early days.

It is perhaps because of this that one aspect of 3D games was really pervasive for years and decades to come: The control system.

What is the most common control system for simple flight simulators and 3D racing games? The so-called "tank controls". This means that there's a "forward" button to go forward, a "back" button to go backwards, and "left" and "right" buttons to turn the vehicle (ie. in practice the "camera") left and right. This was the most logical control system for such games. After all, you can't have a plane or a car moving sideways, because they just don't move like that in real life either. Basically every single 3D game of the 80's and well into the 90's used this control scheme. It was the most "natural" and ubiquitous way of controlling a 3D game.

Probably because of this, and unfortunately, this control scheme was by large "inherited" into all kinds of 3D games, even when the technology was used in other types of games, such as platformers viewed from third-person perspective, and even first-person shooters.

Yes, Wolfenstein 3D, and even the "grandfather" of third-person shooters, Doom, used "tank controls". There was no mouse support by default (I'm not even sure there was support at all, in the first release versions), and the "left" and "right" keys would turn the camera left and right. There was support for strafing (ie. moving sideways while keeping the camera looking forward), but it was very awkward: Rather than having "strafe left" and "strafe right" buttons, Doom instead had a toggle button to make the left and right buttons strafe. (In other words, if you wanted to strafe, you had to press the "strafe" button and, while keeping it pressed, use the left and right buttons. Just like using the shift key to type uppercase letters.) Needless to say, this was so awkward and impractical that people seldom used it.

Of course all kinds of other 3D games used "tank controls" as well, including many of the first 3D platformers, making them really awkward to play.

For some reason it took the gaming industry a really long time to realize that strafing, moving sideways, was a much more natural and convenient way of moving than being restricted to only being able to move back and forward, and turning the camera. Today we take the "WASD" key mapping, with A and D being strafe buttons, for granted, but this is a relatively recent development. As late as early 2000's some games still hadn't transitioned to this more convenient form of controls.

The same goes to game consoles, by the way. "Tank controls" might even have been even more pervasive and widespread there (usually due to the lack of configurable controller button mapping). There, too, it took a relatively long time before strafing became the norm. The introduction of twin stick controllers made this transition much more feasible, but even then it took a relatively long time before it became the standard.

Take, for example, the game Resident Evil 4, released in 2005 for the PlayStation 2 and the GameCube, both of which had twin stick controllers. The game still used tank controls, and had no strafing support at all. This makes the game horribly awkward and frustrating to control; even infuriatingly so. And this even though modern twin-stick controls had already been the norm for years (for example, Halo: Combat Evolved was published in 2001.)

Nowadays "tank controls" are only limited to games and situations where they make sense. This usually means when driving a car or another similar vehicle, and a few other situations.

And not even always even then. Many tank games, perhaps ironically, do not use "tank controls". Instead, you can move the vehicle freely in the direction pressed with the WASD keys or the left controller stick, while keeping the camera fixated in its current direction, and which can be rotated with the mouse or the right controller stick (and which usually in such games makes the tank aim at that direction). In other words, direction of movement and direction of aiming are independent of each other (and usually the tank aims at the direction that the camera is looking). This makes the game a lot more fluent and practical to play.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Room-scale VR cripples games

Bethesda very recently announced at E3 that they will be adding VR support to Fallout 4.

Yay! My dreams of being able to play one of my favorite games in VR is becoming true?!?

Well, no. Not really.

You see, they are adding support for the HTC Vive. Using "room-scale VR". Which means a crippled game experience, with your typical "room-scale VR" limitations, in other words, you are limited to just standing around, pretty much confined to a laughably small space, shooting around. The only way to move larger distance is to point someplace with one of the controllers and pressing a button, which will immediately teleport you to that place. Oh, the joy.

Oh, and try to have a 2-3 hour gameplay session while standing up. Ouch. My feet hurt just from thinking about it.

AFAIK they have not announced whether they will add generic sit-down VR support with traditional controls (ie. just your regular old way of playing the game, just with VR headset and head-tracking support), but I have the feeling that they will not. (I hope they do, but I have my doubts.) I have the feeling that they will only provide the crippled "room-scale VR" support, and that's it.

This is, in fact, a perfect example of why I find VR to be so utterly disappointing. It cripples games. It cripples game mechanics and gameplay. It limits and restricts what can be done; it ties the playable character to a small confined space, without the freedom to move around larger distances, other than the kludge of "teleporting", which just sucks all the fun out of it.

Just think about it in terms of intense fights in traditional in first-person shooters: Hordes of enemies are attacking you, oftentimes charging at you head-on, and you need to keep moving if you want to survive! You have to dodge, you have to run backwards, you have to zig-zag, you have to circle around them when they keep shooting at you, and keep shooting at the charging enemies. You have to jump over ledges, you have to collect ammo laying around, sometimes you'll have to grapple with an enemy who grabs you, and oftentimes you have to run away from heavy enemy fire, and use the scene geometry tactically to your advantage.

Most of that goes down the drain with room-scale VR. You can't run backwards, you can't really zig-zag, you can't make fast dodging maneuvers, you can't run away, you can't run to an ammo cache 3 meters away from you to collect more ammo, you can't circle around enemies, you can't use the room layout and scene geometry for tactical advantage. The only thing you can do is to pretty much stand still and shoot around, at enemies whose attack patterns will have been dumbed down because of these limitations. Depending on the game, you might be able to teleport around even during an intense fight, making it really "realistic", with you teleporting around by magic. (Maybe in some games that will be an in-game feature: You are literally able to teleport around via magic or via some advanced technology. But still, you will be limited to pretty much standing still while shooting, with no possibility of maneuvering.)

The teleporting mechanic also sucks the fun out of just your plain old walking around exploring the surroundings. Not to talk how much it cripples any possibility of more involved (and fun) movement, such as climbing, jumping over chasms, swinging from poles, and outright parkour (think of games like Mirror's Edge and Assassin's Creed.) Good luck trying to sneak around, parkour your way stealthily to where the enemy is located, assassinating them, and then running away with alerted enemies at your heels. Yeah, say goodbye to all that. Say hello to standing still and shooting around.

The scary thing about all this is that it seems that everybody seems to think that the Vive is the future, the way to go, and that the sit-down gameplay is no good. Bethesda is but just one example of this. Unless room-scale VR flops completely, this will only get worse.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

How to create controversy out of nothing

Nowadays there is one thing that feminists are excelling at: Creating outrage out of absolutely nothing.

How? Well, we have a concrete very recent example (which is not the only one, and will most certainly not be the only one): The new Watch Dogs video game has a black protagonist. A semi-famous internet critic (Jim Sterling) searched high and low for some forum comment about it that could be even remotely interpreted as negative, and wrote a sensationalistic article about how the gaming community is full of racists. And, of course, the rest of the gaming media copied him like mindless drones.

Mind you, that forum post that Sterling quoted in his article wasn't even racist. (It was just someone pondering on whether the character design was chosen for political reasons, and wishing that the possible identity politics behind it wouldn't affect the plot of the game too much.) But that doesn't matter, of course. It can be interpreted as negative, therefore it was obviously racist, and therefore the gaming community is rife with blatant racism. And every gaming media outlet out there is swallowing this whole.

And thus a controversy was created from thin air, out of absolutely nothing.

Do you know what the appropriate word for this is? Propaganda. Pure, unadultered propaganda.

And do you know what's scary? The propaganda is working.

Friday, June 10, 2016

Oculus VR is boycotting itself

The new VR headsets have, a bit surprisingly for all parties involved, stumbled across some hurdles which, at least for me personally (and some other people), are warning signs that they might end up flopping after all, regardless of the hype surrounding them. These warning signs include:
  • VR, unlike was expected for a very long time, "doesn't work" for almost any traditional form of video gaming, especially not for traditional first-person shooters (which was for a very long time the original main genre expected to be enhanced by VR). What they mean with "doesn't work" is that most people get nausea if using VR in a traditional video game, and this problem is deemed to be so bad that most developers have outright completely abandoned the idea of adding VR support for traditional games. You will not be getting any such games for VR from the vast majority of developers (unless there is a shift in attitude in the future). There is only a very narrow set of game genres for which VR works as-is (mainly the vehicle simulation genre, and a narrow set of 3rd-person perspective genres). The rest of the game library, it seems, will have to consist of exclusives, with extremely limited gameplay mechanics.
  • Speaking of which, that's another warning sign: If your platform has extremely limited gameplay mechanics, something that hinders gameplay, and games need to be explicitly designed for it, it may end up with a poor library of triple-A games. Exactly what happened to the infamous Kinect. (Yes, the controls of VR are a thousand times more accurate and fluent than those of the Kinect, but it's still remarkably similar in terms of limitations and requirements.)
  • The devices are extraordinarily expensive at launch, way over the price range of the average user. On top of that, most users would need to upgrade their computer to meet the minimum requirements, making VR even more expensive. You really don't maximize adoption rates by pricing your device over twice as expensive as what the average user can comfortably afford, for a rather niche feature.
VR has had a rather shaky start, regardless of the hype (both pre- and post-launch). Poor adoption rates, poor game library, and practical problems in terms of game design.

And now it's getting even worse. For some unfathomable reason Oculus VR has now suddenly decided to treat their VR headset as if it were a game console that's competing for market share with other similar devices, using all the same dirty (and ultimately detrimental) marketing tactics.

Not only has there been a recent controversy about Oculus "closing" the development for their device, meaning that development for it cannot be done by third-party tools (although at the moment of writing this it's still not completely clear whether this implies a completely closed platform or if the claims are exaggerated, but there definitely has been something going on on this front), but several examples have surfaced of an absolutely ridiculous thing: Exclusive games.

A VR headset is not a console! The idea of a game exclusive to a certain VR headset is as ridiculous as the idea of a game that's exclusive to a certain display brand.

For some reason Oculus Rift has gained a lot of negative hype over the last few months. It seems that most people already consider the Rift dead, and think that the Vive is the superior product. People are already calling this "a war that has already been lost." (This is in itself a really stupid thing. Healthy competition is good for the consumers. Killing competition and giving monopoly to a single brand on a silver platter is bad for the consumers, and a completely idiotic thing to do. The consumers are the ones who suffer from monopolies.)

Apparently, however, Oculus VR has started combating this negative hype with games that are Rift-exclusive. This must be one of the most idiotic ideas in the history of humanity.

Exclusive games are not going to make the product more popular. It will cause the exact opposite reaction. It will only strengthen the negative hype surrounding the product. It will paint Oculus VR as a greedy corporation. It's a PR disaster. And the developers of those games will suffer themselves too, because of poorer sales. Nobody will benefit from this.

Sunday, June 5, 2016

BBC engages in racial discrimination

BBC turns down trainees because they are WHITE: Job applicants stunned to be told corporation only wants people from 'ethnic minority backgrounds'

"When people applied they got generic email saying it is closed to whites"

The funny thing is that even if we take the opportunistic feminist definition of "racism", ie. "prejudice + power", this is exactly that kind of situation: Those in power, ie. a huge megacorporation hiring people, discriminating against applicants based solely on their race, with the applicants themselves having no recourse against it.

The other funny thing is that this kind of discrimination is illegal in the UK, and BBC should know this perfectly well. AFAIK it's yet to be seen if the law will be enforced here, or if political correctness will, once again, trump the law.

The sociopolitical dangers of Wikipedia

I commented earlier how the Wikipedia article on gamergate is astonishingly biased agenda-driven unilateral propaganda, to a completely ridiculous extent. Said article has been 100% appropriated by social justice warriors, who seem to have an irontight grip on it, and will not let it go, no matter what.

This presents some serious problems. Most people take Wikipedia way more seriously than they should. This includes journalists, politicians and people in charge. Wikipedia has an amazing power to influence people's opinions due to how popular and trusted it is. In other words, Wikipedia is a frighteningly powerful tool for propaganda. Thus if a biased movement controls Wikipedia, it controls the entire narrative pretty much.

What makes this even more frightening is that there is basically nothing that can be done about it. As long as it doesn't technically and outright break the law, there is little to no recourse to do anything about biased propaganda articles that have been appropriated and locked by a sociopolitical movement.

As Wikipedia itself puts it:
Wikipedia has no central editorial board; contributions are made by a large number of volunteers at their own discretion. Edits are not the responsibility of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organisation that hosts the site) nor of its staff and edits will not generally be made in response to an email request.
There is, essentially, nobody to send a formal complaint to, if some article in Wikipedia clearly breaks their own Neutral Point of View principle, or is clearly biased and overly propagandist. It has no people in charge; there is no editorial board, there are no authority figures who could veto edits or entire articles. The people who are responsible for keeping an article under tight lock, and removing edits that they don't like, are pretty much anonymous. If there is collusion behind the scenes, is pretty much impossible to find the culprits.

And, as said, as long as the articles do not outright break the law, no external authority is going to step in either, because they don't have any legal reason to do so. It's not up to them, at any possible level.

Thus Wikipedia is pretty much controlled by an anonymous mob. If the people who hold the lock have a certain agenda, and the people who oppose that agenda are not numerous enough to overthrow them, there is essentially nothing that can be done. And, as said, this is problematic because of the outright frightening power that Wikipedia has in influencing society. A certain narrative, a certain biased sociopolitical agenda, is controlled by an anonymous mob of ideologues, and there's nothing that can be done about it.

The Wikipedia article on gamergate is just the most blatant and egregious example of this. How many other articles are there that likewise drive a given biased sociopolitical agenda, perhaps more surreptitiously? How many articles are there with faux "neutral point of view", ie. biased opinions being masqueraded as NPoV by carefully using certain wording?

As a possible, much subtler example, consider the article on "History of the Caribbean."

There is an entire, relatively large, section named "Impact of colonialism on the Caribbean", which immediately follows another relatively large section named "Colonial era". They have sub-sections named eg. "Slaves in the Caribbean" and "Economic exploitation." These two sections make for a quite large chunk of the entire article (at least half of it.) Without being an historian, or an expert on the history of the Caribbean, it's hard to tell whether this amount of text dedicated to that particular subject really is warranted, or whether there's a bias from the part of the author(s).

Some of the language used in the text itself could also, possibly, be subtly biased. For example:
"European plantations required laws to regulate the plantation system and the many slaves imported to work on the plantations. This legal control was the most oppressive for slaves inhabiting colonies where they outnumbered their European masters and where rebellion was persistent, such as Jamaica."

"The new system in place however was similar to the previous as it was based on white capital and colored labor."
Some sentences are a bit oddly worded for an "encyclopedia", such as:
"It should be noted that as of the early 21st century, not all Caribbean islands have become independent."
As said, it's difficult to say whether that amount of text dedicated to the subject is warranted and logical, or whether there is a bias from the author(s). And that's the devious thing about Wikipedia. To most people this is impossible to know, and they may be influenced by such biases, if such articles indeed do have a political agenda behind them, which try to push a certain narrative, and try to emphasize some things more than is warranted, for political and even propagandist reasons.

Friday, June 3, 2016

"Never again"... except if you are Muslim

Germany is a country that's deeply, deeply ashamed of its past, of what Nazi Germany did. The slogan used in almost all Holocaust memorials is "Never Again". Most symbolism, gestures and speech that are deemed pro-nazi are illegal in Germany. If you were to, for example, make the nazi salute on the street and shout "death to the Jews!" and "Adolf Hitler", you would get several years of prison, literally.

Except if you are a Muslim.

Groups of Muslims all along Europe, including Germany, are openly and viciously anti-semitic, and will commit acts of harassment and violence against Jews, deface their property and tombstones, and like in the video above, shout anti-semitic and pro-nazi chants. With complete impunity.

It seems that "never again" does not apply to Muslims, not even in Germany. They are untouchable.

Thursday, June 2, 2016

The origins of the "Lambada" song

Not something that irks me, just something I found interesting.

The song "Lambada" by the pop group Kaoma, when released in 1989, was one of these huge hits that people started hating almost as soon as it hit the radio stations, mainly because of being overplayed everywhere.

Back then, its composition was generally misattributed to Kaoma themselves. It wasn't until much later that I heard that was actually just a cover song, not an original one. However, it's actually a bit more interesting than that.

There are, of course constantly hugely popular hits that turn out to be just cover songs by somebody else eg. from the 50's or 60's. This one doesn't go that far back, but it's still interesting.

The original version, "Llorando se Fue" was composed by the Bolivian band Los Kjarkas in 1981. It's originally in Spanish, and while the melody is (almost) the same, the tone is quite different. It uses panflutes, is a bit slower, and is overall very Andean in tone.

See it on YouTube.

This song was then covered by the Peruvian band Cuarteto Continental in 1984. They substituted the panflute with the accordion, already giving it the distinctive tone, and their version is more upbeat and syncopated.

See it on YouTube.

The song was then covered by Márcia Ferreira in 1986. This was an unauthorized version translated to Portuguese, is a bit faster, and emphasizes the syncopation, and is basically identical to the Kaoma version, which was made in 1989.

See it on YouTube.

The Kaoma version, which is by far the best known one, perhaps emphasizes the percussion, and the syncopation even more.

See it on YouTube.

Wikipedia gamergate article

I wrote in February last year how the Wikipedia article on Gamergate is really shameful biased unilateral propaganda.

Since the social justice warriors just can't get over it, the article has been actively edited since, and has become even worse. Even the summary at the beginning of the article has become longer, and a stronger tirade campaign against the movement. "Assault" and "murder" are some of the new, stronger words introduced since the last time I looked at it.

I mentioned in that previous blog post how the word "threat" appeared 31 times, and the word "harassment" appeared 55 times in the article. Those numbers have now increased to 54 and an astonishing 95 times. It now even appears in two section titles.

I would be almost ready to bet that no single noun or verb in the English language appears that many times in any article in the entirety of Wikipedia.

It's quite clear that this Wikipedia article is pure full-on unilateral well-poisoning propaganda. It spends an astonishing amount of text space to go on and on and on attacking the movement, listing every single tiny allegation and event against the movement. It seems that the social justice warriors just can't get enough, are obsessed, and have a morbid urge to keep making the article a stronger and stronger attack against the movement. I'm sure that the word "harassment" will break the 100 mark quite soon, with "threat" not being far behind. And that's just for those two words.

With this article, Wikipedia has reached Conservapedia levels of propaganda. (Conservapedia is quite infamous for its articles that are basically nothing more than hugely extensive lists of tiny insignificant "facts" against whatever thing the author is attacking, often going for pages and pages, with no real content or discussion.)

Needless to say, both the article itself, and its talk page, are still under the tightest possible lock available at Wikipedia, with sanctions imposed on any dissenter who may still have editing rights on either one. Discussion and disagreement is absolutely not tolerated.

There is a FAQ in the talk page of the article. The answers are an absolute charade.