I find it interesting that she can recall these details ten years after experiencing them.

I find it interesting that she calls her master her best friend of the Indian, when she hates all of them. Why would she admit this so flippantly in the text, when the reader knows her disdain for the Natives?

I wonder, with her word choice, does she know something they don't? Or is it purely based off of her belief and religion?

I find it interesting that the female seems to be the more aggressive one of the two natives. Or is it something against religion? Or maybe just Mary?

Does your husband want to buy you? Are you speaking on behalf of him, FOR him?

She always wants pity and praise and if she doesn’t get it, she throws a fit and makes the Natives look evil

SO even though it was the Native people who once again gave her food and shelter, she’s giving God the credit and not the kindness of the native people

How many people fit in a wigwam

What’s a Friend Indian and I’m guessing it’s important because of the title being capitalized

Ohhh it was called Boston then too

What place are we calling home?

who are they having company that they can’t have their captive white woman present. Is it just like common courtesy or are they hiding her

Like the other two pieces we read, hunger is huge

An Indian best friend?// ish. Wow we’ve moved up in our opinions

She was impatient about having to turn around but reminded herself that her God had a plan and to calm her soul. I guess

Is she ACTUALLY confirmed going home or is this just her hoping still

Being rude and showing a lack of respect

Wow okay what an annoying woman. They helped you in the past when you were weak, yes, but that doesn’t mean everything is handed to you, white woman. It’s your own stuff, deal with it

What does she even own during captivity is it anything besides like her bible?

Why is there all of a sudden a rejection of her religion? Are they just now noticing it or did she hide it before?

I thought this meant bag but I guess it can also mean a child. Language has many meanings.

What is Nux and why is it good, or at least I’m guessing?

Would her kids be coming? Probably not? Really shows how women are treated during this time. Just objects to own and use as financial advantage

I always forget what sabbath day is and that it’s weekly and I get so lost why it’s mentioned so often

Nhánh thái dương và nhánh bờ nền không có hoặc ít nhanh phụ, trong khi các nhanh khác thì có nhiều

It would honestly be kind of scary to be trapped in a reality like this. Knowing that anything and everything we do has no purpose or meaning because there won’t be a changed effect or outcome. That would make life very depressing.

This is such a biased worldview! Wow! At least it still recognizes that there are many other, different peoples and cultures, but still. How are we supposed to get a clear, honest grasp on the truth if we just think of ourselves and our country as better in every category? We can’t!

I don’t or at lest didn’t believe in global warming. But I feel like this information (if read and processed critically,) has some decent points for how this could be / is effecting our world.

I feel like this wouldn’t be the first thing I would notice when studying history. But maybe McNeill thought that the historians would see and be struck by it because they would have been tought the other things (the wars, the growth in human population, the women’s movement, etc.) already and this would stick out to them more because the relationship of humans and the earth’s natural environment (I believe?) is not mentioned in your common or typical history courses.

Author note (17 Sep 2026)

Tables 1–6 in the PDF of this preprint have lost their layout: each table cell appears as a separate line of running text. This is a file error on the authors' side (the table markup in the submitted Word file was lost during a last-minute edit before submission); the numerical content is complete and unchanged.

A corrected manuscript with all six tables properly formatted has been placed in the JMIR submission system and will be the basis of peer review and of any subsequent version, including the version of record. JMIR does not alter posted preprints, so this PDF cannot be replaced.

A PDF of the corrected tables is available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11pr8TJP9J00y9zwh2_9v8B38FLyeJzdU

Author note (corresponding author, 17 Sep 2026)

Tables 1–6 in the PDF of this preprint have lost their layout: each table cell appears as a separate line of running text. This is a file error on the authors' side (the table markup in the submitted Word file was lost during a last-minute edit before submission); the numerical content is complete and unchanged.

A corrected manuscript with all six tables properly formatted has been placed in the JMIR submission system and will be the basis of peer review and of any subsequent version, including the version of record. JMIR does not alter posted preprints, so this PDF cannot be replaced.

A PDF of the corrected tables is available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11pr8TJP9J00y9zwh2_9v8B38FLyeJzdU

Within the last year , at my workplace we has had to eliminate an app that we were using on our phones and tablets to track behavioral data due to data breach issues, overall security, and financial concern. Social workers often have to rely on paper and pen if technology does not work. luckily we had it as a backkup. As a Rutger’s student in the last few years canvas has crashed and AI has made it increasingly difficult to get accurate and relevant data. The technology that is meant to alleviate workload and stress from staff to better support clients, but can cause much more stress when it doesn't operate properly and skews collected data.

When talking about social workers, we have to be honest and responsible because we assume a natural power and it creates imbalance. When helping those who are underprivileged, it is critical social workers remain consistent to the mission and do not take shortcuts that can take advantage or undermine clientele.

As a job coach at the Rutgers Center for Adult Autism Services I have taken the role of being a voice to those with ASD or IDDs. It is my job to explain things to them at a level they will understand in order for no one to take advantage of them. Everyone should have the right to make their own choices and have equal opportunity to resources and information no matter what their background is. It is my job to educate those in the community when they ask about my role and improve each day for the participant add to their quality of life.

Sojourner Truth flips the narrative that women are fragile or weak by using the traditional religious story about Eve as proof of female strength. I interpret this means women are just as strong as men, and potentially even stronger especially when we come together in solidarity. By pointing this out Sojourner Truth challenges the 19th century myth that women are inferior or need protection, showing that as a collective female power is capable of changing the world and history.

This is such an interesting angle to look at, and really contrasts the ideas health of the individual vs the health of the population. Medical advances have made it so that individual's live longer, are fertile longer, and more fetus and women survive pregnancy. Yet with the addition of these medical advances comes the increased population, that leads to strain on medical systems, food systems and natural resources.

This section really captivated my attention, it made me question weather there could be a species that focuses mainly on caring, and yet still has the drive to pro-create. I also wonder how species vary when it comes to these aspects, and if the variation affects genealogy and lifespan.

Dawkins says that the welfare system is as altruistic system which can be defined as a system as helping others without the expectation of it having reciprocated. Dawkins states that this type of system is inherently unstable because of its vulnerability to selfish individuals. I agree that purely altruistic systems may be vulnerable to exploitation, our welfare system in current day is not purely on a trust based system but instead regulated by government and higher authority to ensure that they are not being exploited. This also made me think about the flaws of our welfare system such as unemployment insurance (EI) and subsidized housing and how difficult it is to really use those things. Is it too regulated?

I thought that the experiment with the mice was really interesting when exploring birth rates and population growth in relation to food scarcity. The worlds population is bigger than it is has veer been and continues to grow, though less rampant than in past decades. I wonder if the population increase will continue to slow does in the coming years and decades like what happened with the mice, or will people continue to have babies at the rate they are now despite depleting resources?

O: I notice that Oates creates a clear contrast between theater and book. A printed word records something that has already happened before, but for the theater, when the actors perform on the stage, it seems like happening now. This means that the same play can become a different experience in each performance.

What it means: When you give AI a strict step-by-step "recipe" (naming specific sources or websites to look at), the AI becomes trapped by your instructions. Even if a vastly superior, completely free, or higher-quality course existed on a different website, the AI ignored it because your recipe restricted its scope to only the sites you listed.

Y por ningun lado en esta actualizacion se siigue estigmatizando los piercings. EN NINGUN MOMENTO TOCAN AL PACIENTE. OJO.

I believe that the future is now, and AI is eventually going to be something that hospitals can use to process large amounts of data.

This is a great way to implement job searches and understand what employers are seeking.

I decided to push my focus towards the development of AI and how it affects peoples careers. As someone that wants to work with data, this could affect me in the future somehow, especially with how data will be processed. It could also help with job requirements and really understanding what my future job wants in a candidate.

This whole section stands out to me just because of the field I'm going into. Im gonna be working with babies in the medical field and to hear about the mortality rate/death rate with infants is very scary and sad just because babies that are born should not die.

This is the definition of mortality put in to simple terms.

This sentence also stuck out to me as well. They are talking about water switches or water problems which Flint Michigan had the same problems with their water and it caused many outbreaks and people dying around the areas because they were drinking dirty water due to lead poisoning.

This whole section stuck out to me because it tells how the lack of resources and all these diseases really took a toll on people including children, infants, and women at reproductive ages.

I remember growing up doing research for school projects, and having teachers say that using wikipedia was not allowed. This was because anyone could put information on their and there was no way of validating the info. It's ironic that now it has come full circle and to allow open web to exist people are encouraged to publish information on wikipedia and use its information.

I am also wondering what this will look like and how it will compare to policy that has protected freedom of the press or academic freedom. My guess is that policy and laws that were created to protect freedom of the press envisioned a press that was owned and managed by publishing companies, and governments were seen as the threat to the press. Now the threat is understood to be the companies that want to own (or destroy) the open web.

I found the comparison between open web standards and laws interesting because both depend on people recognizing some shared rules even when enforcement isn't always immediate. It makes me wonder whether the openness of the early web depended partly on a level of trust that doesn't work as well when this decade's biggest players have enormous financial incentives to ignore those norms. If so, the problem might not just be that companies are violating individual rules, but that the social conditions that made those rules effective have changed. Once one company breaks the rules, the rest now have a competitor who did it before them that they can point to and feel validated by. New players in the market have to break the same rules to compete; it’s just terrifying that nobody knows how invasive that cycle could potentially get.

It's easy to be skeptic about new technology and critique the negative impacts it can have on society. However, I think that the open web allows individuals to gain access to a wider range of information. It also allows individuals to feel a sense of belonging based on the communities of knowledge they interact with, but also share information to. Finally, its resources like these that allow information to be shared globally and allow for us to live in a society where information can be provided within a matter of minutes.

This was an important point to include in this article because of how contradicting, yet true it is. It is not fair to expect individual users to fix problems created by massive companies by themselves. Those of authority and in power that are supposed to protect us, like government officials, also have a responsibility to address these issues. Even those who possessed the power and intelligence to drag us into this radical system have the ability to change culture, but why would they when they benefit most from it? Knowledge is power, and the more we educate ourselves and others, especially our students and young minds, about the dangers of the openness of the web, the more motivated they may be to choose alternatives. So, although this may not be fair - I believe that the new generation of teachers have a unique responsibility to empower students to question big tech. The sooner we acknowledge this, the sooner we can come together to get institutions to change course.

The idea that podcasts and creators are being limited on what type of content is produced can lower the authenticity of content being shared. For instance, creators overtime will feel a sense of control over their content and may be forced to fit into a mold that is in line with the big companies they are signed to or approved to work with. In addition, this raises issues on creator rights and can impact creativity in a negative way.

I think the educational consequence here is easy to overlook compared with the more obvious concern about AI-generated code overwhelming maintainers. Open-source communities don't just produce software; they also give inexperienced people a way to learn by participating in something real and receiving feedback from more experienced developers. If AI-generated contributions make communities more restrictive, beginners could lose one of the few places where they can gain experience without already having professional credentials. This makes the issue feel less like a problem affecting programmers and more like a problem affecting how people enter an entire field.

Creators choosing to sacrifice income just to maintain control over their work - reading this, my initial reaction was anger. How did we get to this point and how do we undo the damage thats been done? Human beings who have rightful ownership over their own work and creativity have lost their right to decide what happens to it, where it goes, and who has access to it. The optimist in me is glad to see creators choose dignity over money, just because it is the right way to connect with others. I think we get so caught up in emerging technologies like AI and what it can do, that we forget we have the power to be intentional about how we participate. No matter what progresses in technology or the openness of the web, I believe we have the responsibility to use our moral compass when deciding what is important to us - control over what is rightfully ours or fleeting public praise.

I think this is a really beneficial mindset to have. We, as individuals, often feel helpless with so much bad going on in the world. But education is so powerful! Learning about technology like AI allows us to make informed decisions about using it or not.

Education as empowerment applies to any big issue we feel we have no control of. Spreading awareness and educating others can definitely change culture and empower people to make change on a personal level.

There is an interesting paradox here: AI can make information easier to access in the short term while potentially making the internet harder to access in the long term. If creators respond to AI scraping by putting their work behind paywalls, the amount of high-quality information available publicly decreases. When AI systems increasingly rely on existing material, humans have less incentive to create new material openly. I hadn't really considered the possibility that the biggest consequence of AI scraping might not be the content it takes, but the content people eventually stop making available.

When I read this, it reminded me of something else I'd been wondering about Netflix recently. I've noticed that Netflix has produced a number of documentaries about corporate mismanagement or negligence, such as: their series on Boeing Scandal, or their Train Wreck series. Although I haven't disputed the content of these series (I don't have enough information to do so) I have wondered if this has been part of an attempt by Netflix to make their own image look more sympathetic to whistle blowers by showing how "bad" other companies are.

A satisfying way to conclude a thought-provoking article. Perhaps we are careening toward a great revolt against all things digital. When enough things in life become compromised or ruined entirely, perhaps we'll all push for a return to 1972? That is, after all, a whole 12 years before 1984. ;-)

This is an amazing point and one that I resonate with heavily. Often the focus is solely put on government at the federal level which is important no doubt. But what gets thrown to the wayside is how important politics are at a state/provincial level as well as municipal. Its easy to get hopeless about major shifts in the political spectrum, but being involved locally is a great remedy to this because change starts from the bottom up.

The last sentence of this section resonated with me. Large technology companies have benefitted from the openness of the Internet, but now some of their business tactic might make it harder for smaller creators and companies to compete. They may believe that they do not stand a chance against these large, powerful companies that partake in this radical architecture - which the author basically describes as a free-for-all system. This begs the question, will smaller communities (which consist of the majority of the world) lose their voice or potential contributions? Who will be heard? Do we stand a chance combatting a radical system that powerful people benefit from?

Another fear I have from this is how this will affect the content of these podcasts and web shows. It opens up the gates to business practices that might hinder certain speech on their platforms. We already seen corporations bow down to the current administration in the US by playing ball with whatever insane demands are made. What happens if content on these platforms has to continue to be filtered in order to better fit specific narratives? Obviously there are policies and guidelines users on open platforms have to follow and that's not what I am equating to. Moreover, who has the control of the information?

I have noticed this. When I run a Google search, it provides an AI answer and summary first, and if I want an answer from Wikipedia, I have to scroll down to it or search it directly. I still prefer Wikipedia, because I like the way it's formatted, (and probably out of habit to some extent). I was not aware of attacks on its editors.

This is a statement that does drive me up the wall as it is unfortunately a huge issue. The internet is an incredible aspect of our every day lives and its openness is often taken for granted. I do however think it has also opened the floodgates for many opportunists seeking to make a profit at every single corner. It feels like many open source sites is under threat by a hyper-fixation on monetizing every detail. And if its not content, or advertising, its our data being sold to corporations many of which the common person hasn't even heard of. It's disheartening to see the trajectory form in this way.

I found the title and image used very interesting. Instead of saying "the end' or "potential end" for the open web, Dash chose the word "endgame". It is possible Dash chose the word to represent how the open web was similar to a game in the sense that it was a creative space. Another personal theory is that the word "endgame" references how crucial these next few steps are in supporting open web and not AI generated or closed infostructures. Although my previous thought is most likely the reason, Dash may have choose this word to symbolize how we are all pawns in a game bigger than entertaining ourselves/searching online (i.e., tech business, political control, etc.). Furthermore, I found the image fascinating. At a quick glance you see a dimly light caged tunnel leading to the unknown. Very similar to the path of AI, where we are being guided/forced into the unknown AI jungle. However, if you look closely to the top right corner, you can somewhat see "outside". Possibly this symbolizes open web/open infostructures and how they are barley present. Or, I am thinking too much into this and Dash got the word Endgame because they like Avengers and the image was the first one they found on the web.

I think this is an incredibly relevant point in this era of the internet, when we see billionaires and political figures trying to take over social media platforms ultimately for power. Social media and other technologies are currently the main source of information (especially in a political and news context) for the average person, taking control of these platforms gives them control over the narrative that is presenting. Effectively eliminating free speech in an attempt to silence critical voices rather than fostering open debate and criticism.

The description of the open web as a “radical” concept called to mind a handful of videos I’ve come across recently in which people have been discussing the nature of traditional libraries and how strange or even radical they might sound if they were pitched for the first time today: a publicly funded building where anyone can walk in, borrow just about any book, film, cd, or video game they want for free, and access information without having to prove in any way that they can afford it. Obviously libraries are far from radical nowadays, being long-established and something that all of us have grown up around. In fact, the idea of free and open access to knowledge has become so normalized that we almost take for granted how unusual it is compared to systems where access is determined by those who can pay. We’re spoiled, even complacent, and I would say this is especially true of those of us who have scarcely known life pre-internet. We’re so accustomed to being able to access an enormous amount of information, literature, art, entertainment and online communities for free that it feels like that level of openness is guaranteed. The reality is that it is very likely to become increasingly filtered and controlled by companies whose primary incentive is greed and to whom free access is a missed opportunity for monetary gain.

I disagree that people will choose "home-cooked, locally-grown, heart-felt digital meals" as opposed to "factory-farmed fast food technology." This new wave of the internet/technology has made information so accessible. With access to information no longer restricted by pay walls, post secondary institutions or even fear of judgement, I think we would be hard pressed as a society to want to revert to exclusivity. Not all peoples value education in the same way. We as educators and scholars are accustomed to research and dedicating time to solving problems, the general public values timelines, so if reverting to a heart-felt digital era increases the time that it takes to complete their daily tasks, they will reject it.

Although creators who stay independent and maintain control of their content make less money, I know myself and other audience members appreciate it. A lot of creators are either loosing or gaining followers based on authenticity, or at least this has been a trend I have noticed lately. As a society, we are already being flooded with advertisements, fake news and illusionary expectations. It is refreshing to obtain information or advice from a real person, who has truly tested and loved the product. I am only speaking to what I know, I am aware that there are many other types of creators out there; however, my main sources are beauty, fashion and health creators. I hope that this upward trend toward authenticity is just the thing to lessen to use of AI and bring out the human creativity/connection our society needs.

While I think that it is important to foster hope and stand up for what we believe in, I am skeptical that small individual actions would be the best way to evoke change in this scenario. When up the obstacle you are up against is an industry comprised of some of the wealthiest people on the planet who's own agenda will take precedent, I think we have to tackle the issue accordingly. They will not listen to us as individuals but if we band together and bring our concerns to the appropriate authorities (though i'm not quite sure who that would be...), we will have more success working together.

I am curious how many podcasts with significant followings are not on Spotify, Apple, and Netflix. I believe that the disclosure of large deals such as that of Joe Rogan and Spotify's up to $250 million deal has led many to chase a "golden goose" on these larger platforms. I can't say I dislike having my podcasts and music both available on Spotify but I do wonder how much of my listening is being influenced by their algorithms. I am going to have to start looking for more creatives focused platforms to consume my media from! With how AI is steering any form of internet content consumption I worry that it may be quite the challenge.

I find this very concerning, because I think it goes beyond cultural or political power they can't control. I think these powerful agencies will go to these lengths against cultural or political powers that they do not believe in, or that does not align with their personal agenda. This proves how intense digital media influence can be. Behaviour priming is often used in advertisement by overexposing the audience to a certain product so they feel compelled to buy it. For example, a clothing brand may have adds on billboards, TV, newspapers, magazines, online adds, etc. A similar concept can occur with beliefs/perspectives. But instead of buying a product, the audience is leaning into the advertised viewpoints/perspectives. Therefore, if a "big tech financer or venture capitalist" decides they do not agree with a certain political or cultural point of views, it is possible they will change the narrative and bombard the audience with viewpoints that align with them. Which in turn, may persuade the audience to change or gain the perspective they are pushing.

I am curious what specific open source projects the author refers to here. The prevalence of AI has certainly led to some unintentional shortcuts that could have potentially used copyrighted materials. There is also the potential for the AI coding used by community members to be flawed. I am curious how smaller projects are doing. I would assume that they are likely safer as the could be more niche but I am rather ignorant when it comes to open source projects. Will AI at some point gain enough freedom to start creating its own open source materials?

Regarding the all-powerful, almost mythic control held by multibillionaires and their media corporations, Meta unsurprisingly comes to mind. Facebook long had one primary competitor in the form of Instagram, a social media platform which largely monopolized the younger portion of the population Facebook could not reach. What did Meta do in response? Bought out Instagram. They then turned to their remaining competitors, honing in on any unique features that attracted users, such as stories on Snapchat and short form vertical videos on TikTok, and in turn added stories and reels to their own newly-acquired platform. Similarly, they saw that sites like Kijiji, Craigslist or Varagesale were having great success, and introduced Marketplace to ensure that users had even fewer reasons to ever step out from under the Facebook umbrella. The whole process by which Meta absorbs and ultimately replaces its competitors assures the maintaining of a monolopy and the lining of Zuckerburg's already ample pockets.

If podcasts shift to being only offered on closed infostructures that approve their partners, it is possible that the freedom and creativity of the creator will be jeopardized. Creators who will want to continue, or grow their audience, may need to change their content to meet the closed infostructures standards/wants. Therefore, eliminating the whole purpose of creating content - creativity. Not only is it possible that their content may change, but creators may be require to recommend products they do not necessarily believe in, because they are apart of a contract with a closed infostructure. This may erase any trust audience members have with the creator.

This makes me wonder if "extremist CEO's" do not want the public to understand their own online behaviors. It is possible that their intention is to keep people unaware of their online behaviour (e.g., addiction, reliance on AI, increased trolling, etc.) for their own agenda. I know I may be starting a conspiracy, but it is possible that things are more than CEO's wanting platform security.

I find this upsetting. It can be assumed that creators utilize open platforms to share content, that can be easily accessed, with their community. Regardless if the creators goal is to build a community of like minded individuals, monetize their talents, or make their talent/information more accessible to the public, creators should be given acknowledgment. Sadly, AI bots, are capitalizing on these open sources. Leaving the possibility of the audience potentially bypassing the creator entirely.

Speaking as a creative, the unfortunate truth is that, staying independent and not giving in to the exploited internet practices is not the "right way to connect with an audience." Nowadays, because we (society) have become addicted and somewhat reliant to these platforms (social medias, AI chat bots, etc), in addition to the fact that they collect our data (voluntary or involuntarily) they are actually the perfect way to 'connect' with an audience. These platforms use highly sophisticated algorithms to push your content out to it's most ideal consumer, therefore, sometimes it is actually more beneficial to utilize these tools than merely survive by staying independent...from a marketing standpoint at least.

From my understanding, with every search automatically spewing out AI responses (unless asked not to), search engines are no longer providing "marketing through accessibility" to independent content creators. Besides the obvious elimination of research/browsing need, it is possible that these sites may be utilized in an AI generated answer. However, I believe that the speed at which the public has been introduced to AI does not compliment the publics media literacy skills. Meaning, it is possible that people are trusting the "scraped" information delivered by AI (e.g., LLMs, Chatgbt, etc.) and will never click on the resources (or sites) to fact check. Therefore, creators will never get the compensation, or recognition, they deserve.

If generative AI is gathering its information from open web sources, yet not citing the resources thus leading to a tank in viewership of the original source this could pose a large issue. If these open web sources end up dying out then there is no source for AI to gather info from. I would imagine that AI would start filling in the gaps by itself leading to much larger inaccuracies in the information provided, and therefore a larger amount of misinformation being spread.

I remember just a few short years ago becoming familiar with the concept of "dead Internet theory" and brushing it off, perhaps naively, as a conspiracy theory or something decades away from being possible. Today, I have witnessed first hand when social media platforms or other corners of the web are populated almost entirely by AI bots thanks to the advent of bot farms. It's a disturbing and isolating sensation as a user to discover, upon even brief inspection of the "profiles" in a comment section that none of those interacting with particular content are human beings. Publishers are evidently beginning to recognize this same danger with bots; if AI can consume and reproduce human-created content while also flooding the web with content of its own, it seems inevitable that the internet will become increasingly difficult to distinguish from something that is largely, or entirely, automated.

This variation within species vs. between species conversation makes me think a lot about the definitions of species. Of course, generally the idea is that a species is a group that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. To me, this makes me think about what we consider a distinct species in the conversation of hominids & human ancestors.

I know there are the 2 groups of scientists (splitters & lumpers), but it is interesting to consider what defines a distinct species. I am sure we will be discussing this later in class regarding Neanderthals, but the fact that many of us have a small % of Neanderthal DNA (among some other extinct hominid species, I believe, like floresiensis), tells us that there was obviously some interbreeding and production of fertile offspring. I think this is also likely true of some animal species, ones we are aware of and ones we might not be. But the idea of "species" as a distinct classification, and where people disagree on what constitutes a species, is quite interesting to me.

I do think this "could have existed" point is a bit interesting, and not one I have heard discussed in the conversation of evolution via natural selection. Of course, as mutations are random and unpredictable, this makes sense. There is the potential for mutations in a species that simply didn't occur, and therefore we have no way to know whether they would've been advantageous or disadvantageous.

More comfortable here. Showing boldness and sass.

And like stealing I imagine and then praising God for it. I understand do what you need to survive, but while knowing your own children are out there suffering as well?

Stealing from children is crazy. Did the child give it to her because they could not eat it or did she take it?

At least they tried it, unlike her when she was first presented with horse meat. Valid in some sense though I would be freaked out by horse meat, but I also don’t really eat it anyway

The food or the culture of them cooking. Probably just the food

stay longer than expected

So is the entire family in captivity except her husband (the women and children)

So they all just kind of accept and let each other stay in every town. It’s not like separate tribes have to stay away

Experiencing what so many Natives probably had to see when they saw their people dead.

Oh wow, okay then

Is she only carrying her own items or is she carrying others as well?

I find it interesting that despite all the things her brother has said to her and her siblings and all the moments of uncomforted that he brings, she still loves and accepts that part of him.

I like her interpretation of the smiley face reading like a middle finger. The context of the text comes at odds with the emoji, which is typically used to signify positivity. This disconnect between the two turns the emoji from positive into more patronizing territory.

To me, this shows the disconnect between them. Sure, it's awkward to discuss your sister's ability to get pregnant with her, but not being aware, or not being clued in kind of reveals Ted's lack of empathy or ability to connect. At the age of 37, you'd think that your brother would be aware of the fact that you've been having trouble getting pregnant and wouldn't have to blatantly ask out right.

This is fantastic. It perfectly encapsulates the feeling that I might get when I'm confronted by someone I love or respect saying something that I just can't get behind. The feeling that you may love someone unconditionally and want to avpid any conflict with them, but their beliefs fundamentally contradict yours.

I think this is the most important part of the essay, as it shows the unconditional love that family has, despite all their disagreements. It also shows that she tries to separate her brother from his personal beliefs, which is what originally caused their problems in the first place.

I liked how she captured his sarcasm here, allowing us to know just how serious the conflict between Ted and his family is. It also shows how distant he has become as well. The sarcastic tone makes the moment even more impactful, with him rejecting his own family.

Good to not jump to conclusions with so many narratives. Crazy to call them barbarians because they lied (they’re her captors, they COULDVE killed her instead of lying)

Where she wanted to go

To see someone she can relate to to ground herself and no feel so alone (white and a captive)

How many Natives were killed because of this

Animal trait

Okay she’s still pulling verses from everywhere so I would say her faith still grows strong, she’s just mad at God sometimes. But not losing faith

Religion crisis? Is she realizing that God can not take over her life to save her? Is she still believing in God to help her? What is it?

When does doubt take over, does it?

So religion is giving her a reality check. She was forgetting her condition and just living in the moment and surviving with what she had, not dwelling on the past. How bad or good is that?

I would guess she threw the ashes because Mary was trying to change and potentially ruin (i don’t know what it was like) the fire and was being selfish especially as a captive.

Even if i thought someone was lying about that I feel like I would still be grieving because I don’t actually have any proof of them lying. Also the generalization of ALL of them being liars is wild.

Okay WHAt is this. I’m guessing he is lying, tormenting her…? Cause I don’t think I’ve read about the native people eating other humans…. Unless this is new. Obviously terrible to here as a mother in the first place though

Once again she’s basically trading with them and is using her skills (sewing/making clothes) to her advantage to survive

In any world would a captive have any authority over where they would go? Maybe she is just saying this because it’s showing how she was always in like discomfort but still….

I don't have much to add to the story. I enjoy this read more than I ever thought I would!

why the men in these stories so horrible omg ):

Good quote WOW!

Utilitarian Lens: Amodei mentions some of the benefits he believes Ai can bring to humanity, and I think it is reasonable to think that those same benefits would be the ones lost if AI pacing were to be slowed. Yet at the same time, the main reason for slowing the development of AI is that it can become a force too powerful and complex that their own creators cannot control, leading to greater issues and disasters than the ones we currently face. Using the utilitarian lens, it is easy to see that slowing AI pacing is more benefitial for all people involved and who get the benefits of its usage because, by slowing it, we still know that the benefits are reachable; meanwhile, letting AI grow so fast could lead to problems we are not even able to understand nor face yet. Before determining slowing Ai development is harmful or benefitial, I would need to know that the risks Amodei mentions about AI will not turn real, since that is the reason to slow its development, preventing the risk from becoming a problem. Finally, one assumption Amodei makes about the benefits of AI in this paragraph is that it would help cure most diseases in the next 5-10 years. This time lapse is actually a very small one, and so, slowing AI pacing would mean AI would require more time to develop the cure for those disease, which will continue to affect and take the lives of many people. In that case, determining if slow AI pacing is benefitial becomes a more complex problem.

Looking at this sentence through the virtue lens, we see that Amodei is struggling between what is best for humanity, and what is best monetarily for the company (and himself). This shows the integrity that Amodei posesses. He and his team could easily participate in this race to the bottom, or they could do what virtue ethics would advise, and hold back against commercial enticement. Virtue ethics would advise us to choose the latter, benefitting our overall humanity by staying true to our ethics, even when human impulses may urge otherwise. Now if I go ahead and apply a second lens to this same sentence such as the common good lense, we see these ideas further reinforced. We should all have compassion for eachother, meaning we should choose the option which benefits the most people long term rather than acting on those listed above impulses. This slowing down however is not as easy as we may have thought. Would humanity be benefitted more or less from the slowing down of this system? Why do a few people get to make a decision which will impact all of humanity? Where can I find supple information to help me learn? What can I then do with this knowledge to benefit humanity? These are all questions which both of these lenses would have you ask. I believe that both the virtue and common good lens should be in higher priority from which we view things, as they seek to benefit masses of people rather than individuals. This is essentially helpful as AI impacts billions of people daily.

Common Good Lens: While companies have the right to choose whether to be transparent with the public or not, this does buttheads with the common good lens. The public deserves companies that will be honest with them, especially when it comes to fast development in technology. AI affects everyone, and not everyone understands it. Society would benefit from having open communication from companies, especially with something as huge as AI.

Right Lens: When looking at it through the right lens, many rights will be at stake. AI companies and their employees risk forms of scrutiny, while workers and creators risk losing jobs that could have Ai advancements replace them. Entire communities could risk their rights to clean and safe water, heating, and financial services if too-advanced AI systems fail or are misused. An AI company does have the right to expose the public to risks since it could give the company beneficial outcomes when it comes to public opinion. The companies have the right to choose to share information and risks and how much of it they do share, but the public also has the right to demand information as well. A company can choose not to share, but the public still can want those answers and information, especially when there are the potential for risks.

Cool project! Probably a silly question, but does this make birds "less" able to mount immune responses to pathogens compared to mammals? I suppose it's difficult to quantify this difference...

缺少很多情节，我把原本剧本内容发给你：房门再次被撞开，杀手抬枪瞄准，男主抱着女主翻滚进墙角，落地时手枪却被压在两人之间。杀手步步逼近，女主猛扯短链，将男主持枪的手拉到身前，自己的手随即覆上他的手背；男主握紧枪柄，她压住他的手腕校准枪口，两人在杀手扣动扳机前同时开枪，子弹正中杀手胸口，将他重重掀翻在地。短暂的静默里，两人仍紧贴在地上，共同握着那把枪，谁也没有松手；男主侧头看向她，唇边重新扬起那抹欠揍的笑：“第一次跟死刑犯杀人，感觉怎么样？”女主盯着门外迅速逼近的更多人影，手指压紧他的扳机指：“少废话——下一个。” 女主“下一个”话音未落，第二名杀手已经撞开房门，子弹擦过两人头顶钉进墙面；男主抱住她翻到尸体后方，她立刻推开他：“枪给我。”“你刚才还想拿它杀我。”“现在也想。”女主托起他的持枪手，两人共同开火，子弹击落杀手的武器；男主随即拽着她冲进走廊，一名持刀杀手迎面扑来，他抬起相铐的手臂格开刀锋，女主俯身从对方臂下钻过，绕到杀手背后，连接两人的短链瞬间勒上他的脖颈。男女主隔着杀手对视一眼，同时朝相反方向发力，短链骤然收紧，杀手挣扎着跪倒在地；男主一边加力，一边仍笑得欠揍：“第一次合作就玩这么狠？”女主咬牙：“闭嘴，拉！”两人猛然错步，将杀手彻底绞倒；尸体落地，骤然失去阻力的短链又把他们狠狠拽向彼此，女主撞进男主怀中，男主顺势揽住她的腰，将枪送到两人之间。走廊尽头又一名杀手抬枪，女主覆住男主的手校准方向，两人贴身旋转，同时开火将对方击倒。男主低头看着怀里的她：“勒完人又往我身上撞，探员，你道谢的方式挺特别。”女主冷着脸推开他：“少自作多情。”倒地杀手的通讯器里忽然传来命令：“目标一和目标二正前往地下车库，必要时就地清除。”女主脚步一顿：“目标二是我。”男主踢开尸体旁的武器，讥讽地扬起唇角：“恭喜。你终于从警察升职成猎物了。”

少了很多情节，我把原本的发给你，女主被男主托着抵在废弃酒店的走廊墙角，凌乱的警服领口半敞，双腿紧紧锁在他腰间；他一手握着上膛的手枪，枪口藏在两人紧贴的身体之间，隔着战术背心抵住她的侧腰，另一只手则与她被同一副防拆手铐锁在一起，短链压在彼此腰腹间，被凌乱的衣料完全遮住，只有红色警示灯偶尔从缝隙中一闪而过。女主刚要抬膝反击，男主便用身体截住她的腿，托着她向上一提，低头狠狠吻住她，枪口也随之压深，逼得她猝不及防地溢出一声短促的喘息；几束手电光正伴着追兵踩过碎玻璃的脚步迅速逼近，他贴着她的唇冷声警告：“想让他们看清一个警察为什么和死刑犯铐在一起，你就继续挣。”女主动作骤停，目光扫过腰间的枪口与即将掠过转角的手电光，眼底的怒火瞬间压成锋利的冷静；下一秒，她揪住他的囚服领口主动吻回去，空着的手沿着他敞开的衣襟滑过胸腹，一路摸向枪柄，看似急切，实则暗中夺枪。男主立即按住她的手，将枪口又压紧一寸：“演得像一点。”腕间红灯骤亮，破碎的画面猛地刺进女主脑海——燃烧侧翻的囚车，男主挣脱束缚冲入浓烟，她追上去，将手铐一端扣住他，又毫不犹豫地把另一端锁上自己；下一秒，弹雨从黑暗中扫来，整支押送队接连倒下，她抓起对讲机呼叫支援，里面却传来一个陌生男人冰冷的命令：“他们铐在一起？很好，一起处理掉，别留活口。”房门猛然被踹开，女主瞬间回到现实，一名黑衣杀手持枪闯入，手电光牢牢罩住二人：“把脸转过来。”女主浑身绷紧，男主却用拇指在她大腿上重重一压，无声命令她继续，随即埋首吻向她的颈侧，用肩背挡住她的脸、警徽与空荡的枪套；杀手没有放下武器，反而狐疑地逼近一步，女主从余光里看见门外晃动的人影，索性一把扯开男主的领口，将他拖得更近，一声刻意压低的娇喘从唇间溢出：“别停。”她随即把脸埋进他颈侧，借着凌乱的呼吸精准报位：“门口三个，转角一个。”女主趁机摸住枪柄，缠在他腰间的双腿骤然收紧。杀手的光束缓慢扫过她敞开的领口、攀在男主肩头的手和两人紧密交叠的身体，盯了几秒后终于嫌恶地转身离开；脚步刚远，女主脸上的迷乱便顷刻消失，她扣住男主持枪的手腕，将枪口猛地反推到他下颌：“放我下来。”男主依旧托着她，垂眼扫过她被吻红的嘴唇，唇角还留着被她咬出的血：“演得不错，探员。女主正要落地，绷紧的手铐突然红光狂闪，尖锐警报撕开走廊，刚刚离开的脚步同时停住；房门再次被撞开，杀手抬枪瞄准

啰嗦，删掉

太血腥，不要这么夸张，不要说流血，咬嘴唇可以

这句话出现的太晚了，应该是在flashback之前说，并且越早越好，这样能迅速交代剧情和信息

废话多，直接说把两个人一起杀了

删除

Curiosity really is one of the greatest aspects of the human mind and the worst.

For me, binging and eating copious amounts of food is a very shameful thing and I often feel alone in my bad habits, and I love when people open up about fast food habits. It has no benefit and causes harm to the food, health, and meat industries, and yet I can't help myself.

I actually work at a McDonald's and we are constantly told to push things onto customers when honestly, I think its awkward and a waste of time. If someone asks, I am of course willing to help! It's just fast food is so awkward and there are so many INTERESTING people you will meet.

The other day I decided to try the Wendy's pretzel pub sandwich, which was 12 for a meal, not my proudest moment. And I was determined to try it and made my friend drive me there and wait in the excruciatingly long line. It tasted horribly! Then at some point, I realized how sloppy and unhealthy it is. The next day I went to the doctor and was told I need a cholesterol test...I am only 17.

Since I'm pretty young and broke, I too have a strained relationship with fast food, just like most Americans. On one hand, it's easily accessible, somewhat affordable, and very comforting, but on the other hand its greasy, unhealthy, and societally has a negative connotation.

Shows what the McRib did to her digestive system and how it felt.

She use a interesting comparison to show how she felt about the McRib.

Shows how she feels on fast food chains and what they're doing to our society.

This is how she grabs the readers attention, it makes you think about if you have ever had a McRib.

This comparison makes the bread sound dry and gross. The description helps readers imagine the experience without tasting it.

This complicates her negative review. Hunger seemed to influence her actions more than her opinion.

Her background shapes her expectations of barbecue. I think this will make her dislike the food even more.

She recognizes the achievement even though she dislikes the product.

This stood out to me because people’s backgrounds can play a big part in how they feel about AI. Some people might like using AI for extra help but still want to make the final decisions themselves. Do you all believe culture affects how much people are willing to trust AI?

This demonstrates how much AI is already part of our everyday lives. We use it for things like online shopping, but it also plays a bigger role in areas like healthcare and finance.

Hola

This paragraph correctly notes LCC's reliance on literary warrant and It’s lack of an explicit theoretical foundation, but it fails to acknowledge the deeper structural biases embedded in the scheme. LCC is not merely theoretically thin, it is epistemologically partial; reflecting the worldview, priorities, and discipline hierarchies of the institution that produced it.

Hope Olson and others have shown that LCC’s claim to universality masks hierarchical and binary structures that privilege dominant cultural perspectives. For example, the Fine Arts schedule privileges “fine art” over “craft,” reinforcing Western, patriarchal, and colonialist value systems.

add a note here and elsewhere, along the lines of: We realize that you might have doubts about the value of adding content, ratings and comments on a largely AI-driven site. We'll try to personally respond to each substantial comment or engagement. And if you have doubts or want to flag us specifically, feel free to email contact@unjournal.org.

How the heck does this graph go with this equation?? Maybe graph 6.2.11?

Where did this come from? We never discussed it as related to sinusoidal functions.

This is really unclear. The graph markings don't make anything obvious, which it's supposed to. y=-8 isn't indicated. This should really state where x is an asymptote in equation form. It was explained that x cannot = pi/(2B)k, but that has never been used in an example.

you have yet to show any work-through for this. How many people wrote this section on Trigonometry??

Is this supposed to be pi*x/3 for Bx?

This does not look like a vertical reflection of the preceding graph. The entire function is of a csc graph.

How did you find A without any reference points that aren't equal to zero? If I double the period in x=pi, doesn't the amplitude also double? P=pi/A, A=pi/P, P=pi/2, A=pi/(pi/2)=2. (P/4,A) Ratios like this seem to be glanced over.

Where have you used (P/4,A)?

I find it interesting that sports can have Taboos because I personally more often associated a Taboo with a social norm- what you should and should not do to ward off negative associations.

I think this specification that a Fetish is more typically a physical item helps differentiate a Fetish from a ritual. While Rituals are done to seek something often from a higher power they are private actions while a Fetish is a item to 'embody luck' or the preferred outcome. For example holding onto an old charm to continue its controlled outcome.

While shelling out money to create an experience for viewers may seem odd, it has shown to be much for effective than simply putting a statement out, or conversations/discussions to be held to get said viewer to understand or agree with the rhetors argument. Rather than convincing the audience that this is truth or worth something, they are putting them through an emotional experience that people want.

I find this to be a very interesting and agreeable definition to entertainment in relation to religion beause it emphazises the immersion that people look for specifically with religion, in my personal beliefs I can understand and have observed that groups of people participate in church not for the connection with the scripture or testimonies, but the community and experience. This leads me to question to motives of churches in correlation to this idea.

je remplirai cette section en insérant toutes les références biblio du texte

It's wild to realize that something so common to us like celebrating Valentine's Day in elementary school was a completely foreign concept to Trevor growing up.

It is heartbreaking how quickly individuals surrendered their heritage and history just to gain white status.

enforced using arbitrary and dehumanizing physical assessments like the pencil test.

Most platforms have a closed captioning option you can select. While its not always the most accurate, it is a thing and not something the creator has to always add.

They become the devil because of their actions that were inspired by the English

Was anyone truly innocent?

The colonial encounter being written by the English seems unfair in this story; she is writing about her trauma and loss, but completely neglecting the same feelings of the Native Americans.

She and the English had very selfish thinking and painted them as evil for the problems they started.

Felt too much sympathy for themselves to understand why they are in this position in the first place! Privilege.

Elevates the stories somber details of her journey made this read confusing and hard to follow. I questioned many aspects of the story that seemed unfinished.

Feeling both empathy and a sense of confusion because of the racism and hypocrisy of the story

After reading the excerpt from Lempriere's Classical Dictionary, I find this line much more interesting. I say this as the excerpt explains the myth behind Hyacinthus, and how when Hyacinthus was killed by Apollo, he was transformed into the hyacinth flower. Pair this with the explanation of the festival in which their are two days reserved for grieving Hyacinthus and I think that this clearly connects to the beginning of the poem. I say this as the lines "April is the cruellest month, breeding lilacs out of the dead land, mixing memory and desire." display how the rebirth of flowers and the spring season brings about memories of the dead. Thus, a connection is formed between how april is the cruellest month, and Hyacinth flowers both bring about memories of the dead, even if they should be signs of new life and rebirth.

! In the end, she accepts the parts of her language and identity that she once tried to hide

• this supports her new belief that different voices and ways of speaking have value

• shows consequences of losing part of her bilingual literacy

! Her shift toward English creates distance between her and her mother

? Why does she care so much about approval from others, that it affects how she sees herself as a writer

! She follows the rules of writing but she feels like her personal voice is disappearing

• Example of different languages mixing while still communicating the same emotions

! Ideas about “correct” English are connected to race and power

? Why would people judge her literacy before considering her actual abilities

! Her identity and language background affected how she experienced english

This is important because college students are still building confidence and figuring out who they are. Negative labels can make that harder

This makes me question whether a timed writing test can really show how well someone writes

I like this because difficult work helped Brisa become more confident instead of making her feel less capable

If the students were doing college level work, why were they still being called remedial?

it shows how the students started to connect the word remedial with many negative ideas

! its interesting because Arturo used the negative label as motivation to work harder instead of giving up

Shows that she realized it's not fun, but she has to do it.

Showing how people can struggle on getting the motivation to cook food because it may not work the way they had planned.

Shows how she struggled to cook because she couldn't afford to buy proper food, and she didn't have the food items because she had no desire to make food.

Comparing cooking to everyday chores makes her argument relatable. Enjoyment is not a requirement for doing something necessary.

This unfairly treats cooking habits as proof of someone’s values. It ignores things such as time, money, or experience.

This metaphor presents prepared food as an escape from work. Having enough money gives people the option to avoid cooking when exhausted.

The author challenges this stereotype with evidence about meal preparation.

Instrumental Goal Inform boss im too unwell to come in to work. Reassure boss i have done the prep required for meeting and will arrange for a different intern to take over my duties.

Relational Goal Aim to maintain the current proffessional relationship by following any instructions/advice boss gives and answering any questions they have. Identity Goal I want to be efficient problem solver who despite not being able to work tommorow, has managed to keep control of the situation by arranging someone to cover my absence.

I like how people actually worked to implement things that would help based off of concerns that were brought to their attention.

This is a very good point. It's an acute challenge in solo games when interpreting random results but it's something we naturally do when we've got the momentum already. We naturally gravitate towards explanations of the random that makes sense in context. A one line stater give just that.