Update

c.md

@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
 
 C is a [low level](low_level.md), structured, [statically typed](static_typing.md) [imperative](imperative.md) compiled [programming language](programming_language.md), the go-to language of [less retarded](lrs.md) programmers. It is the absolutely preferred language of the [suckless](suckless.md) community as well as of most true experts, for example the [Linux](linux.md) and [OpenBSD](openbsd.md) developers, because of its good, relatively simple design, uncontested performance, wide support, great number of compilers, level of control and a greatly established and tested status. C is perhaps the most important language in history, it influenced, to smaller or greater degree, basically all of the widely used languages today such as [C++](c.md), [Java](java.md), [JavaScript](javascript.md) etc., however it is not a thing of the past -- in the area of low level programming C is still the number one unsurpassed language.
 
+{ Look up *The Ten Commandments for C Programmers* by Henry Spencer. ~drummyfish }
+
 It is usually not considered an easy language to learn because of its low level nature: it requires good understanding of how a [computer](computer.md) actually works and doesn't prevent the programmer from shooting himself in the foot. Programmer is given full control (and therefore responsibility). There are things considered "tricky" which one must be aware of, such as undefined behavior of certain operators and raw pointers. This is what can discourage a lot of modern "coding monkeys" from choosing C, but it's also what inevitably allows such great performance -- undefined behavior allows the compiler to choose the most efficient implementation. On the other hand, C as a language is pretty simple without [modern](modern.md) bullshit concepts such as [OOP](oop.md), it is not as much hard to learn but rather hard to master, as any other true art.
 
 C is said to be the **"platform independent [assembly](assembly.md)"** because of its low level nature, great performance etc. -- though C is structured (has control structures such as branches and loops) and can be used in a relatively high level manner, it is also possible to write assembly-like code that operates directly with bytes in memory through [pointers](pointer.md) without many safety mechanisms, so C is often used for writing things like hardware [drivers](driver.md). On the other hand some restrain from likening C to assembly because C compilers still perform many transformations of the code and what you write is not necessarily always what you get.

c_pitfalls.md

@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
 
 Unless specified otherwise, this article supposes the C99 standard of the C language.
 
+**Generally**: be sure to check your programs with tools such as [valgrind](valgrind.md), [splint](splint.md) or [cppcheck](cppcheck.md), and turn on compiler auto checks (`-Wall`, `-Wextra`, `-pedantic`, ...), it's quick, simple and reveals many bugs!
+
 ## Undefined/Unspecified Behavior
 
 Undefined (completely unpredictable), unspecified (safe but potentially differing) and implementation-defined (consistent within implementation but potentially differing between them) behavior poses a kind of unpredictability and sometimes non-intuitive, tricky behavior of certain operations that may differ between compilers, platforms or runs because they are not exactly described by the language specification; this is mostly done on purpose so as to allow some implementation freedom which allows implementing the language in a way that is most efficient on given platform. One has to be very careful about not letting such behavior break the program on platforms different from the one the program is developed on. Note that tools such as [cppcheck](cppcheck.md) can help find undefined behavior in code. Description of some such behavior follows.

free_speech.md

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 # Free Speech
 
-Freedom of speech means there are no arbitrary government or anyone else imposed punishments for or obstacles (such as [censorship](censorship.md)) to merely talking about anything, making any public statement or publication of any information. **Free speech has to be by definition absolute and have no limit**, otherwise it's not free speech but controlled speech -- trying to add exceptions to free speech is like trying to limit to whom a [free software](free_software.md) license if granted; doing so immediately makes such software non-free. Freedom of speech is an essential attribute of a mature society, sadly it hasn't been widely implemented yet and with the [SJW](sjw.md) cancer the latest trend in society is towards eliminating free speech rather than supporting it (see e.g. [political correctness](political_correctness.md)). Speech is being widely censored by extremist groups (e.g. [LGBT](lgbt.md) and [corporations](corporation.md), see also [cancel culture](cancel_culture.md)) and states -- depending on country there exist laws against so called "[hate speech](hate_speech.md)", questioning official versions of history (see e.g. [Holocaust](holocaust.md) denial laws present in many EU states), criticizing powerful people (for example it is illegal to criticize or insult that huge inbred dick Thai king), sharing of useful information such as books ([copyright](copyright.md) censorship) etc. Free speech nowadays is being eliminated by the strategy of creating an exception to free speech, usually called "hate speech", and then classifying any undesired speech under such label and silencing it.
+Freedom of speech means there are no arbitrary government or anyone else imposed punishments for or obstacles (such as [censorship](censorship.md)) to merely talking about anything, making any public statement or publication of any information. **Free speech has to be by definition absolute and have no limit**, otherwise it's not free speech but controlled speech -- trying to add exceptions to free speech is like trying to limit to whom a [free software](free_software.md) license is granted; doing so immediately makes such software non-free. Freedom of speech is an essential attribute of a mature society, sadly it hasn't been widely implemented yet and with the [SJW](sjw.md) cancer the latest trend in society is towards eliminating free speech rather than supporting it (see e.g. [political correctness](political_correctness.md)). Speech is being widely censored by extremist groups (e.g. [LGBT](lgbt.md) and [corporations](corporation.md), see also [cancel culture](cancel_culture.md)) and states -- depending on country there exist laws against so called "[hate speech](hate_speech.md)", questioning official versions of history (see e.g. [Holocaust](holocaust.md) denial laws present in many EU states), criticizing powerful people (for example it is illegal to criticize or insult that huge inbred dick Thai king), sharing of useful information such as books ([copyright](copyright.md) censorship) etc. Free speech nowadays is being eliminated by the strategy of creating an exception to free speech, usually called "hate speech", and then classifying any undesired speech under such label and silencing it.
 
-The basic principle of free speech says that **if you don't support freedom of speech which you dislike, you don't support free speech**.
+The basic principle of free speech says that **if you don't support freedom of speech which you dislike, you don't support free speech**. I.e. speech that you hate does not equal hate speech.
 
 Some idiots (like that [xkcd](xkcd.md) #1357) say that free speech is only about legality, i.e. about what's merely allowed to be said by the law or what speech the law "protects". Of course, **this is completely wrong** and just reflects this society's obsession with law; true free speech mustn't be limited by anything -- if you're not allowed to say something, it doesn't matter too much what it is that's preventing you, your speech is not free. If for example it is theoretically legal to be politically incorrect and criticize the LGBT gospel but you [de-facto](de_facto.md) can't do it because the LGBT fascist [SJWs](sjw.md) would [cancel](cancel_culture.md) you and maybe even physically lynch you, your speech is not free. It is important to realize **we mustn't tie free speech to legal definition**, i.e. it isn't enough to make speech free only in legal sense -- keep in mind that a [good society](less_retarded_society.md) aims to eliminating law itself. Our goal is to make speech free culturally, i.e. teach people that we should let others speak freely, even those -- and especially those -- who we disagree with.
 
-Despite what the propaganda says **there is no free speech in our society**, the only kind of speech that is allowed is that which has no effect. **Illusion of free speech is sustained by letting people speak until they actually start making a change** -- once someone's speech leads to e.g. revealing state secrets or historical truths (e.g. about [Holocaust](holocaust.md)) or to destabilizing economy or state, such speech is labeled "harmful" in some way (hate speech, intellectual property violation, revealing of confidential information, instigating crime, defamation etc.), censored and punished. Even though nowadays just pure censorship laws are being passed on daily basis, even in times when there are seemingly no specific censorship laws and so it seems that "we have free speech" there always exist generic laws that can be fit to any speech, such as those against "inciting violence", "terrorism", "undermining state interests", "hate speech" or any other fancy issue, which can be used to censor absolutely any speech the government pleases, even if such speech has nothing to do with said causes -- it is enough that some state lawyer can find however unlikely possible indirect link to such cause: this could of course be well seen e.g. in the cases of [Covid](covid.md) flu or Russia-Ukraine war. Even though there were e.g. no specific laws in European countries against supporting Russia immediately after the war started, government immediately started censoring and locking up people who supported Russia on the Internet, based on the above mentioned generic laws. These laws works on the same principle as [backdoor](backdoor.md) in software: they allow complete takeover of the system, but are mostly unused until the right time comes, to give the users a sense of being safe (unlike with software backdoor though the law backdoor isn't usually removed after it has been exploited, people are too stupid to notice this and governments can get away with keeping the laws in place).
+Despite what the propaganda says **there is no free speech in our society**, the only kind of speech that is allowed is that which either has no effect or which the system desires for its benefit. **Illusion of free speech is sustained by letting people speak until they actually start making a change** -- once someone's speech leads to e.g. revealing state secrets or historical truths (e.g. about [Holocaust](holocaust.md), human [races](race.md) or government crimes -- see [wikileaks](wikileaks.md)) or to destabilizing economy or state, such speech is labeled "harmful" in some way (hate speech, intellectual property violation, revealing of confidential information, instigating crime, defamation etc.), censored and punished. Even though nowadays just pure censorship laws are being passed on daily basis, even in times when there are seemingly no specific censorship laws and so it seems that "we have free speech" there always exist generic laws that can be fit to any speech, such as those against "inciting violence", "terrorism", "undermining state interests", "hate speech" or any other fancy issue, which can be used to censor absolutely any speech the government pleases, even if such speech has nothing to do with said causes -- it is enough that some state lawyer can find however unlikely possible indirect link to such cause: this could of course be well seen e.g. in the cases of [Covid](covid.md) flu or Russia-Ukraine war. Even though there were e.g. no specific laws in European countries against supporting Russia immediately after the war started, government immediately started censoring and locking up people who supported Russia on the Internet, based on the above mentioned generic laws. These laws work on the same principle as [backdoor](backdoor.md) in software: they are advocated as a "safety" "feature" and allow complete takeover of the system, but are mostly unused until the right time comes, to give the users a sense of being safe ("I've been using this backdoored CPU for years and nothing happened, so it's safe"); unlike with software backdoor though the law backdoor isn't usually removed after it has been exploited, people are just too stupid to notice this and governments can get away with keeping the laws in place, so they do.

free_will.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+# Free Will
+
+*Sorry, there is no magic unicorn in your head.*
+
+Free will is a logically erroneous egocentric belief that humans (and possibly other living beings) are special in the universe by possessing some kind of soul which may disobey laws of physics and somehow make spontaneous, unpredictable decisions according to its "independent" desires. Actually that's the definition of *absolute* free will; weaker definitions, e.g. for the purposes of law, are possible and acceptable. But here we'll focus on the philosophical definition as that's what most autism revolves around. The Internet (and even academic) debates of free will are notoriously retarded to unbelievable levels, similarly to e.g. debates of [consciousness](consciousness.md).
+
+{ Sabine nicely explains it here https://yewtu.be/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY. ~drummyfish }
+
+Free will is usually discussed in relation to **[determinism](determinism.md)**, an idea of everything (including human thought and behavior) being completely predetermined from the start of the universe. Determinism is the most natural and most likely explanation for the working of our universe; it states that laws of nature dictate precisely which state will follow from current state and therefore everything that will every happen is only determined by the initial conditions (start of the universe). As human brain is just matter like any other, it is no exception to the laws of nature. Determinism doesn't imply we'll be able to make precise predictions (see e.g. [chaos](chaos.md) or [undecidability](undecidability.md)), just that everything is basically already set in stone as a kind of unavoidable fate. Basically the only other possible option is that there would be some kind true [randomness](randomness.md), i.e. that laws of nature don't specify an exact state to follow from current state but rather multiple states out of which one is "taken" at random -- this is proposed by some [quantum](quantum.md) physicists as quantum physics seems to be showing the existence of inherent randomness. Nevertheless **quantum physics may still be deterministic**, see the theory of hidden variables and [superdeterminism](superdeterminism.md) (no, Bell test didn't disprove determinism). But **EVEN IF the universe is non deterministic, free will still CANNOT exist**. Therefore this whole debate is meaningless.
+
+**Why is there no free will?** Because it isn't logically possible, just like e.g. the famous omnipotent God (could he make a rock so heavy he wouldn't be able to lift it?). Either the universe is deterministic and your decisions are already predetermined, or there exists an inherent randomness and your decisions are determined by a mere dice roll (which no one can call a free will more than just making every decision in life based on a coin toss). In either case your decisions are made for you by something "external". Even if you follow a basic definition of free will as "acting according to one's desires", you find that your decisions are DETERMINED by your desires, i.e. something you did not choose (your desires) makes decisions for you. There is no way out of this unless you reject logic itself.
+
+For some reason retards (basically everyone) don't want to accept this, as if accepting it changed anything, stupid [capitalists](capitalism.md) think that it would somehow belittle their "achievements" of what? Basically just like the people who used to let go of geocentrism. This is ridiculous, they hold on to the idea of their "PRECIOOOOUUUSS FREE WILL" to the death, then they go and consume whatever a TV tells them to consume. Indeed one of the most retarded things in the universe. 

hacking.md

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ The word *hack* itself seems to have come from a model train club at MIT in whos
 
 Many ideas -- such as the beauty of [minimalism](minimalism.md) -- that became part of hacker culture later came from the development of [Unix](unix.md) and establishment of its [programming philosophy](unix_philosophy.md). Many hackers came from the communities revolving around [PDP 10](pdp_10.md) and [ARPANET](arpanet.md), and later around networks such as [Usenet](usenet.md). At the time when computers started to be abused by corporations, [Richard Stallman's](rms.md) definition of [free software](free_software.md) and his [GNU](gnu.md) project embodied the strong hacker belief in information freedom and their opposition of [intellectual property](intellectual_property.md).
 
-The culture has a deep lore and its own literature consisting of books that hackers usually like (e.g. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) and books by hackers themselves. Bits of the lore are in forms of short stories circulated as folklore, very popular form are so called Koans. Perhaps the most iconic hacker story is the [Story of Mel](story_of_mel.md) which tells a true story of a master hacker keeping to his personal ethical beliefs under the pressure of his corporate employers -- a conflict between manager employers ("suits") and hacker employees is a common theme in the stories. Other famous stories include the *TV typewriter* and *Magic Switch*. One of the most famous hacker books is the **[Jargon File](jargon_file.md)**, a collectively written dictionary documenting hacker culture in detail. A 1987 book *[The Tao of Programming](tao_of_programming.md)* captures the hacker wisdom with Taoist-like texts that show how spiritual hacking can get -- this reflects the above mentioned sacred nature of the early computers. The *textfiles* website features many text files on hacking at https://textfiles.vistech.net/hacking/. A lot about hackers can be learned from books about them, e.g. the [free](free_culture.md) book *Free as in Freedom* about [Richard Stallman](rms.md) (available e.g. [here](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5768)). A prominent hacker writer is [Eric S. Raymond](esr.md) who produced a very famous essay *The Cathedral and the Bazaar*, edited the Jargon File and has written a large guide called *How To Become A Hacker* -- these are all good resources on hackerdom, even though Raymond himself is kind of shitty, he for example prefers the "[open source](open_source.md)" movement to [free software](free_software.md).
+The culture has a deep lore and its own literature consisting of books that hackers usually like (e.g. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) and books by hackers themselves. Bits of the lore are in forms of short stories circulated as folklore, very popular form are so called Koans. Perhaps the most iconic hacker story is the [Story of Mel](story_of_mel.md) which tells a true story of a master hacker keeping to his personal ethical beliefs under the pressure of his corporate employers -- a conflict between manager employers ("suits") and hacker employees is a common theme in the stories. Other famous stories include the *TV typewriter* and *Magic Switch*. One of the most famous hacker books is the **[Jargon File](jargon_file.md)**, a collectively written dictionary documenting hacker culture in detail. A 1987 book *[The Tao of Programming](tao_of_programming.md)* captures the hacker wisdom with Taoist-like texts that show how spiritual hacking can get -- this reflects the above mentioned sacred nature of the early computers. The *textfiles* website features many text files on hacking at https://textfiles.vistech.net/hacking/. See also *Ten Commandments for C Programmers* etc. A lot about hackers can be learned from books about them, e.g. the [free](free_culture.md) book *Free as in Freedom* about [Richard Stallman](rms.md) (available e.g. [here](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5768)). A prominent hacker writer is [Eric S. Raymond](esr.md) who produced a very famous essay *The Cathedral and the Bazaar*, edited the Jargon File and has written a large guide called *How To Become A Hacker* -- these are all good resources on hackerdom, even though Raymond himself is kind of shitty, he for example prefers the "[open source](open_source.md)" movement to [free software](free_software.md).
 
 As a symbol of hackerdom the glider symbol from [game of life](game_of_life.md) is sometimes used, it looks like this:
 

speech_synthesis.md

@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ double speech(double t, double fundamental, double offset,
   /* now generate harmonics (multiples of fundamental frequency) as the source,
      and multiply them by the envelope given by formants (no need to deal with
      multiplication of spectra; as we're constructing the result from basic
-     frequencies, we can simply multiply each by one directly): */
+     frequencies, we can simply multiply each one directly): */
   while (1)
   {
     double f = harmonic * fundamental;

unix.md

@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
 # Unix
 
-Unix is an [old](old.md) [operating system](operating_system.md) developed since 1960s as a research project of [Bell Labs](bell_labs.md), which has become one of the most influential pieces of software in history and whose principles (e.g. the [Unix philosophy](unix_philosophy.md)) live on in many so called  Unix-like operating systems such as [Linux](linux.md) and [BSD](bsd.md) (at least to some degree). The original system itself is no longer in use, the name UNIX is nowadays a trademark and a certification.
+*"Those who don't know Unix are doomed to reinvent it, poorly."* --obligatory quote by Henry Spencer
+
+Unix is an [old](old.md) [operating system](operating_system.md) developed since 1960s as a research project of [Bell Labs](bell_labs.md), which has become one of the most influential pieces of software in history and whose principles (e.g. the [Unix philosophy](unix_philosophy.md)) live on in many so called  Unix-like operating systems such as [Linux](linux.md) and [BSD](bsd.md) (at least to some degree). The original system itself is no longer in use, the name UNIX is nowadays a trademark and a certification. However, as someone once said, *Unix is not so much an operating system as a way of thinking*.
 
 Unix has reached the highest level a software can reach: it has transcended its implementation and became a [de facto standard](de_facto_standard.md). This means it has become a set of interface conventions, cultural and philosophical ideas rather than being a single system, it lives on as a concept that has many implementations. This is extremely important as we don't depend on any single Unix implementation but we have a great variety of choice between which we can switch without greater issues. This is very important for [freedom](freedom.md) -- it prevents monopolization -- and its one of the important reasons to use unix-like systems.
 

wikipedia.md

@@ -18,9 +18,9 @@ There exist [forks](fork.md) and alternatives to Wikipedia. Simple English Wikip
 
 Let's note a few positive and negative points about Wikipedia, as of 2022. Some good things are:
 
-- Despite its flaws Wikipedia is still a **highly free, relatively high quality noncommercial source of knowledge for everyone**, without ads and [bullshit](bs.md). It is tremendously helpful, Wikipedia may e.g. be printed out or saved in an offline version and used in the third world as a completely free educational resource (see [Kiwix](kiwix.md)).
+- Despite its flaws Wikipedia is still a **highly free, relatively high quality noncommercial source of knowledge for everyone**, without ads and [bullshit](bs.md). It is quite helpful, Wikipedia may e.g. be printed out or saved in an offline version and used in the third world as a completely free educational resource (see [Kiwix](kiwix.md)).
 - Wikipedia **helped prove the point of [free culture](free_culture.md)** and showed that collaboration of volunteers can far surpass the best efforts of corporations.
-- Wikipedia's **website is pretty nice** (at least as of 2022), kind of minimalist, lightweight and **works without [Javascript](javascript.md)**. { Indeed as of 2023 they fucked it up :D It is still not as bad as other sites but it's shit now. ~drummyfish }
+- Wikipedia's **website is (/used to be) pretty nice** (at least as of 2022), kind of minimalist, lightweight and **works without [Javascript](javascript.md)**. { Indeed as of 2023 they fucked it up :D It is still not as bad as other sites but it's shit now. ~drummyfish }
 - Wikipedia is very **friendly to computer analysis**, it provides all its data publicly, in simple and open formats, and doesn't implement any [DRM](drm.md). This allows to make a lot of research, in depth searching, collection of statistics etc.
 - Wikipedia **drives the sister projects**, some of which are extremely useful, e.g. Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata or [MediaWiki](mediawiki.md).
 - Even if politically biased, **Wikipedia may serve as a basis for [forks](fork.md) that fix the political bias** ([Metapedia](metapedia.md), [InfoGalactic](infogalactic.md), ...).
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ And the bad things are (see also this site: http://digdeeper.club/articles/wikip
 - Wikipedia is **intentionally deceptive** -- it supports its claims by "citations" ("race is a social construct"^1234567891011121314151617181920) to make things look as objective facts, but the citations are firstly cherry picked (there is a list of banned sources), self-made (articles of Wikipedians themselves) and secondly the sources often don't even support the claim, they're literally there just for "good look". Not only do they practice censorship, they claim they do NOT practice censorship and then write article on censorship so as to define censorship in their own convenient way :) Furthermore their articles intentionally omit points of view of their political opponents.
 - Wikipedia often suffers from writing inconsistency, bad structure of text and **poor writing** in general. In a long article you sometimes find repeating paragraphs, sometimes a lot of stress is put on one thing while mentioning more important things only briefly, the level of explanation expertness fluctuates etc. This is because in many articles most people make small contributions without reading the whole article and without having any visions of the whole. And of course there are many contributors without any writing skills.
 - Wikipedia is **too popular** which has the negative side effect of becoming a **political battlefield**. This is one of the reasons why there has to be a lot of **bureaucracy**, including things such as **locking of articles** and the inability to edit everything. Even if an article can technically be edited by anyone, there are many times people watching and reverting changes on specific articles. So Wikipedia can't fully proclaim it can be "edited by anyone".
-- Wikipedia is **hard to read**. The articles go to great depth and mostly even simple topics are explained with a great deal of highly technical terms so that they can't be well understood by people outside the specific field, even if the topic could be explained simply (Simple English Wikipedia tries to fix this a little bit at least). Editors try to include as much information as possible which too often makes the main point of a topic drown in the blablabla. Wikipedia's style is also very formal and "not [fun](fun.md)" to read, which isn't bad in itself but it just is boring to read. Some alternative encyclopedias such as [Citizendium](citizendium.md) try to offer a more friendly reading style.
+- Wikipedia is **hard to read**. The articles go to great depth and mostly even simple topics are explained with a great deal of highly technical terms so that they can't be well understood by people outside the specific field, even if the topic could be explained simply (Simple English Wikipedia tries to fix this a little bit at least). Editors try to include as much information as possible which too often makes the main point of a topic drown in the blablabla. Wikipedia's style is also very formal and "not [fun](fun.md)" to read, which isn't bad in itself but it just is boring to read. Some alternative encyclopedias such as [Citizendium](citizendium.md) try to offer a more friendly reading style. Back in the day Wikipedia used to be written pretty well, check it out e.g. at https://nostalgia.wikipedia.org.
 - Wikipedia is **not [public domain](public_domain.md)**. It is licensed under [CC-BY-SA](cc_by_sa.md) which is a [free](free_culture.md) license, but has a few burdening conditions. We belive knowledge shouldn't be owned or burdened by any conditions.
 - Even though there are no ads, there regularly appears **political propaganda**, main page just **hard pushes [feminist](feminism.md) shit** as featured images and articles, there appear popups for LGBT/feminist activism, and of course all articles are littered with [pseudoleftist](pseudoleft.md) propaganda etc.
 - **Many articles are bought**, there exist companies that offer editing and maintaining certain articles in a way the client desires and of course corporations and politicians take this opportunity -- of course Wikipedia somewhat tries to prevent it but no prevention ever works 100%, so a lot of information on Wikipedia is either highly misleading, untrue, censored or downright fabricated.
@@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ There are many interesting and entertaining pages and articles on Wikipedia, som
 
 Due to mass censorship and brainwashing going on at Wikipedia it is important to look for alternatives that are important especially when researching anything connected to politics. This is a comparison of Wikipedia and some of its alternatives, as of 2023:
 
+{ See also old Wikipedia at https://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race. ~drummyfish }
+
 | encyclopedia                                                                                  | license                  | comment                                                                                               |
 | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
 |[Wikipedia](wikipedia.md)                                                                      | CC BY-SA                 | biggest, mainstream, **EXTREME CENSORSHIP AND PROPAGANDA**                                            |