fix

opsec/criticism/index.html

@@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least o
 <img src="2.png" class="imgRz">
 <p>In this case it's an absolutely valid criticism which definitely makes sense, since it simplifies the previous setup by removing the use of that wipe.sh script, and by not even requiring to install the veracrypt software. In that case i scheduled the changes for multiple tutorials, and came up with the following 4 updated tutorials to take this criticism into account: <a href="../linux/index.html">[0]</a><a href="../livemode/index.html">[1]</a> <a href="../veracrypt/index.html">[2]</a> <a href="../sensitivevm/index.html">[3]</a>. <b>One valid criticism can have an effect on the entire Opsec blog like this one, since there are alot of blogposts that are inter-dependant.</b> In this case, since the Host OS had to change, i rewrote the Host OS tutorial, the hypervisor tutorial, the veracrypt tutorial and ultimately the sensitive VMs tutorial accordingly to be able to match the criticism that was sent to me.</p>
 
+<img src="5.png" class="imgRz">
 <p><b>This is the minimum for me to consider your feedback and do something about it.</b> However if you want to bring some extra quality to your criticism, you can do the following:</p>
 <p><b><u>- Level 5:</u></b> (Refutation)</b> You can first quote what i wrote (but i know what i wrote so you can simply link to the tutorial directly and i'll immediately know the context of what you're talking about), and then explain exactly why it's not correct. <b>Ideally if you're basing your criticism on external sources, also post links to those resources that explain further what you're talking about,</b> so that i get the full picture: </p>
 <img src="3.png" class="imgRz">