Delete everythingHEADmaster

8 files changed, 0 insertions, 580 deletions

diff --git a/config.mk b/config.mk
index 9710d98..e69de29 100644
--- a/config.mk
+++ b/config.mk
@@ -1,7 +0,0 @@
-PAGES += phil/dembase
-PAGES += phil/demus
-PAGES += socpol/abortion
-PAGES += socpol/censorauthkosa
-PAGES += socpol/freeswcovid
-PAGES += socpol/zhpronoun
-PAGES += tech/forge
diff --git a/phil/dembase.7 b/phil/dembase.7
deleted file mode 100644
index 2b2c421..0000000
--- a/phil/dembase.7
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,78 +0,0 @@
-.Dd January 1, 1970
-.Dt dembase phil
-.Os Runxi Yu
-.Sh NAME
-.Nm dembase
-.Nd Democracy: Fundamentals (Unfinished)
-.Sh DESCRIPTION
-.Pp
-*Unless otherwise specified, "democracy" in this article refers to
-representative democracy. "Country" can additionally refer to other
-regions that have people and its own policies, such as a state,
-provinces in some countries, etc.*
-.Pp
-We usually think of "democracy" as people influencing the policies of
-the country by electing trustworthy experts that serve their interest to
-make actual decisions about running the country. This type of democracy,
-representative democracy, has evolved from direct democracy aging back
-two thousand years ago as created by Athens in Greece. Representative
-democracy is more scalable than direct democracy and also avoids some
-forms of populism and uninformed decisions as its the experts in the
-field that are making the actual policies.
-.Pp
-The Chinese term for democracy is "民主". The first character, "民",
-means "people"; the second, "主", ascin "主人" means "owner".
-You could understand it as saying "the people of the country own the
-country (and thus get to decide on its affairs)". But at the same time,
-"主" as in "自主" means "do things themselves", i.e. the right not
-to be interfered by others while doing their own business.
-.Pp
-This is, of course, not the proper definition for democracy; democracy
-is just saying that the general public ultimately runs the country. But
-we could take the time to appreciate how with democracy we usually end
-up with liberty and how we take personal liberty for granted.
-.Pp
-In any case, both democracy and liberty are important in a long-lasting
-prosperous system of society. Note my wording in the first paragraph,
-that the decisions of elected experts are for "running the
-country"---I specifically mean issues that deal with either the general
-public (such as public health and the environment) and things that would
-be otherwise hard to solve personally (such as enforcement of contracts
-and crimes). The "will of the people", represented by the government,
-have no business doing things like banning freedom of thought or
-mandating people not to smoke in their private property. Only when
-things affect others such as smoking in public should the government, or
-the will of the general public, have any say. And of course, people
-should take responsibility for their own private deeds. It is argued
-that a lung cancer patient who got lung cancer by smoking excessively
-doesn't deserve medical insurance from taxpayers; but for cases where
-an illness isn't caused by a identifiable private decision factor,
-medical insurance and support should be given. (In practice the
-distinction is subtle; this is also a very controversial topic.)
-.Pp
-People overemphasize the importance of democracy. In fact, democracy is
-in my opinion less important than liberty---though in practice indeed
-liberty wouldn't survive for long without democracy.
-.Pp
-Note that abortion and similar subjects may fall into the scope of
-government. Some opponents of abortion believe that fetus is human life
-and thus abortion is murder and shall be outlawed. The "privacy" and
-"personal liberty" arguments don't stand up well against this as
-it's no longer a personal matter when another human life is supposedly
-on the line. [I oppose the abortion bans that Republicans in the US are
-placing in many states for a different reason.](abortion.html)
-.Pp
-Modern populism (which is a poorly-defined term but does have the
-following general scope) gives the power of deciding everything that
-happens in the country to the people. This is bad in two ways. (1) The
-general public often make uninformed and un-thought-through decisions
-and are easily influenced. (2) The government, in this case directly the
-collective decision of the people, is stepping its feet into the
-personal lives of people. While it is democratic, it doesn't give
-people liberty, creating a tyranny of the majority, and at the same time
-making uninformed decisions which are better made by experts which
-people elect.
-.Pp
-In future articles, I will discuss more practical issues in democracy
-and society, especially on corruption of representatives, issues with
-the modern voting system, etc.
diff --git a/phil/demus.7 b/phil/demus.7
deleted file mode 100644
index 6fb6b10..0000000
--- a/phil/demus.7
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,90 +0,0 @@
-.Dd January 1, 1970
-.Dt demus phil
-.Os Runxi Yu
-.Sh NAME
-.Nm demus
-.Nd Democracy: The United States (Unfinished)
-.Sh INTRODUCTION
-.Pp
-When people talk about democracies, it's common to think of the US
-Constitution as the "defining point of democracy". While the US is the
-first modern democracy, its is far from perfect.  I will briefly go
-through the following.
-.Sh CORRUPTION
-.Pp
-A study shows that "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic
-elites and organized groups representing business interests have
-substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average
-citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent
-influence."
-.Lk https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B/S1537592714001595a.pdf/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens.pdf (Source)
-.Pp
-A near-ideal democracy would have a roughly linear positive correlation
-between the fraction of voters who support a policy and the possibility
-of the policy being passed in the legislature. But in the US, the line
-is flat at about 30%. A representative democracy wouldn't have a
-perfect correlation, because the general public is unable to be informed
-on all topics; fluctuations are normal. But *a flat line* means that the
-opinions of the people don't matter at all. This does not make sense in
-any type of democracy.
-.Pp
-According to the study, the influence of economic elites and business
-interest groups on politics is rather high with a rough positive
-correlation as opposed to the flatline for the general public, making
-the US an oligarchy rather than a democracy. Mass-based interest groups
-have discernible impact on policies, but are still trivial compared with
-economic elites and businesses. About three billion dollars are spent
-yearly by large "politically active" businesses to bribe politicians
-to pass policies for their interest. While businesses should have a say
-in legislation, it is unacceptable that they have superior dominance
-over public opinion.
-.Sh THE SENATE
-.Pp
-The Senate of the USA consists of 100 members, with 2 from each state.
-Two senators from California represent 39 million people while the two
-from Wyoming represent 500 thousand people. The founding fathers never
-could have imagined such a huge a difference between the population of
-states.
-.Pp
-Some people believe that the Senate helps against populism as opposed to
-the House. Although the number of Senators for each state do indeed not
-correspond to the population, this has no correlation whatsoever with
-preventing populism and doesn't serve an obvious purpose. It only
-"helps" by giving completely unproportional voting powers to people
-based on their location, period.
-.Pp
-The Senate also suffers from the fillibuster. Passing a bill in the
-Senate has a few steps: Firstly the Senators must *agree to vote*,
-passed at a supermajority. Then the Senators actually vote on the bill.
-Those who are against the bill will just disagree to vote altogether,
-effectively requiring all bills to have a supermajority support to pass
-which is nearly impossible as the two dominant political parties almost
-always oppose each others' bills and neither have a supermajority in
-the Senate.
-.Sh The Electoral College
-.Pp
-The electoral college makes it possible to win an federal election
-without winning the national popular vote. It also, similarly but not as
-badly as the Senate, represent the people of each state
-disproportionally as each state has two extra electoral votes regardless
-of their population.
-.Pp
-A subtle but serious problem with the electoral college is that
-electors' listening to the votes of the people is only a *tradition*.
-Legally, electors can vote however they want, meaning that the US is not
-theoretically a democracy. This hasn't happened before, but this is one
-more to the list of problems in the constitution, and is a potential for
-disaster.
-.Sh Plurality Voting
-.Pp
-Single-winner elections in the US uses what's called "plurality
-voting", where each voter casts one vote to their favorite candidate
-and the candidate with the most votes win. This contributes to the
-partisan dualopoly (not an actual word, but it basically means
-"monopoly" but with two rather than one) as voters who support smaller
-parties will undergo the decision of choosing their honest favorite or
-one of the two big parties that most closely ressembles their favorite.
-As it's hard to gather votes for smaller parties, and thus there's a
-small chance of them actually winning the electron, many voters
-strategically vote for the big party in order to not be "taken over"
-by the big party that they oppose more.
diff --git a/socpol/abortion.7 b/socpol/abortion.7
deleted file mode 100644
index db19904..0000000
--- a/socpol/abortion.7
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,87 +0,0 @@
-.Dd July 26, 2022
-.Dt abortion socpol
-.Os Runxi Yu
-.Sh NAME
-.Nm abortion
-.Nd Something I wrote about abortion two years back
-.Sh DESCRIPTION
-.Pp
-In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled
-seven-to-two in favor of Roe's rights to abortion against a healthcare
-official of the state of Texas. Roe argued for abortion with
-"privacy", derived from the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment of the US
-Constitution. As the U.S. is a common law jurisdiction, this effectively
-legalizes abortion across the country.
-.Pp
-However, as Roe's case was argued for based on privacy rather than body
-autonomy or similar rights, it left a question into if abortion is
-indeed a right that women should have. After all, if someone is accused
-of murder, the suspect's privacy is not a reason to not investigate the
-case further. Those against abortion often believe that abortion is
-murder, and thus the privacy argument wouldn't stand long.
-.Pp
-In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned this
-precedent,
-and now the abortion rights of women in the united states are in a void.
-This memo focuses on discussing the notion of abortion itself, and
-briefly comments on the decision of the Court.
-.Pp
-Some people believe that because fetus is human life, and abortion is
-nonvoluntary (as in nonvoluntary by the life terminated) termination of
-human life, thus abortion is murder and is unacceptable.
-.Pp
-This reasoning is flawed---nonvoluntary termination of human life, even
-when the decision-maker understands the consequence of their action, may
-or not be murder.
-.Pp
-Involuntary termination of life isn't always murder. Consider yourself
-an average person in the United States. You live on paychecks and
-you're living an average life in a comfortable house. You noticed a
-poor person, without food, proper clothes, or shelter, sleeping in the
-street, almost frozen to death. You took them home, giving them food,
-clothes and shelter. But one day, out of whatever reason you decided to
-stop supporting that person and remove them from the house back onto the
-street. You understanded that they will have a hard time finding foot,
-shelter and clothes. They deceased because of the cold.
-.Pp
-The poor person was life, and your decision did cause their decession.
-But is this murder? Man-slaughter? Any kind of statutory offense? No,
-not really, it's merely termination of voluntary support that you
-provided for another person.
-.Pp
-There is a subtle, but eventually significant difference between helping
-a person down the street and voluntary pregnency. (Involuntary pregnency
-is basically "alright, here comes a person at your doorstep, you MUST
-help them and keep them alive", there's not much to discuss there in
-my opinion.)
-.Pp
-In the last example, the ethicalness of terminating support would be
-different if you and the person receiving help signed an explicit
-contract giving you the responsibility to help them but you terminate
-the support when the contract is still valid.
-.Pp
-Indeed, the fetus did not sign a contract with the mother that obligates
-the mother to carry to term. But similarly, children don't sign
-contracts with their parents to take care of them, but we consider
-parents who don't take care of their children and such to be child
-abuse. But they are different.
-.Pp
-A scientific definition of life which includes bacteria, fungi,
-parasites, plants, animals and many other forms of life doesn't seem
-inherently valuable to us---almost all of us don't feel bad killing
-bacteria with an ultraviolet lamp, don't feel bad killing plants for
-consumption, and don't feel bad stepping on a mosquito. Many of us
-don't feel bad consuming animals for food. We value human life because
-it allows us to pursue what we want and live a life. But a fetus cannot
-do that: though the fetus is biologically a human, it doesn't have the
-very characteristics that make the life valuable: It doesn't have
-meaningful brain activity and cannot pursue what it wants.
-.Pp
-Abortion is just okay before the cerebrum (the part of the brain
-responsible for thinking) develops, which is usually at the end of the
-second trimester. Abortion after meaningful cerebrum activity is
-detected should be considered with care because at that time the
-fetus's life would be considered valuable.
-.Sh SEE ALSO
-.Pp
-.Lk https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___
diff --git a/socpol/censorauthkosa.7 b/socpol/censorauthkosa.7
deleted file mode 100644
index e624a7e..0000000
--- a/socpol/censorauthkosa.7
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
-.Dd July 31 2024
-.Dt censorauthkosa socpol
-.Os Runxi Yu
-.Nm censorauthkosa
-.Nd Internet censorship in the US's Kids Online Safety Act and China's National Network Identity Authentication Public Service Act
diff --git a/socpol/freeswcovid.7 b/socpol/freeswcovid.7
deleted file mode 100644
index 5b8bd0d..0000000
--- a/socpol/freeswcovid.7
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,148 +0,0 @@
-.Dd January 1, 1970
-.Dt freeswcovid socpol
-.Os Runxi Yu
-.Sh NAME
-.Nm freeswcovid
-.Nd On Free Software, Education in China and the COVID-19 Pandemic
-.Sh DESCRIPTION
-.Pp
-I am a secondary school student from Shanghai, China. This email
-discusses the problems I discovered in the Chinese educational system,
-in terms of students' right to freedom in computing and options to
-control the COVID-19 pandemic from the standpoint of a person living in
-China.
-.Pp
-When COVID-19 broke out in 2020, students were required to watch lecture
-videos produced by the city's education department for twenty minutes,
-then join the Tencent Meetings room to discuss in their own class for
-10--15 minutes.
-.Pp
-Watching the videos wasn't an issue for me. Our apartment has cable TV,
-where the videos are broadcast; there was also a website that played the
-livestream without JavaScript. However, Tencent Meetings presented a
-problem to me.
-.Pp
-At the time, I run Arch Linux. (Currently, I run Hyperbola
-GNU/Linux-libre, a Free Software-only distribution, which would have
-made this even harder.) Tencnet Meetings, claiming to support "all
-operating systems and platforms", only supports Windows and macOS. (I
-wonder how they passed the resolution to display that statement, I
-believe that they have many programmers who use GNU/Linux.) (As of
-October 2021, a classmate noted that there is a "Linux versuon".)
-School required Tencent Meetings, therefore I went through a hard
-process to setup QEMU running a Windows 7 virtual machine---I believed
-that 7 would be slightly better than 10 in terms of privacy, though as
-always with nonfree software, I can't really know for sure. It was
-slightly unstable, which is an annoyance, for example the connection
-from the Windows audio server to pulseaudio would stop working from time
-to time, but it was acceptable. Though my setup was okay (in the
-perspective of my school), it left me in a psycological crisis about
-education and freedom. More on that later.
-.Pp
-Offline classes resumed in May 2020, as most of China has minimal cases
-of COVID-19. This freed me from using a proprietary
-non-privacy-respecting bloated piece of software in a virtual machine,
-but it did not free me from teachers' requirement to use WeChat (think
-of it as the equiv of WhatsApp in China), Xiaoheiban (A proprietary
-classroom information distribution system), or other pieces of nonfree
-software.
-.Pp
-Similar to the beliefs stated in the GNU Education project, I believe
-that schools and educaion are a means of sharing information and
-knowledge. I understand that meeting software and lesson management
-software are used as means of distributing knowledge, rather than the
-knowledge being distributed themselves. However, I believe this doesn't
-lead to the argument that the mandate of proprietary software usage is
-just, for three reasons as below.
-.Bl -enum
-.It
-There are always going to be curious students who wonder how the
-trchnology works. Proprietary software denies them this right.
-.It
-The usage of proprietary software when young may implant dependence
-on it in the future.
-.It
-Education is a right and a responsility. Mandating nonfree software
-in education adds unjust responsibilities on students.
-.El
-.Pp
-Point 1 and 2 are explained well in the Education section of the GNU
-website, therefore I am not going to focus on them. Focusing on the
-third point:
-.Pp
-Under laws of almost all countries, citizens have the right to an
-education. Traditionally, this involves going to school, meeting
-teachers and classmates, listening to classes, taking notes, passing
-exams (I have strong opinions that exam systems ought to change to
-better represent individual talents, but this is out of scope of this
-memo.) and finishing homework. Students loose a slight bit of their time
-and freedom of movement (as in, it's not easy to move to a house 100
-miles away from school), in exchange for being educated.
-.Pp
-However, with schools requiring the use of nonfree software, in effect
-students are required to give up their privacy, and digital freedom,
-both crucial rights in modern society, as the effect of needing to use
-nonfree software. The right to education has effectively turned into an
-exchange for other basic rights. This is not acceptable.
-.Pp
-Furthermore, in countries like China, 9 years of education is mandatory
-for children. I understand this law as a means to the goal of creating a
-knowledgeble and educated society, which is good. However, when
-mandatory edication mandates nonfree software, it deduces to "children
-are required to use nonfree software". So, being a child here is pretty
-unlucky, because there goes your right to privacy, your independence,
-and your freedom, because of a law that's supposed to help society.
-.Pp
-We need to stop using nonfree software in education.
-.Pp
-In th beginning of this email, I mentioned COVID-19. You might be
-wondering how the Chinese government fully put the pandemic under
-control in just 5 months, which is seemingly impossible if all you know
-is how the US dealt with this situation.
-.Pp
-The answer is that the Chinese government is implementing strict contact
-tracing. This is extremely easy because of the prevaliance of
-survillance. Many would argue that this is a benefit of survillance,
-which I believe to be true. However, no comparisons were given between
-losing privacy and increasing the risk or infection. Briefly inspecting
-this idea in my head, it's really hard to think about---privacy and
-freedom is important in the long term, at the cost of many lives in the
-pandemic. The lives of these dead are gone---they lose not only privacy
-and computing freedom, they lose their lives, which costs them their
-opportunity to pursue their dreams in this world, and they have no
-freedom of choice, speech, etc as they aren't alive. Once again, this
-is hard to wrap my mind around, therefore I would especially like to
-invite the community to discuss this.
-.Pp
-The contact tracing system used is not Free Software. At first I didn't
-understand why (except for the explanation that they want to profit from
-harming citizens which is hopefully just a hypothetical
-"explanation"), but I noticed that the authenticity and accuracy of
-the system may be affected if users are allowed to modify their
-software. This seems to be the core of some problems with regards to
-software freedom---here, the user is not running software to complete
-their tasks. Rather, it's the government's way to maintain public
-safety, therefore I believe that whether users should be able to modify
-software in these conditions is up to discussion. Back to the point,
-since a green-code proof from the system is needed to get in a lot of
-places, a person basically needs to use proprietary software to live a
-normal life (to get into coffee shops, for example).
-.Pp
-In the US and other countries, things aren't that good either. For one,
-the pandemic isn't controlled well. As a consequence, a lot of places
-require negative COVID tests to do stuff.
-.Lk https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2021-08/msg00008.html A thread on the LibrePlanet mailing list
-discusses this issue, as a lot of these tests require nonfree software
-on users' phones. Note that this thread spans several months long, as
-it is a hot discussion, so look in the september and october archives
-too. The thread explains the implications clearly, thus I am not
-discussing it here.
-.Pp
-Additionally, I heard that some US courts require Zoom for online cases,
-therefore it seems that a person' right to judicial justice comes at
-the cost of digital freedom. I can't confirm this, but if that's true,
-I'm truly disappointed at the judicial system, even though I'm not a
-US citizen.
-.Pp
-I am looking forward to a freer society, or at least one where the above
-problems get solved.
diff --git a/socpol/zhpronoun.7 b/socpol/zhpronoun.7
deleted file mode 100644
index 5d432a8..0000000
--- a/socpol/zhpronoun.7
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,105 +0,0 @@
-.Dd August 3, 2023
-.Dt zhpronouns socpol
-.Os Runxi Yu
-.Sh NAME
-.Nm zhpronoun
-.Nd Reclaiming "他" as a gender-inclusive pronoun
-.Sh TL;DR
-.Pp
-"他" uses the "人" (person) radical, and should cover all
-people, because not all people are male.
-.Pp
-"他"字的偏旁为单人旁，应该要涵盖所有人，因为并非所有人皆为男性。
-.Sh EXPLANATION IN ENGLISH
-.Pp
-In contemporary English, the traditional plural pronoun "they" is
-often used as a gender-inclusive singular pronoun, alongside the
-feminine singular "she" and the masculine singular "he". However,
-there is no equivalent in Chinese. "他" is considered a masculine
-pronouns in contemporary Chinese, despite its "人" radical and its
-history of traditionally being a gender-inclusive pronoun until the
-1920s. This article argues for the reclaiming of "他" as a
-gender-inclusive pronoun.
-.Pp
-Prior to the May Fourth Movement and the broader New Culture Movement,
-"他" was a generic pronoun for all entities, including people of any
-gender, and inanimate objects. In the movements' efforts to
-"modernize" the Chinese language and culture, a separate feminine
-pronoun "她" was created by the poet and linguist 刘半农, becoming an
-established linguistic norm after the Chinese Civil War. (A separate
-"它" was created for inanimate objects; however this has little
-relevance to the arguments in this article.)
-.Pp
-A distinct feminine pronoun "她" along with "他" being a masculine
-pronoun poses three problems: (1) the annoyances caused by the lack of a
-inclusive placeholder pronoun, (2) the reinforcement of gender binary
-normatives and the lack of a neutral pronoun, and (3) the
-marginalization of the feminine from the concept of personhood.
-.Pp
-When referring to a placeholder of unknown gender in contemporary
-English, singular they pronouns are often used, such as in "someone
-left their laptop here". Such colloquial conversations are generally
-unproblematic as all normative third-person pronouns in Mandarin sound
-the same: tā. However, in written contexts, many use "他/她"
-resembling "he/she". Aside from how this reinforces gender binary and
-alienates women (see the next two paragraphs), it is visually
-unappealing (as half-width slashes look particularly distinct from
-full-width CJK ideographs and break typographical uniformity) and adds
-unnecessary syntactic sugar.
-.Pp
-Individuals who are not comfortable with any gendered pronoun often
-prefer singular they pronouns. (I do not wish to turn this article into
-a detailed discussion of non-binary gender, please read Leah Rowe's
-article "[Better respect for non-binary people, in defense of human
-rights](https://vimuser.org/pronouns.html)" if this concept seems
-unfamiliar.) The status quo of "她" being solely a feminine pronoun
-and "他" being solely a masculine pronoun reinforces gender binary and
-leaves no gender-neutral/inclusive pronoun for non-binary people who
-would prefer such pronouns.
-.Pp
-The more fundamental issue with "他" as a masculine pronoun lies in
-its character composition and etymology. "他" is a compound character
-consisting of a "人" (person) radical and "也", while "她"
-consists of a "女" (female) radical and "也". Limiting "他" as a
-male pronoun assumes the male gender as dominant in "people", and
-marginalizes other genders, most prominently the female gender, as
-groups distinct from "people". This aligns with the development of the
-"她" pronoun as a distinct subset of what used to be covered by
-"他". I believe that a character's composition should not be deceptive
-to its meaning, and therefore, the "他" with the "人" radical should
-describe any person, not just any male person.
-.Pp
-While I believe that "他" should be truly gender inclusive, its
-current masculine standing does make it similar to [Generic
-he](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_languages_with_gendered_third-person_pronouns#Generic_he)
-to some extent. I dislike generic he as it reflects bias towards men,
-but an inclusive "他" does carry these risks. Therefore I propose that
-those who prefer a unique masculine pronoun may choose to use one with a
-"男" (male) radical instead. While "男也" (read that as one
-character) has not been given a Unicode code-point yet, I find this
-solution to be much more ideal than stereotypical generalizations with
-"他".
-.Sh EXPLANATION IN CHINESE
-.Pp
-现代英语中，传统的复数代词 "they" 常用作性别包容的单数代词，伴以 "she" 作阴性单数代词及 "he" 作阳性单数代词。然而，汉语中却没有等效的词语。现代汉语将"他"视为阳性代词，尽管其偏旁为单人旁，且在二十世纪二十年代以前，其曾有过用作性别包容性代词的历史。本文的论点为，将"他"恢复为性别包容性代词。
-.Pp
-在五四运动及更为广泛的新文化运动以前，"他"曾通用作所有实体的代词，包括任何性别的人，及无生命的物体。这场运动为中国语言和文化的"现代化"做出了许多努力，其中之一就是单独创造了一个阴性代词"她"。这个字由诗人、语言学家刘半农创造，并在国共内战后成为了公认的语言规范。（对无生命的物体，也创造了一个单独的"它"；但这与本文的论点无关。）
-.Pp
-在"他"作阳性代词时，分立阴性代词"她"，引发了三个问题：（1）因缺乏包容性占位代词而产生的困扰，（2）强化了性别二元规范，缺少了中性代词，及（3）将女性在人格概念中边缘化。
-.Pp
-现代英语中，常常使用单数 they 代词来充当未知性别的占位词，例如 "someone left their laptop
-here"。这种口头对话一般不会出现问题，因为普通话中所有规范的第三人称代词发音都相同：tā。然而，在书面语中，许多人会像 "he/she" 一样使用 "他/她"。除了强化了性别二元论、排斥了女性（见后两段）外，这在视觉上也不显美观（在全角 CJK 象形文字中插入半角斜杆尤显突兀，且破坏了排版的一致性），还添加了不必要的语法糖。
-.Pp
-有些人并不喜欢分性别代词（我在这个 commit 前亦是如此），所以他们常偏向使用单数 they 代词。（我无意图在本文详细讨论非二元性别，如果你不熟悉这个概念，请阅读 Leah Rowe 的文章 "Better respect for non-binary people, in defense of human rights"）"她"单独用作阴性代词，同时"他"单独用作阳性代词，这种现状强化了性别二元论，并使得偏好性别中性或性别包容性代词的人无法使用这类代词。
-.Pp
-将"他"用作阳性代词，更为关键的问题在于这个字的组成及词源。"他"字由单人旁和"也"组成，而"她"字由女字旁和"也"组成。将"他"限定为男性代词，假定了男性在"人"中占了主导地位，同时还将其他性别（最明显的是女性）边缘化，将其视作有别于"人"的群体。自从原本被"他"涵盖的这个子集有了单独的代词"她"，前述问题也随着这个代词的发展而发展。我认为，一个字的构成不应该欺骗它的含义，因此，单人旁的"他"应该用于描述任何人，而不仅仅是任何男性。
-.Pp
-虽然我认为"他"应该要具有真正的性别包容性，但这个词目前男性化的程度，使得它在某种程度上类似于将 he 通用化了。我并不喜欢通用化的"他"，因为这体现了对男性的偏见，但包容性的"他"确实也有这些风险。因此，我提议，偏好使用单独的阳性代词的人，可以转而选择一个有男字旁的字。虽然"男也"（读成一个字）目前还没有 Unicode 码点，但比起刻板地将"他"字一般化，我认为这才是更加理想的解决方案。
-.Sh AUTHORS
-.Pp
-Runxi Yu wrote the original.
-.Pp
-The Chinese translation was translated by Peaksol. Thanks!
-.Sh SEE ALSO
-.Pp
-.Lk https://vimuser.org/pronouns.html Leah Rowe: Better respect for non-binary people, in defense of human rights
diff --git a/tech/forge.7 b/tech/forge.7
deleted file mode 100644
index 7f7975d..0000000
--- a/tech/forge.7
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,60 +0,0 @@
-.Dd January 1, 1970
-.Dt forge tech
-.Os Runxi Yu
-.Sh NAME
-.Nm forge
-.Nd Fore Workflows
-.Sh DESCRIPTION
-.Pp
-I generally use
-.Lk https://git.runxiyu.org/ my own Git server
-for my projects. I also use my
-.Lk https://sr.ht/~runxiyu sr.ht account
-for
-.Lk https://todo.sr.ht/~runxiyu issue tracking
-and
-.Lk https://lists.sr.ht/~runxiyu mailing lists,
-and
-.Lk https://git.sr.ht/~runxiyu their Git
-for some projects too.
-.Pp
-Regardless of whether I'm using my own infrastructure with plain Cgit
-and plain mailing lists (except that my mailing list manager is slightly
-broken for now), or the slightly better-integrated environment sourcehut
-provides, a contributor who wishes to submit some of their commits may
-simply do the following with
-.Lk https://git-send-email.io git-send-email
-.Bl -enum
-.It
-Configure git-send-email (only once!)
-.It
-Clone the repository to a local directory
-.It
-Make some changes and commit
-.It
-.Ql git send-email HEAD^ --to='~runxiyu/public-inbox@lists.sr.ht'
-or something similar
-.El
-.Pp
-This is much easier, imo, than the pull-request workflow popularized by
-GitHub (which is proprietary by the way) and similar forges:
-.Bl -enum
-.It
-Register an account on the forge (once per forge)
-.It
-Click “fork” on the repo's Web interface
-.It
-Clone the fork to a local directory
-.It
-Make some changes and commit
-.It
-Push
-.It
-Go back to the Web interface to create a PR (which often involves
-clicking at least three buttons)
-.It
-Delete your redundant fork once the PR is merged and your repo is
-not really useful anymore
-.El
-.Pp
-Why do certain people hate on SourceHut?