fix whytheblog tutorial

opsec/whytheblog/index.html

@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@
 	    <div class="container">
 			<div class="row">
 				<div class="col-lg-8 col-lg-offset-2">
-          <h2><b>Priority number 1: Solving the lack of objectivity</b></h2>
+          <h2><b>Priority number 1: Solving the lack of Education</b></h2>
 <p>To explain the whole context, you need to understand first of all that having <b>good operational security, means that you are ungovernable.</b> Therefore, when you have online discussions online on how to have good operational security you have 2 types of people: </p>
 <img src="0.png" class="imgRz">
 <p>On the one hand you have people that want to protect their individual freedom, which are largely seeking Truth, which prefer to know the solution rather than protect their ego, that are continuously asking questions because they want to know things, while at the same time not asking the same question 100 times to slow down the overall progress of the discussions. These are people that are acting in good faith. </p>
@@ -90,8 +90,14 @@
 <p>Most of the times this is the most effective tactic because according to brandolini's law, <b>the time it takes to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude greater than that required to produce it.</b> It takes time to refute someone's made up lies, more time than it took time to for them to create them. Lucky for you, this entire blog is here to dispel people's lies, and show you the raw truth. <u>In this instance someone was spreading FUD that simplex wasn't compilable</u> (they were only partly right in saying that simplex didnt have reproducible builds yet, to their credit). <b>So we went ahead and explored if it was possible to compile simplex ourselves, which we confirmed that it actually was, <a href="http://dreadytofatroptsdj6io7l3xptbet6onoyno2yv7jicoxknyazubrad.onion/post/f8e6c1325c63075514b7/#c-df5fdf8c61453e7deb">as explained in this post.</a></b> (we obviously listed all the steps to compile it, so that the other party can test it and verify it as valid from his end).</p>
 <img src="1.png" class="imgRz">
 <p>Obviously, the guy wasn't happy that we spent one afternoon just to prove him wrong, and he refused to admit fault. Here you have a clear sign of egocentrism (see how he ignores that i admit he was partly right on the non-reproducible build and resorts to calling me a big bad meanie). <b>A real truth seeker would have remained objective about the topic, and not resorted to calling me names.</b> In fact, he should have thanked us that we did the heavy lifting for him, to clear up his misunderstanding on the topic. <b>The co-opting threats are absolutely real, don't be naive about it.</b> The bitcoin project itself fell prey to the co-opting aswell, it no longer has individual freedom as it's core value, it's almost only statist propaganda now.</p>
-<p>This is the type of opsec discussions you're going to see all around in the other popular opsec communities like in dread /d/opsec, <b>an ocean of bullshit, where actual quality is hidden 10000 feet below the surface, with people too lazy (or not even caring) to refute dishonest people's made up claims</b>. And whenever someone actually explores a topic, they get ad hominem'd, discredited, called names, with continuous thread derailing and no concern given to actual truth seeking nor having productive discussions. (if it were up to me to manage that website, i'd make signing up cost some monero, that way people would have something to lose in case if they considered eroding the quality of the talks there)</p>
-<p>You get the idea, we're here to reverse this trend, and bring back actual truth seeking to the table.</p>
+<p>This is the type of opsec discussions you're going to see all around in the most communities that talk about opsec <b>an ocean of bullshit, where actual quality is hidden 10000 feet below the surface, with people too lazy (or not even caring) to refute dishonest people's made up claims</b>. And whenever someone actually explores a topic, they get ad hominem'd, discredited, called names, with continuous thread derailing and no concern given to actual truth seeking nor having productive discussions. Egocentrism is an actual plague that erodes the quality of the debates, which is sadly way too common these days. (if it were up to me to manage that website, i'd make signing up cost some monero, that way people would have something to lose in case if they considered eroding the quality of the talks there)</p>
+<p>You get the idea, we're here to reverse this trend, and bring back actual truth seeking to the table. Like i covered in this <a href="http://dreadytofatroptsdj6io7l3xptbet6onoyno2yv7jicoxknyazubrad.onion/post/cdd2b46e861a4e175a3d">dread post</a>, <b>most people fail to realize the enormity of what the field of Operational security ecompasses.</b> It is a HUGE task to actually cover everything opsec is about, even when you limit the topic exploration to Privacy, Anonymity and Deniability.</p>
+<img src="8.png" class="imgRz">
+<p>This mountain of work that explaining operational security is, cannot be summarized in 1 afternoon, in a 4 hour effort post. This is a multiple thousand-hour effort, to effectively plan it out, list all the blogposts to explain all the concepts, all of the topics to be explored, to actually explore them, rewrite them whenever valid criticism gets thrown at it, on and on and on it goes. AND you have to apply a quality standard on ALL posts, to make sure that you effectively convey your knowledge to your audience properly.</p>
+<p>Not to mention the organization of the whole blogpost will affect wether or not you can reach that goal of making that one place to contain every possible opsec advice one needs under 3000 hours of work or 9000 hours of work. It needs to be correctly organized from the start, otherwise it will remain a distant target that you'll never reach. (not to mention that one needs to have enough humility to realize the enormity of the task, and also effectively organize recieving external contributions).</p>
+<p> <b>TLDR: if you're not serious about it, in the long run, you're bound to make a mess out of it.</b></p>
+
+
 
 <p>You can also encounter the opposite with laxists giving into over-simplifications at the expense of their objectivity:</p>
 <pre><code class="nim">