https://i.imx.to/i/2026/09/17/75qd0c.gif

https://i.imx.to/i/2026/09/17/75qd0b.gif

https://i.imx.to/i/2026/09/17/75qczy.gif

https://i.imx.to/i/2026/09/17/75qczg.gif

Ra-> Horus->Osiris

"Humans (some of them) have the conscious foresight to see ahead to the disastrous consequences of over-population"

We are by most metrics currently living over earth's ecological capacity. Humanity is currently using nature 73% faster than ecosystems can regenerate, the equivalent of living off 1.73 Earths. 2026 had "overshoot day" earlier than ever before. https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/newsroom/eod-2026-en/

"It is no use appealing to advances in agricultural science-'green revolutions' and the like. Increases in food production may temporarily alleviate the problem, but it is mathematically certain that they cannot be a long-term solution; indeed, like the medical advances that have precipitated the crisis, they may well make the problem worse by speeding up the rate of the population expansion." (Page 111)

Our world is unable to withstand continued population growth & continued agricultural expansion. We will simply run out of resources, and it will lead to deaths on a mass scale. It makes sense that in many places the birth rate is falling.

Given the world we live in and how aware many of us are that we are running out of resources, it is no doubt that many people are deciding not to have kids. As well it is a fact of life that the birth rate tends to fall in first world countries, as the child mortality rate lowers, the number of children people tend to have lowers. This combined with economic and social factors around having children, education for women, people getting married later in life, etc. It is no surprise that in many places the birth rates are falling.

Global population growth is declining, it peaked in 1963 at ~2.2% according to the UN.

"Depending on the ecological details of the species, various mixes of caring and bearing strategies can be evolutionarily stable. The one thing that cannot be evolutionarily stable is a pure caring strategy. If all individuals devoted themselves to caring for existing children to such an extent that they never brought any new ones into the world, the population would quickly become invaded by mutant individuals who specialized in bearing. Caring can only be evolutionarily stable as part of a mixed strategy-at least some bearing has to go on" (Pg 109) (I can't figure out how to do a highlight box on my laptop)

It is interesting to consider the variety of strategies that different species have when it comes to birthing and raising young. This brings to mind when I learned about K species and r species, where K species have very few young but are very focused and grounded in the raising process of the young, so more of them are able to reach maturity, whereas the r species have a lot of young but less energy is put into raising and caring for them, so they have a higher mortality rate and fewer of them reach maturity. These are specialized strategies so that still a specific amount of the young of each type is able to reach reproduction age in order to continue the survival of the species.

I think a lot of the takeaway I got from this chapter was in regards to individualism. I think now more than ever society is individualized, and this optimization of families birth rates rather than a restriction for the public good is a part of that. Instead of viewing birth with its effect on global population, it is viewed as an effect on the family. This has been a very interesting thing to think about while reading, and I'm curious if there are any newer anthropological studies on the same ideas?

I think this is a good point, as of right now, almost everything we do is unnatural. We burn plastic down to wear as clothing, and have figured out ways to cure diseases and ailments with modified genes and viruses. The strength of the human population lies in these "unnatural" scientific advancements, and I think the author is correct to say that without it "...the end result will be misery."

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.

A very nice call to action here, he's simultaneously defending himself by anticipating the inevitable backlash while addressing those who may have taken his ideas to heart. Perhaps this is an example of a major social evolution, something that might become archeologically invisible far into the future but observable as of right now. He really believed in his ideas! It really exemplifies how revolutionary this book was, it really was the first of its kind.

Really really interesting note here becuase Darwin brushes really close up against the idea of LUCA (last universal common ancestor). Darwin himself was never entirely clear on how old he thought the earth was. only that it was VERY old, so its really incredible that he was able to identify the possibility of a 4.3 billion year old living organism when at the time, people had only imagined as far back as 6000 years.

Touches here on vestigial organs and how features that may be present on one organism may become obsolete on others. Environment and behaviour are driving forces behind evolution but there is little mentioning about the role that chance plays in evolution as well. Chance is also a driving force, random with respect to the environment. Genetic drifts like bottlenecks and founders aren't mentioned/thought of?

Darwin directly contends with the idea that one God created all living things by pointing out the fact that the unique features of a species seem to not exist for an intended purpose. If all living things are a product of intelligent design, why are we all so highly variable and unique for seemingly no apparently reason? Highly variable traits are highly variable becuase evolution has no "selector".

I think it's a really neat observation Darwin is making here about speciation as well as the beginnings of understanding interactions between organisms by what ecological niche's they fill. Additionally there is attention paid to the balance that is demanded by nature: if two dominant species occupy the same niche, one will eventually outcompete the other. Side note, I also really like the poetic language he uses here. "- for the world cannot hold them," so beautiful!

There are definitely some species found on islands that wouldn't be capable of crossing oceans. If they were there when for example a piece of land broke into 2 for example.

If all species were created as they are, why would there be some traits that don't have a purpose? Wouldn't all species be created perfectly for their existence & survival?

Species find their niches with the least competition / best ability to survive. Behavioural adaptations to find an ecological niche.

the concept of 'divergent evolution', wherein individuals that lie on the far ends of the spectrum of varieties are more advantageous than those that lie somewhere in the middle. (Grizzly bear & polar bear) -> distinct differences that provide different advantages for the environments.

Sort of referring to genetic mutation and recombination without an actual understanding of genetics and the fact that mutations exist??? I think that's pretty cool. Seemingly being aware that these changes occur regardless, and for many complex reasons.

But further down in the paragraph, essentially saying as long as the mutation remains advantageous for the environment & conditions of life, the variation will continue to occur (because the individuals with the variation are more able to pass on the trait). His lack of understanding of genetics shows a bit here though, because as he says, "by use and disuse" - this aligns with the ideas of the 'Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics' theory by Lamarck, which we now know to be false.

i.e. when Darwin held the Neanderthal skull, just thinking it was a anatomically modern human skull.

Some environments are more suitable for certain species than others, therefore able to survive in some areas and not others, even in regions close to one another.

Could this also be explained by the founder effect or bottleneck effect (genetic drift)? Maybe certain regions have more predators or competition for resources than others.

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.

"Repair" here sounds kinda awkward. " - and how each can be corrected/improved/fixed."

He concludes by moving from personal thoughts to calling for wider change. Real progress happens when we improve teacher training and reading help, rather than just blaming the system.

Corcoran argues that learning to read is essential for personal independence. When adults cannot read, they must constantly rely on others, which traps them in a vulnerable, helpless state similar to childhood.

Seeing people like himself on TV changed his mindset. It broke his isolation and shame, helping him realize his condition wasn't a personal failure. Instead, he saw it as a common challenge he could actively fix.

For years he believed that his wife didn't know he was unable to read, which shows how a fixed mindset can isolated someone even from the people closest to you.

The mental tool of the lie is seen here, the feeling of being an impostor and not deserving your own life.

It took a lot of exhausting work to keep the cover on.

Choosing to become an educator introduced a contrast to his journey, as the position of authority offered the perfect cover for his secret.

This quote shows the severe damage a fixed mindset can have on someone, Corcoran viewed his struggles with literacy as a permanent flaw, which caused him to hide it even more as it made him afraid of public humiliation.

The transition from highschool to college was terrifying for him as he felt it was going to be way harder to hide his secret, meaning he would have to better his cheating abilities.

This highlights the painful experiences he went through as he wanted to participate in school activities but his struggles with literacy prevented him from achieving his goals.

School had stopped being a place of learning and growth but it turned into a hostile environment where he needed to learn to survive.

Lack of motivation is part of a fixed mindset.

By being placed on the "dumb row" it only made the fixed mindset stronger, it made Corcoran internalized the label as part of his core identity.

https://www.facebook.com/sameeranff/posts/pfbid0pvUFwLmTAA6tcmDHDCNVW88E3RYaar1bxHDcUJZCifKJfia2ubUXbbcaELBskULwl

Sameera Sandaruwan Abeyrathna has had ribbon shipped from Europe before.

Want more customer referrals? Explore how to use a sales script for referral requests to ask customers confidently, build trust, and generate quality referrals.

Know More: https://callyzer.co/blog/sales-script-for-referral-request/

R0:

Reviewer #1: I found the study interesting and potentially publishable. The manuscript captures an important aspect of contemporary outbreak communication: new infectious-disease emergencies are being interpreted through pre-existing political, cultural, and institutional frames, particularly those developed during COVID-19. The authors' observation that Ebola discussion repeatedly invokes COVID-19, vaccination, institutional mistrust, international aid, preparedness, and geopolitical concerns is worthy of further development.

My recommendation is major revision rather than rejection. In particular, I encourage the authors to:

(1) temper claims concerning representativeness and public perception. Your sampling strategy does not lend itself to broad generalizability.

(2) describe and validate the transition from LDA topics to qualitative themes. The context in which comments appear is important. I recommend providing, preferably in the main manuscript, descriptive information for each selected video: publication date, channel/uploader type, language, number of views, number of comments retrieved, and other relevant characteristics. This would allow readers to understand the informational environments from which the comments arose.

(3) justify the 20-topic model. The manuscript provides detailed LDA parameters but does not explain the choice of k=20. Was this determined a priori, through topic-coherence measures, inspection of alternative models, or another procedure?

(4) validate or substantially qualify the NRC sentiment analysis, especially the interpretation of “trust”.

(5) provide video-level analyses to determine whether the major findings are broadly distributed or driven by particular videos.

Addressing these issues would considerably strengthen what is already a timely and potentially useful contribution to the literature on outbreak communication, misinformation, and digital public-health discourse.

Reviewer #2: Main comments Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting paper which analyses public discourse and sentiment expressed in YouTube comments related to the 2026 outbreak of Bundibugyo virus in the DRC and Uganda. Data from social media platforms are now recognized as important sources for monitoring public discourse. As this outbreak continues to unfold, this analysis can offer potentially helpful guidance for health communication and community engagement. Reports of local hostility towards public health officials suggest the need for fuller understanding of public sentiment.

While this is a clearly written paper, in my view, there are several ways that the authors could strengthen this paper to ensure a significant and original contribution to knowledge. First, the introduction could provide a fuller rationale for the study. The authors argue that there has been limited analysis of public reactions to this outbreak to date and that “effective risk communication” can benefit from this study. It would be helpful to provide more context on public reaction to the outbreak locally and internationally, and how this has impacted the response to date. The attacks on public health workers and clinics, and the international travel restrictions imposed, for instance, could be mentioned. A fuller explanation of how analysis of YouTube comments would be relevant to what is happening on the ground is then needed. Why do the comments on YouTube matter?

Second, to reach meaningful results and draw conclusions from this data, the authors need to reflect more fully on the likely sources of the comments on YouTube. Who is the “public” making these comments? Currently, there is no information provided on who is actually making these comments other than they are on YouTube. Social media data is notoriously difficult to disaggregate but, without more knowledge of the sample, the observations reached are weakened. The authors note at the end of the paper that the “comments may not represent the full spectrum of public opinion.” Indeed, they will most definitely not be. Those who comment in social media tend to be from certain population groups. As a result, using social media alone skews towards those perspectives. The demographics of who comments on specific social media platforms is a research topic in itself. For example, X tends to skew right of centre politically. While half of all internet users watch YouTube, only a fraction actively comment. Studies indicate that a staggering 72.6% of YouTube videos have zero comments, meaning active participation is concentrated on a small portion of the platform. There is also evidence that, globally, those who comment tend to be younger and male aged 25 to 34. Thus, the authors need to say more about why YouTube was chosen (over other platforms), what profile might be assumed about those who comment on YouTube, and, importantly, how this then impacts data collection and analysis. Understanding who is commenting ultimately tells us how much we need to pay attention in public health. If the sentiments expressed are largely outside of the affected countries, for instance, what does this mean for the public health response? If they are local voices, what can we take away from these comments?

Third, while the authors clearly describe their methods for collecting this data, more could be said about how the themes were derived to analyse the data. Some of the categories seem to oddly pair different topics such as geopolitics and cultural context. These seem very different things. Cultural context might be better paired with religious and spiritual interpretation perhaps. I also questioned why some comments were put into specific themes. In the geopolitics and cultural context, for example, border and flight restrictions were included, and yet this might arguably be more relevant to disease spread and transmission, or public health measures and preparedness (where they are also mentioned). The theme of public figures, conspiracy theories and misinformation seems an odd mix. Does this suggest discussion of named public figures is necessarily related to misinformation? An explanation in the methods of why these categories and the scope of what is included (and why) is needed. How these themes were validated is also important.

Finally, much of what is currently in the Discussion could be relocated to the Results. This would strengthen the presentation of the results which reads a bit thinly and unsystematic. The Discussion should focus on the “so what” from the results. What meaning can we derive from the Results for understanding public discourse and sentiment, and for public health practice?

Minor comments • I suggest swapping the sequencing of themes presented to start with the themes with the most to least comments (i.e., swap public figures etc. and geopolitical and cultural context).

This is not a proper intro as there's no hook no thing to get the reader invested and while it does technically work as a way of communicating the exact information that you need it doesn't help actually getting someone into it even the blandest research article typically has some lighter concept up front in order to ease the reader into it

Numbering each individual section of an article is a telltale sign of AI as it doing that to summarize however most humans don't actually do that when writing down their Article and only do that if there's A group of objects we're numbering them in order is important

So Christopher Columbus wasn't the only one who taught new trades and gather goods, but other countries were apart of this as well.

Исскуственный - интелект это полноценная система, которая обладает интелектом на уровне человека.

машинное обучение - это использование формул, формул проверки результата и эталонного решения.

Прикольно что под каждую ситуацию создаёю формулу, а потом обучают её предсказывать.

как я понимаю формула создаётся на основе дата сета. хотя в таком случае и не нужно обучать. формула и так же предсказывает

Удобная читаемая абстракция над абстракцией.

Есть множество функции потерь, которые используется для балансировки весов в исскуственном интелекте

The fear of rejection was holding him back.

See, you say this, but the English army did the exact same thing. So why are we making the natives out to be the bad guys?

Really? In some ways it felt shorter, but also longer, while reading.

Why would you know that? Did you know?

This sounds a lot more coherent than the rest of the removes and excerpts.

R0:

Reviewer #1:

In general it didnt follow the guideline and the format of the journal.For example the abstract section. In addition, the abstract is not clear and it is shallow. The introduction is good but the contents are not fully presented. E.g. Where is the magnitude in detail,,is cervical cancer a fourth most common cuase of cancer among women? Where is the size distribution and associated factors and where is the exact gap and on how to fill the gap .The compherensive HIV services are not described, the services and how was this services delivered and what is wrong regarding cervical cancer screening? This was lacking in the introduction section.

The methods section lacks study design, sampling procedure, the study tools .Pilot study was done in the same study area that ease information contamination. The type of interview, when and how the interview was conducted conducted cking. For instance, didi you interview them at entry or at exit of the services. How long was the interview took and where was the setting Why the interview was conducted by both Hausa and English language How was trustworthiness ensured particularly the type of analysis and use of software is again missed.

The results section is written in wrong manner. The sociodemograohic characteristics are incomplete Try to consult on how to write good result of the qualitative study. Some of the tabular presentation can be narrated easily. It is disorganized and the quotations are very few and not detail and too short. The discussion focused more on SEM than the HBM. It lacks drawing theoreticalamd practical as well as clinical amd public health implications. Don't write uninterpreted results [quotations] in this section. The explanations, justification and arguments are shallow. I.e. despite free screening services they study participants described financial barriers? Amd what does this means? It is good to mention the strength and the limitations but why you ignored the age of the study participants among wh most of them were inm thier 40's?

Reviewer #2:

Greetings,

Thank you for this opportuniity. It's a good article.

The abstract provides essential information about the study and adequately reflects its overall content. However, as a scientific article abstract, it should present the key elements more explicitly and in a clearer structure, namely: a brief introduction to the topic, the study objective, methods, main results, and conclusion.

At present, these components are included but are not sufficiently distinguished, which reduces the clarity and readability of the abstract. I recommend that the authors revise and restructure the abstract to follow a more conventional scientific format, ensuring that the background, objective, methodology, principal findings, and conclusions are presented in a concise, objective, and clearly identifiable manner. The Methods section is generally well described and provides sufficient information to understand how the study was conducted. However, there is considerable repetition of the same ideas and descriptions throughout the section. Several methodological aspects, including participant eligibility, recruitment procedures, and analytical approaches, are presented more than once using similar wording.

I recommend that the authors revise this section to improve conciseness and readability. The Methods would benefit from a simpler and more streamlined narrative style, avoiding unnecessary repetition while retaining all essential methodological information. Reducing redundancy would make the section easier to follow and improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

In addition, the reimbursement provided to participants for interview participation and other costs should be reported in a more internationally interpretable format. I suggest presenting the amount in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms or in US dollars (USD), while retaining the original amount in Nigerian Naira (₦) in parentheses, or vice versa. This would allow international readers to better understand the magnitude of the compensation provided to participants. The descriptive results are informative and appropriate for the study design. However, the presentation of findings could be strengthened through the use of additional visual displays. Some of the large tables contain substantial information and may be difficult for readers to interpret quickly.

The authors may consider presenting selected findings using figures or graphs (e.g., frequencies of major barriers, perceived benefits, cues to action, or SEM domains). Visual summaries could facilitate interpretation and highlight the relative importance of the identified themes. Such figures would complement the qualitative narrative and improve the accessibility of the results section. The conclusion is clear, concise, and well aligned with the study findings. It appropriately summarizes the main barriers identified and highlights practical implications for cervical cancer screening programs among women living with HIV. No major revisions are required.

Minor revision. Congratulations.

Reviewer #3:

1) The repeated decline is introduced quite late (lines 93–97) and could be foregrounded earlier. Please consider introduce the "repeated decline" framing earlier in the Introduction, ideally in the second paragraph, to clearly distinguish this study from one-time barrier assessments.

2) Verify Reference 29 citation date; if this is an error, correct it.

3) No field notes were maintained (line 170). This is a significant methodological limitation in qualitative research. Field notes provide contextual detail (non-verbal cues, environmental factors, emotional tenor) that enriches interpretation. The authors acknowledge this in the Limitations, but its absence should be flagged more prominently in the Methods as it affects dependability. Please, in the Methods, add a more prominent statement about the absence of field notes and its implications for contextual richness. Consider adding this to a "Limitations of the data collection approach" subheading.

4) Please clarify the sampling process: how many WLHIV were initially identified from the screening register, how many were approached, and what proportion of those approached agreed to eligibility assessment? This establishes response rates.

5) Justify the upper age bound (65 years) or note it as a limitation in the Methods.

6) Describe how prior declines were documented in the screening register to validate the classification method.

7) The results are extensive and detailed, but in places the narrative becomes somewhat repetitive of the table content. Tables 2 and 3 contain the same information as the narrative in many places.

8) While participant-level counts are provided, there is limited exploration of patterns across participant characteristics (e.g., did women with no formal education express different barriers than those with tertiary education? Did married women differ from widowed women?). The sociodemographic data in Table 1 are not meaningfully integrated into the thematic analysis. Please consider integrating sociodemographic characteristics into the analysis where possible. For example, were there differences in barrier profiles by education level, employment status, or marital status? Even simple patterns would strengthen the analysis.

9) The discussion of "intersectionality" is limited. WLHIV face intersecting stigmas (HIV-related, gender-based, poverty-related), and while HIV-related stigma and cervical cancer stigma are discussed, a more explicit intersectional framing could strengthen the analysis.

10) The HPV self-sampling recommendation (lines 468–469) is introduced without prior discussion of participant views on self-sampling specifically. Was this explored in interviews? If not, the recommendation should be framed more cautiously. Please consider framing the HPV self-sampling recommendation more cautiously if this was not explored in the interviews e.g., " warranting exploration of acceptability" rather than direct recommendation.

Reviewer #4:

The manuscript is well written and simple to read. The topic is of great importance to public health. Comments: Introduction: The study is conducted in Nigeria. The sequence of statistics should start from Global to Africa to SSA, and lastly Nigeria. Exclusion criteria should not be the opposite of inclusion. You may want to remove “if they did not have an HIV diagnosis, accepted cervical cancer screening at the index visit” Line 186: This is the only mention of the framework. How was it done? Lines 231-233 read 92.6% willing to undergo screening. Table 1 title reads declined screening. Kindly clarify: prior to the study? Line 243 Notes: One “of the participants who”. Otherwise, it implies that there was only one participant that met the criterion. And how was the age estimated? Limitations: The authors rightly pointed out all limitations. However, the income may have been estimated if probed deeply starting from daily or weekly income, although this would have been time consuming.

Guest Editor:

Editor's Comments to Author The authors should respond systematically to each reviewer comment, revise the manuscript accordingly and provide a detailed point-by-point response indicating where and how each concern has been addressed.

Talking back more, not as worried?

Ew, they slobbered all over those. Also, SELFISH! They're starving too and you just took their food! What the heck!?

Wait!? She has a sister? I don't remember this being mentioned before!

Why was he stripped naked? Did the natives take the clothes for themselves?

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?

While Theseus jests about how awful the play was, there was most likely a part of the actors' minds, especially bottom, that believed that this line meant that they were all sentenced to death for putting on a bad show.

In an adaptation, I can imagine this being the breaking point in the event that the actors do take all the previous quips seriously somehow. The act of a wall moving out of the way is similar enough to the metaphor of a wall being broken down that it could represent the barrier of humor versus laughter collapsing on the spot.

While they most likely laugh at such a joke in the situation, imagining this joke being so apt to describe the play that no one laughs out of mutual understanding is much more amusing.

By having many characters' views of the play, each comparison or metaphor that is made builds onto the concept of just how bad the play is. Even if the play already sounds horrendous to readers of Shakespeare's work, these lines that manage to insult the actors' work in so many unique and interesting ways create such an openly critical view of the play that not even viewers outside of an eighth wall can find anything about the performance to take seriously. This is a point to take into consideration when writing and directing an adaptation.

He's saying to acknowledge the effort that the actors put in, but this quite ironically foreshadows just how bad the play is that no one is quite capable of appreciating any semblance of effort in the performance.

This could either be seriously asking how the play could resolve such outlandish conflict, or it could be satirically making fun of the play's title for being so outlandish that the plot doesn't sound real. I choose the latter to be the more entertaining option.

This line means to compare all forms of crazed person and lump them into one group. While it is simply a phrase, I find it interesting to imagine the main characters lost in the forest to be direct comparisons of these. The lovers could be any of them is strange manners but applies most specifically to Lysander and Hermia. The lunatic is most likely Helena, as she was the one who caused part of the situation out of jealousy. the poets are, of course, the actors that were practicing in the woods. Calling Bottom a poet feels a little too kind to the character, though. Each of these definitions could factor into how they are depicted in any given adaptation.

Is she calling her husband a liar in this section? What did he lie about?

They could technically be lying to you again and just saying things to make you compliant.

Ok, so she still believes in God, but she also thinks that she deserves more than he is giving her?

Starting to lose faith in her religion?

I feel like this is what she always wanted. She wants everyone to feel bad for her. The way she writes exaggerates her pain above anyone else's, including this.

Maybe she thought that Mary was attempting to hurt them by messing with the fire.

This is absolutely disgusting. Why would you eat someone?

Why now start asking about him? What prompted that?

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….

She uses this as an opportunity to demonize the Natives, but they say these things because it's what the English army do to them.

Older, female, native. Does she live alone? What is that dynamic? Why was she ok with allowing Mary into her space?

Did the natives have swords?

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

Improve call center performance with Callyzer. Audit call activity, track team performance, analyze call data, and gain better visibility into telecalling operations.

Know More: https://www.openpr.com/news/4631476/callyzer-expands-call-management-capabilities-for-real-estate

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.