text:
	I didn’t snap. It was much more gradual than that. It was like slipping off the edge of a cliff, fingers scraping the top, until in one moment that seemed like an echo of something that never existed I was falling. When I went to bed last night, I was still hanging on; when I woke up, I was crashing. I don’t know what came undone while I slept. It had been three weeks, two days, and thirteen hours, I’d guess, since I went over the edge—nothing special.  But that was the day I knew I’d never see the top of the cliff again.

	That morning I didn’t know it had happened. I felt the same, that sort of feeling that I was a rusty machine and when I walked I could feel every screw and bolt and joint twisting slowly, grating in place because the whole thing was wound up too tight. I was so used to it by then. I wasn’t even surprised when I could walk through the ghost.

	Her name was Dr. Aimee Joyce, and I have seen her every day for three months.

	Three weeks and two days ago, my alarm clock went off at 5:30 a.m. and I woke up to a glimmer of light slowly burning along the edges of the room like a fuse. I blinked, trying to bring it into focus, and I felt the bed shift.

	“Good morning.” A hand rolled me onto my back, and Aimee kissed me on the cheek.

 	I moaned something unintelligible. She chuckled, patted my shoulder and stood up, the springs squeaking. I heard the patter of her footsteps and squeezed my eyes shut, but the burning yellow light still seeped in.

	“Is there any chance we could come up with a gentler wakeup call?” I rolled out of bed, rubbing my eyes.

	“The alarm clock and a kiss have yet to be effective, so this is the only option left.”

	Lights turned on in the bathroom, and I fumbled through my drawers, squinting. A whisper of water signaled the shower starting.

	“And you’d be late if I didn’t get you up.”

	“That’s true.” I buttoned my shirt. “But it’s kinda . . . disorienting.”

	“That’s alright,” she called. “You’re sort of cute when you’re blinking and confused.”

	I rolled my eyes. Pulling my pants on, I shuffled into the kitchen, started the coffee, and opened the fridge. While I waited for the coffee, I took out some yogurt and poured a little granola in it and grabbed a plastic spoon to mix it up. Then I looked at my reflection in the fridge and fixed my hair a bit—close enough.

I’ve never been much for putting an effort into anything I don’t care about, like neat hair. Aimee tells me I’m a bit of a cowboy: I only follow my own rules. Aimee, on the other hand, sticks to the rules. Everything is as orderly at home as it is at the hospital. She has the light touch of a surgeon and a voice full of light to match. She makes mornings bearable.

I heard the whoosh of the blow-dryer. When the coffee was ready, I poured it into two to-go cups with two creams in hers and one sugar in mine. Just as I finished, Aimee walked out with her strawberry blonde hair twisted into a damp bun. I handed her the coffee and the parfait.

	“Thanks,” she murmured, taking a swig. “What are you going to eat?”

	I shrugged. “I’ll get a breakfast burrito on the way into work.”

	“You know that, as a doctor, I’m obliged to tell you that isn’t healthy, right?”

	I grinned, taking a sip. “I know.”

	She shook her head, a small smile creeping across her face. “I can’t always take care of you. You need to learn to live on your own.”

	While she was eating, I brushed my teeth and took my gun from the lockbox and holstered it.

	“You ready to go?” I walked in and grabbed the keys off the counter. She nodded and took her own. I was turning the front door knob when she her fingers curled over my shoulder.

	“Be careful, Dave.”

	“I will.”

	“I love you.”

	“Love you too.” And I kissed her, and we went out the door. That was the last time we spoke.

	Every morning after I saw her the way I used to: smiling and talking and kissing me good morning and goodbye, and when I walked out the door I realized I saw her in the dark because there was no one to open the blinds and I realized there was nothing except cold and hollow space. I was alone.

	I never hear her because the last time I saw her—really saw her, not just something my mind conjured up—there was a glass wall between us, and I guess my mind has always kept that there.

	Three weeks and two days ago, my partner, Ramsey, and I were filling out paperwork for a case we’d just wrapped up with the news running in the background when something caught my ear: Crown Hill Hospital, where Aimee worked. I dropped my pen.

	“Ramsey, turn up the volume.”

	He raised an eyebrow and obliged.

	“…on the fourth floor. Police estimate there are almost sixty hostages.”

	Aimee’s floor. I jumped up, and Ramsey jumped after me.

	“Dave, wait.” He grabbed my arm. I wrenched away. My vision tunneled as I stormed across the room. “We have to let local LEOs handle this.” I pounded down the stairs. “You know they get pissed when feds—.”

	“I DON’T GIVE A SHIT.” I whipped around, vision blurry, knuckles white, air buzzing.

	Ramsey looked at me calmly and held out his hand. “Give me your keys.”

	It took ten minutes. The whole ride, it felt like my bones were slowly turning to lead. We stopped in a parking lot full of cop cars and sirens. Red and blue lights flashed on dull concrete and a dripping gray sky. The glass walls of the hospital rose tall and turquoise from the ground. When I looked at the building, every room behind the glass was empty except one on the fourth floor packed with cowering people and three masked men with automatic weapons.

	“We should—,” Ramsey began. I turned my head sharply and turned off his voice.

	I ran toward the chief of police. He turned around as I came sprinting up, bushy eyebrows furrowed.

	“Is there a Dr. Aimee Joyce in there?” I panted.

	“Who are you?” His voice was rough like sandpaper.

	“FBI Agent David Bretton. Is there a Dr. Aimee Joyce in there?”

	Ramsey came up and put his hand on my shoulder.

	“And who are you?”

	“His partner. Can you tell us anything about the people up there?”

	“This isn’t your case.” The chief began to turn back around.

	I lunged. Ramsey caught me. “Tell me if she’s there!”

	He looked at me, scrutinized, narrowed eyes. Ramsey loosened his grip when I stopped struggling. He sighed. “She’s there.”

	Static. There was that weird buzzing all over like we were on TV and the satellite signal had been lost. I looked up at the glass and tried to make words but they wouldn’t come.

	“Dave?” Ramsey said. The corners of my eyes pixelated into black and white: static.

	I looked back at the chief. “Are you getting them out?” sounded like muffled thunder.

	“We’re trying to negotiate.”

	“Chief, they’re saying they’re going to prove they’re serious.” A person appeared next to us. “We need you over here now.”

	He walked away. I looked up. People were crouched down, barely distinguishable as they melded into a mass of fear and flesh. The men, all in black, stalked through them. I couldn’t find her.

	“Dave, can you hear me?”

	I couldn’t find her. I had to find her. Everyone had their faces buried behind their knees. I couldn’t find her.
Where was she? The green-blue tinted glass distorted everything. I couldn’t

	“We need to go.”

	find her. I just had to

	“You shouldn’t be”

	find her and

	“here. You can’t help. We need”

	get her out. If I could see her maybe I could help her, tell her

	“to go. Let’s get in the car. Come on, let’s”

	how to escape. She wasn’t there, she wasn’t there, I couldn’t

	“get in the car. Dave, can you”

	find her, I needed to find her, I needed her

	“hear me? are you listening? Dave, look”

	with me. I needed to hold her

	“at me. Look away from”

	hand and tell her everything was going to be okay because

	“the building. Look at me. You’ve got to look away.”

	right now it was going to hell and I just needed to find her. But I couldn’t.

	One of the men bent over, and every sound died. He slung the automatic behind him, grabbed someone and yanked them up by the hair: strawberry blonde. Aimee. Her hands were clawing at his on her neck as he pushed her toward the glass. She was fighting, but he was winning. Slowly, steadily, he pushed her closer to the glass walls that twisted the light around them. She kicked at the ground, scratched at his arms, but he never flinched. He threw her at the glass, and she bounced into it, elbows smashing against it, where I could see her face.

	She was crying. Her face was distorted, and the fight was shaking through her body. She turned and ran and he pulled a handgun and shot her straight through the head. Scarlet slung across the glass shattered like a spider web and I saw her body slam into the ground between the cracks.

	I don’t remember anything after that.

	Later, they told me there was nothing I could have done or could do. That it was random. That the men wanted to prove they would kill. That Aimee was the only one they killed. That I couldn’t have her body because it was part of an ongoing investigation. That they couldn’t tell me what the men wanted because it was part of an ongoing investigation. Because after they killed Aimee they got away.

	I didn’t snap. I walked through the ghost and realized that I would never be able to find her behind that glass, that it was always going to be cold and hollow. So I grabbed my bag, grabbed my gun, grabbed my keys, and I got on the highway, driving west until the dawn seemed to retreat before lost nights rumbling toward me. I drove to find the men who killed Aimee.

title: Extraordinary Measures

question: What does the story say about negative feelings the narrator has?

answer: The narrator feels as if he's slipping off the edge of a cliff. When his wife is no longer around, he feels that there is nothing except cold and hollow space, and he feels alone. On the day his wife died, he went into panic and shock when he learned she was involved in a hostage situation. He felt as if his bones were turning to lead. Afterward, he is fuelled by the desire for revenge.

question: What does the story say about the identities of the murderers?


split: test

text:
EXCLUSIVE: Just weeks ago, mainstream U.S. media decried “fake news” and backed a blacklist of independent news sites over “Russian propaganda.” Now, under fire from President Trump, the MSM loves a free press, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

It’s heartwarming that The New York Times and The Washington Post are troubled that President Trump is loosely throwing around accusations of “fake news.” It’s nice that they now realize that truth does not reliably come from the mouth of every senior government official or from every official report.

[]

The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post)

The Times is even taking out full-page ads in its own pages to offer truisms about truth: “The truth is hard. The truth is hidden. The truth must be pursued. The truth is hard to hear. The truth is rarely simple. The truth isn’t so obvious. …”  On Sunday, those truth truisms ran opposite an alarmist column by Jim Rutenberg entitled, “Will the Real Democracy Lovers Please Stand Up?” Meanwhile, The Washington Post launched its own melodramatic slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

Yet, it was only weeks ago when the Post and Times were eagerly promoting plans for silencing or blacklisting independent news sites that didn’t toe the line on what the U.S. government and its allies were claiming was true.

On Nov. 20, the Times published a lead editorial calling on Facebook and other technology giants to devise algorithms that could eliminate stories that the Times deemed to be “fake.” The Times and other mainstream news outlets – along with a few favored Internet sites – joined a special Google-sponsored task force, called the First Draft Coalition, to decide what is true and what is not. If the Times’ editorial recommendations were followed, the disfavored stories and the sites publishing them would no longer be accessible through popular search engines and platforms, essentially blocking the public’s access to them. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “What to Do About ‘Fake News.’”]

On Thanksgiving Day, the Post ran a front-page story citing an anonymous group, called PropOrNot, blacklisting 200 Web sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other important sources of independent journalism, because we supposedly promoted “Russian propaganda.”

Although PropOrNot and the Post didn’t bother to cite any actual examples or to ask the accused for comment, the point was clear: If you didn’t march in lockstep behind the Official Narrative on, say, the Ukraine crisis or the war in Syria, you were to be isolated, demonized and effectively silenced. In the article, the Post blurred the lines between “fake news” – stories that are simply made up – and what was deemed “propaganda,” in effect, information that didn’t jibe with what the U.S. State Department was saying.

Back then, in November, the big newspapers believed that the truth was easy, simple, obvious, requiring only access to some well-placed government official or a quick reading of the executive summary from some official report. Over the last quarter century or so, the Times, in particular, has made a fetish out of embracing pretty much whatever Officialdom declared to be true. After all, such well-

[]

Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who co-authored the infamous New York Times article in 2002 about Iraq buying aluminum tubes to build nuclear bombs.

dressed folks with those important-sounding titles couldn’t possibly be lying.

That gullibility went from the serious, such as rejecting overwhelming evidence that Ronald Reagan’s Nicaraguan Contra rebels were deeply involved in drug trafficking, to the silly, trusting the NFL’s absurd Deflategate allegations against Tom Brady. In those “old” days, which apparently ended a few weeks ago, the Times could have run full-page ads, saying “Truth is whatever those in authority say it is.”

In 2002, when the George W. Bush administration was vouching for a motley crew of Iraqi “defectors” describing Saddam Hussein’s hidden WMDs, Iraq’s purchase of some “aluminum tubes” must have been for building nuclear bombs. In 2003, when Secretary of State Colin Powell showed some artist drawings of “mobile chemical weapons labs,” they must really exist – and anyone who doubted Powell’s “slam-dunk” testimony deserved only contempt and ridicule.

When the Obama administration issued a “government assessment” blaming the Syrian military for the sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013, there was no need to scrutinize its dubious assertions or ask for actual proof. To do so made you an “Assad apologist.”

When a bunch of U.S. allies under the effective control of Ukraine’s unsavory SBU intelligence service presented some videos with computer-generated graphics showing Russians supplying the Buk missile that shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, there was no need to examine the holes in the evidence or note that the realistic-looking graphics were fictional and based on dubious assumptions. To do so made you a “Moscow stooge.”

In other words, when the U.S. government was gluing black hats on an “enemy” and white hats on a U.S. “ally,” the Times never seemed to object. Nor did pretty much anyone else in the mainstream media. No one seemed to note that both sides usually deserved gray hats. With very few exceptions – when the State Department or other U.S. agencies were making the charges – the Times and its cohorts simply stopped applying responsible journalistic skepticism.

Of course, there is a problem with “fake news,” i.e., stories that are consciously made up for the purpose of making money from lots of clicks. There are also fact-free conspiracy theories that operate without evidence or in defiance of it. No one hates such bogus stories more than I do — and they have long been a bane of serious journalism, dating back centuries, not just to the last election.

But what the Times, the Post and the rest of the mainstream media have typically ignored is that there are many situations in which the facts are not clear or when there are alternative explanations that could reasonably explain a set of facts. There are even times when the evidence goes firmly against what the U.S. government is claiming. At those moments, skepticism and courage are necessary to challenge false or dubious Official Narratives. You might even say, “The truth is rarely simple. The truth isn’t so obvious…”

A TOUGH TRANSITION

During the transition from the Obama administration to the Trump team, the Times, the Post and other mainstream media outlets got caught in their own transition from trusting whatever the outgoing officials said to distrusting whatever the incoming officials said. In those final days, big media accepted what President Obama’s intelligence agencies asserted about Russia supposedly interfering in the U.S. election despite the lack of publicly available evidence that could be scrutinized and tested.

[]

New York Times building in New York City. (Photo from Wikipedia)

Even something as squirrelly as the attack on Trump’s National Security Adviser Michael Flynn – with Obama holdovers citing the never-prosecuted Logan Act from 1799 as the pretext for ginning up some kind of criminal-sounding case that scared Trump into firing Flynn – was treated as legitimate, without serious questions asked. Since Obama officials were doing the feeding, the no-skepticism rule applied to the eating. But whatever statements came from Trump, even his few lucid moments explaining why war with nuclear-armed Russia wasn’t such a great idea, were treated as dangerous nonsense.

When Trump scolded the mainstream press for engaging in “fake news” and then applied the phrase “enemy of the people,” the Times, the Post and the rest went into full victimization-mode. When a few news companies were excluded from a White House news briefing, they all rushed to the barricades to defend freedom of the press. Then, Trump went even further – he rejected his invitation to the White House Correspondents Dinner, the black-tie/evening-gown event where mainstream media stars compete to attract the hottest celebrity guests and hobnob with important government officials, a walking-talking conflict-of-interest-filled evening, an orgy of self-importance.

So, the Times, the Post and their mainstream-media friends now feel under attack. Whereas just weeks ago they were demanding that Google, Facebook and other powerful information platforms throttle those of us who showed professional skepticism toward dubious claims from the U.S. government, now the Times, the Post and the others are insisting that we all rally around them, to defend their journalistic freedom. In another full-page ad on Sunday, the Times wrote: “Truth. It’s more important now than ever.”

I would argue that truth is always important, but especially so when government officials are leading countries toward war, when lives are at stake, whether in Iraq or Syria or Ukraine or the many other global hotspots. At those moments in the recent past, the Times did not treat truth – in all its subtlety and nuance – as important at all.

I would argue, too, that the stakes are raised even higher when propagandists and ideologues are risking the prospect of nuclear war that could kill billions and effectively end human civilization. However, in that case, the American people have seen little truly professional journalism nor a real commitment to the truth. Instead, it’s been much more fun to demonize Russian President Vladimir Putin and paint black-and-white pictures of the evil Russians.

At such moments, those New York Times’ truisms about truth are forgotten: “The truth is rarely simple. The truth isn’t so obvious. …”

INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER ROBERT PARRY BROKE MANY OF THE IRAN-CONTRA STORIES FOR THE ASSOCIATED PRESS AND NEWSWEEK IN THE 1980S. YOU CAN BUY HIS LATEST BOOK, _AMERICA’S STOLEN NARRATIVE,_ EITHER IN PRINT HERE OR AS AN E-BOOK (FROM AMAZON AND BARNESANDNOBLE.COM).

question: What does the text say about the author's family background?

question: What does the text say about nuclear weapons?

answer: Nuclear weapons are mentioned mainly in relation to nuclear bombs. A New York Times reporter wrote a famed piece on the building of bombs in Iraq. It seems the same bombs and bomb-building is quoted in relation to Bush's presidency when Saddam Hussein was allegedly building nuclear weapons. Nuclear arms are mentioned in relation to Russia, which has nuclear capacity. The author doesn't think news about nuclear weapons should be mishandled by the media.

question: What does the text say about truth?

answer: Truth does not reliably come out of every government official or government report. The New York Times talks a lot about the importance of truth but the author isn't sure they mean what they say. The author notes that the NYT, in particular, seems to embrace what officials claim is true. The author thinks journalists should have healthy skepticism and the courage to challenge narratives. The truth is always important and the author thinks the American people deserve the truth from journalists.


text:
GEORGES ANDRÉ SENTENAC (born May 4, 1939) is a French molecular biologist specializing in gene transcription.

Married to Pierrette Balse, professor of mathematics at the University of Orsay, they had three children, all scientists, Anne, Marion and Daniel.

Biography

He was elected correspondent of the French Academy of sciences in 1999 and then a member of the Institute in 2007.[1]

Scientific career

During his postdoctoral internship in Dr. George Acs' laboratory in New York City, Sentenac addresses the regulation of gene expression by showing that appropriate hormonal treatment forces a young male cockerel to produce certain specific components of the egg. Back in France, to bypass the complexity of higher organisms, he chose to work on the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. In the following years, this yeast will become an essential study model in the molecular genetics of eukaryotic cells.

First, he isolated and identified the essential components of the molecular machinery responsible for gene transcription in yeast. He gave the first complete description of the three forms of nuclear RNA polymerases which are composed of the assembly of many subunits with various functions.[2] Focusing his efforts on the transcription of the large family of class III genes encoding tRNAs, 5S RNA and other small RNAs, he isolated the general transcription factors TFIIIC and TFIIIB and described the cascade of protein-DNA and protein-protein interaction leading to the recruitment of RNA polymerase III on DNA and the initiation of transcription.[3] A total of 26 proteins are dedicated to the transcription of class III genes. In particular, it shows that the TFIIIC factor consists of two protein modules capable of binding to two distinct promoter elements spaced differently according to genes,[4] of lifting chromatin repression and of recruiting TFIIIB.[5][6]

Awards and honours

-   1969, Maurice Nicloux Prize of the French Society of Biochemistry
-   1977, Paul Doisteau-Emile Blutel Prize from the Academy of Sciences
-   1985, Elected Member of EMBO[7]
-   1987, CNRS Silver Medal[8]
-   1997, Charles-Léopold Mayer Grand Prize of the French Academy of sciences
-   1999, Member of the Academia Europaea[9]
-   1999, Correspondent of the French Academy of sciences[10]
-   1999-2004, Member of the EMBO Council
-   2007, Member of the French Academy of sciences[11]
-   2012, Commander in the Ordre des Palmes Académiques
-   2018, Officer in the Ordre de la Légion d'Honneur

More representative publications

-   Sentenac, A. Eukaryotic RNA polymerases. CRC Crit. Rev. Biochem. (1985) 18: 31-90
-   Marzouki, N., CaMier, S., Ruet, A, Moenne, A, and  Sentenac, A. Selective proteolysis defines two DNA binding domains in yeast transcription factor τ. Nature (1986) 323: 176-178
-   Margottin, F., Dujardin, G., Gérard, M., Égly, J.-M., Huet, J. and Sentenac, A.  Participation of the TATA factor in transcription of the yeast U6 gene by RNA polymerase C. Science (1991) 251: 424-426
-   Burnol, A-F., Margottin, F., Huet, J., Almouzni, G., Prioleau, M.-N., Méchali, M., and Sentenac, A. TFIIIC relieves repression of U6 snRNA transcription by chromatin. Nature (1993) 62: 475-477
-   Marsolier, M.-C., Tanaka, S., Livingstone-Zatchej, M., Grunstein, M., Thoma, F. and Sentenac, A. Reciprocal interferences between nucleosomal organization and transcriptional activity of the yeast _SNR6_ gene. Genes & Dev. (1995) 9: 410-422
-   Rüth, J., Conesa, C., Dieci, G., Lefebvre, O., Düsterhöft, A, Ottonello,  S., and Sentenac, A. A suppressor of mutations in the class III transcription system encodes a component of yeast TFIIIB. EMBO J. (1996) 15: 1941-1949
-   Dieci, G. and Sentenac, A. Facilitated recycling pathway for RNA polymerase III. Cell (1996) 84: 245-252
-   Chédin, S., Ferri, M.L., Peyroche, G., Andrau, J.C., Jourdain, S., Lefebvre, O., Werner, M., CarLes, C., and Sentenac, A. The yeast RNA polymerase III transcription machinery: a paradigm for eukaryotic gene activation. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. (1998) 63: 381-389
-   Oficjalska-Pham, D., Harismendy, O., Smagowicz, W.J., Gonzalez de Peredo, A, Boguta, M., Sentenac, A. and Lefebvre, O. General repression of RNA polymerase III transcription is triggered by protein phosphatase type 2A-mediated dephosphorylation of Maf1 Mol. Cell (2006) 22: 623-632.
-   Ducrot, C., Lefebvre, O., Landrieux, E., Guirouilh-Barbat, J., Sentenac, A. and Acker, J. Reconstitution of the yeast RNA polymerase III transcription system with all recombinant factors. J. Biol. Chem. (2006) 281: 11685-11692
-   Sentenac, A. and Riva, M. Odd RNA polymerases or the A(B)C of eukaryotic transcription. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (2013) 1829 : 251-257

Main books

-   Sentenac, A. and Hall, B. Yeast RNA polymerases and their role in transcription in The Molecular Biology of the Yeast Saccharomyces. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press (1982) pp 561–606
-   Thuriaux, P. and Sentenac, A.Yeast nuclear RNA Polymerases in The Molecular and Cellular Biology of the Yeast Saccharomyces : Gene expression. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press (1991) pp 1–48

[1]

[2] Sentenac, A., « Eukaryotic RNA polymerases », _CRC Crit. Rev. Biochem._, (1985), 18, p. 31-90

[3] Chédin, S., et al., « The yeast RNA polymerase III transcription machinery: a paradigm for eukaryotic gene activation », _Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol._, (1998), 63, p. 381-389

[4] Marzouki, N., et al., « Selective proteolysis defines two DNA binding domains in yeast transcription factor τ. », _Nature_, (1986), 323, p. 176-178

[5]

[6] Burnol, et al., « TFIIIC relieves repression of U6 snRNA transcription by chromatin », _Nature_, (993), 62, p. 475-477

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

title: André Sentenac

question: Who is Andŕe Sentenac?

answer: Andŕe Sentenac is a French molecular biologist who specializes in gene transcription.

question: How many awards and honors did he receive?

answer: 11

question: When he was awarded the "Officer in the Ordre de la Legion d'Honneur" in 2018, how old was he?

answer: 79

question: Andŕe Sentenac decided to work with what higher-level organism, which would become an essential study model in the molecular genetics of eukaryotic cells?

answer: yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae

question: Write a ~1 sentence summary.

answer: Andŕe Sentenac is a French molecular biologist who specializes in gene transcription.


text:
IRVINE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today the Overwatch League™ and social video service Twitch announced a historic esports media-rights partnership, ensuring that every match of the world’s first major global city-based esports league will be readily available to fans across the globe. The first match of the Overwatch League’s inaugural season goes live on Twitch this Wednesday, January 10, on Twitch.tv/overwatchleague.

Fans of professional Overwatch have been eagerly anticipating a seamless Overwatch League viewing experience. This two-year deal, which encompasses the entirety of the league’s first two seasons, makes that a reality. With the exception of China, Twitch will be the exclusive worldwide third-party digital provider for Overwatch League regular-season, playoffs, and championship matches, with streams in English, Korean, and French.

The Overwatch League and Twitch also are developing innovative rewards for fans, which will bestow the league’s most steadfast viewers with Overwatch League in-game items. More details about content and additional rewards for the biggest fans, including some content that will be exclusive for a period of time, as well as Cheering with Overwatch League Cheermotes, will be announced as they become available.

“Our fans love to engage with content on Twitch, and we wanted to drive significant viewership of the Overwatch League in its inaugural season and beyond,” said Armin Zerza, COO of Blizzard Entertainment. “That’s why this historic and ground-breaking partnership is perfectly suited for Activision Blizzard, for Twitch, and—most importantly—for our growing global fanbase.”

“The Overwatch League is making a major impact on esports by reshaping the industry with city-based teams,” said Kevin Lin, COO of Twitch. “Given Overwatch’s consistent reign as a top-viewed game by our community, we look forward to offering their pioneering style of league play to a large and passionate fanbase that will be able to bond over not only their favorite plays, but hometown pride.”

The first season of the Overwatch League will run until June, with playoffs and finals scheduled for July. For the inaugural season, all games will take place at Blizzard Arena Los Angeles, a state-of-the-art live-event venue in Burbank, California, custom-renovated for Blizzard Entertainment esports events. Fans can purchase tickets to attend matches, which will be played each Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. A full schedule and information about ticket sales can be found at OverwatchLeague.com, and all matches can be viewed live at Twitch.tv/overwatchleague (English-language channel), Twitch.tv/overwatchleague_kr (Korean-language channel), and Twitch.tv/overwatchleague_fr (French-language channel).

ABOUT THE OVERWATCH LEAGUE™

The Overwatch League™ is the first major global professional esports league with city-based teams across Asia, Europe, and North America. Overwatch® was created by globally acclaimed publisher Blizzard Entertainment (a division of Activision Blizzard (Nasdaq: ATVI)), whose iconic franchises have helped lay the foundations and push the boundaries of professional esports over the last 15 years. The latest addition to Blizzard’s stable of twenty-one #1 games,[1] Overwatch was built from the ground up for online competition, with memorable characters and fast-paced action designed for the most engaging gameplay and spectator experiences. To learn more about the Overwatch League, visit https://overwatchleague.com/.

ABOUT TWITCH

Twitch is the world’s leading social video service and community for gamers. Each day, millions of community members gather to watch, talk, and chat about shared interests. Twitch’s video service is the backbone of both live and on-demand distribution for all types of content, including the entire video game ecosystem, the creative arts, vlogging (IRL), and more. Twitch also runs TwitchCon, the annual convention for celebrating the Twitch community. For more information about Twitch, visit our Press Center, Twitter feed (#Twitch), and Blog.

© 2018 Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. OVERWATCH, OVERWATCH LEAGUE, BLIZZARD and BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT are trademarks of Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-looking Statements: Information in this press release that involves Blizzard Entertainment's expectations, plans, intentions or strategies regarding the future, including statements about the dates, events and features of the Overwatch League, are forward-looking statements that are not facts and involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Factors that could cause Blizzard Entertainment's actual future results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements set forth in this release include unanticipated product delays and other factors identified in the risk factors sections of Activision Blizzard’s most recent annual report on Form 10-K and any subsequent quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. The forward-looking statements in this release are based upon information available to Blizzard Entertainment and Activision Blizzard as of the date of this release, and neither Blizzard Entertainment nor Activision Blizzard assumes any obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements believed to be true when made may ultimately prove to be incorrect. These statements are not guarantees of the future performance of Blizzard Entertainment or Activision Blizzard and are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, some of which are beyond its control and may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations.

[1] Sales and/or downloads, based on internal company records and reports from key distribution partners

question: What is the nature of the partnership between the Overwatch League and Twitch?

answer: The Overwatch League is partnering with Twitch to create a seamless viewing experience to watch players. Twitch will be the exclusive worldwide third-party digital provider for Overwatch League matches, with the exception of China, streaming in English, Korean and French.


text:
“Mom..” a boy cried.
“Is it okay if I’m the only one that love you in this world..”
His mother, with a loving smile says” I would be so happy, that I couldn’t stop smiling”

I woke up. In the end, it was just a sweet dream. A dream that perhaps , I wish to stay forever. I got up, did my daily morning routine, kiss my father and go to school. Oh, I also bring my camera with me wherever I go. Not the hipster one! Just the regular simple camera type. You know, to capture the moment. Still an amateur though. Though it was a give I got from a dear friend of mine.
	A few moments stepping out, I notice a man. Perhaps he is waiting someone as he showed no sign of haste. The man turned. A trace of smile slid on his face. Pretentious postmen, I presume to myself. A letter and a box were given for a few signatures and the man left. Puzzled, I took the package not knowing what inside.
	Before my clever assumption flow, I was stunned. The letter senders were under the name Alexa, my childhood friend. I stood there for too long not sure what I’m doing exactly. Somehow I came back to my senses and impatiently went back to open the box. Inside it, were full of memories of Alexa. Her photobook, novels and deep down was her diary. With a large word spell “No Reading”.
	I was dumbfounded, what on earth she was thinking sending me this.  Still , the notion of her secret in my hand excites me . After taking everything outside the box a simple note was left underneath everything. It says “Read the letter first you dumbass!”. “Okay , okay . Seriously , like literally, she could order me around whether she around or not” . Wondering, I read her letter quietly in the depth of the silent living room.
“God, bless you for the beautiful moment we shared . Many times I once wondered , if you still have the thought of my existence at all.  I wish you were, if not then you weren’t. “Got a chase last night” the story I wrote, nobody knew but I couldn’t care less. It caught your attention though , and more and more you surprised me. Till one letter that make me fell for you. HARD.  Everytime I read your letter, that joke always catch me .Liar, told me to catch me even I was a storm. Hahaha, how do you intend to do that? I want to kiss you in the same time kick you.
God, blessed you with patient and I hope you are patient now as you reading this. I have come to realize that I love you .And my love still stabs me through the brain. I couldn’t find myself forget you. Like the way the wind hit you, you couldn’t help but face it. So much that this feeling is unconsciously conscious of you. I know I’m maybe exaggerating a little but I couldn’t help it.
Maybe I should end this letter here, for nobody knows what to expect in the near future but do me favor, let me go away.
						                                                          Alexa”
Huh, this is all to sudden. I reread it gazillion time again making sure what I read perfectly justify what I understood. Not long enough after that I found her picture, sick in the photobook. Each one shows her journey fighting cancer. I couldn’t believe she hid the fact that she was sick from me. More and more picture, more and more droplet of water stream down my cheek. I couldn’t hold it much longer after the last of her picture, smiling so brightly in the midst of dying.
Finally, I realize. Moments in life seems to go by fast and takes a long time one to realize, the best of it went by soundlessly. In the end, I kept her diary untouched.

title: [RO] Shutterbugs

question: Did the narrator love Alexa?

answer: Unclear if he felt anything more than friendship.

question: Write a ~2 sentence summary.

answer: The narrator receives a package from his best friend Alexa. In it's contents he finds out that she hid that she had cancer from him and that she's passed away.


text:
It's fairly certain that, given the incredible amount of data about our habits and thoughts that are collected and analyzed and stored by our devices and accounts, The Cloud knows more about ourselves than we do. If our entire conception of self is distorted by the delusions and lies and beautiful memories we rely on to get through the unlimited hell that we occasionally experience, then who's to say the endless thoughtstreams we dump for free into Twitter isn't a more accurate representation of who we really are?

Computers, that's who. And a new computer program says that I'm a real asshole. Who knew?

Thanks to _Wired_'s Tom Simonite, I have just been introduced to DeepSense, a tool that claims to analyze someone's personality and employment viability via their Twitter feed. A recent entrant in a long line of internet-based personality-analysis-and-data-collection tools, DeepSense's pitch is to help hiring managers figure out if potential employees are competent or not before they even come in for an interview.

As a person who occasionally hires people: great! And as a person who occasionally just vomits pointless nonsense into Twitter in a long attempt to obscure such personality analysis: shit! Might have shot myself in the foot on this one.

In any case, the idea that our Twitter feeds are an accurate representation of who we are is fun and terrifying. On the one hand, everything we post on socials is calibrated, subconsciously or otherwise, to present a version of ourselves honed by analytics of our every behavior online. On the other, perhaps there's some universal truth buried way deep inside the data.

Since you should probably think twice about plopping your accounts in for analysis by some anonymous tool—DeepSense seems to have been around since last year, but outside of a couple puffy pieces that might be nicely-disguised press releases, hasn't really gotten any scrutiny—I threw myself to the wolves. Here's what I learned!

TURNS OUT MY PERSONALITY KINDA SUCKS ASS

I always assumed that I am a fun, happy person from California who likes to ride bikes and celebrate friendship while saying things like "sick" too much, but turns out that's entirely incorrect. I highly doubt you want to read the hilariously-detailed block of text above, so here's me as a Zagat review:

"A quiet individual," Derek Mead is "not very thoughtful about the motivations and priorities of others." A journalist who "could almost be mistaken for a pessimist", he "can be very cynical and distrusting of what [he] comes across." As as a longtime, "very edgy" employee of VICE Media, Derek "could run out of patience with lack of achievement or direction." The frequent tweeter has "has a sharp goal focus" and "is generally a planned and organized individual."

I am 47% anxious.

[]

I have no idea what the above graph means but I think it's roasting me.

I THINK THIS IS TELLING ME THAT MY IDEAL CAREER IS EITHER "MOODY ASSASSIN" OR "THE GUY WHO DECIDES WHICH TREES GET CUT DOWN"

According to the computer, my potential for stability is "low", which I think is because I'm so action-oriented. I have no idea why this thing thinks I'm such a contrarian loner though, in real life I am a fantastic team player because I always agree with everyone.

I sent my DeepSense profile to my boss and she responded:

_hahahahahaha_
_I only disagree with this: could almost be mistaken for a pessimist_
_Almost?_

I am optimistic this analysis will help me get a raise.

I NEED TO BE NICER TO THE PEOPLE I LIKE

I'd first like to point out that I am mostly active on Twitter in the evening because I am such a diligent employee and keep the personal stuff to after-hours. I am also not surprised that, with a score of 5.6/10, my social influence is "high." But what did hurt was to see a list of my favorite people (and Mike Isaac) on the right there with all this negative sentiment aimed at them. Forget my viability as an employee, what about my viability as a friend? This is kind of fucking me up, I'm not going to lie.

I AM EXTREMELY BASIC

As a bearded digital media innovator with a curated blend of high-end and shitty tattoos, I've always assumed that I am always abreast of the bleeding edge of cool. Nope! Turns out that if you put downloaded my Twitter feed into a flesh printer (maybe the next phase of DeepSense?) it would spit out a 30-year-old white guy with a bad haircut. And then it would print out an Instagram ad for the world's greatest white tee.

MY PERSONAL BRAND IS "THOUGHT LEADER IN NEED OF A VACATION"

[]

As a professional thought-haver, I'm not surprised at the range of things I talk about. But I did not expect that so many of those thoughts to be negative. Am I sad because I've downranked positivity in my own mental algorithm due to the shitstorm our simulation has become, or am I sad because I've allowed my entire conception of reality to be subtly-but-notably shifted towards "fucked" after years of processing all information about the world via a platform whose core mechanism of virality is rooted in negativity? Imagine how much more positive the computer would know I am if I tweeted "taking a nap" more.

As someone who will "run out patience with lack of achievement or direction," I'm kinda tiring of this blog post, so let me try to get to some sort of point. The first question: Is it accurate? It depends on your definition of what accurate is. I don't think this is an entirely unreasonable approximation of my last few months on Twitter; I also hope to god that no one would ever assume that Twitter is entirely reflective of who I am as a human being. I wouldn't pass a ton of judgment on DeepSense itself as anything more than a detailed sentiment-analysis tool; Frrole, the company that created it, claims to have done a lot more impressive work in the social-analysis space than this tool. But I can guarantee this is the exact kind of buzzy (it's artificially intelligent, god damnit!) personality-analysis service that’s going to come into use eventually—and in other forms, already has.

Taking a risk on anyone—be it for work, or love, or just hopping in a cab—is fundamentally a pretty nerve-wracking endeavor, one that's so fundamental to the human experience that we still haven't adjusted fully to digital relationships. And we often compensate for risk in problematic ways, especially in the workplace. For example, it's impossible to fully know how someone will act at work before you hire them. As a result, managers tend to have a significant bias towards certain types of interviewees in the hiring process. In that case, isn't a tool that gives a clearer understanding of how an applicant thinks and works via a more freeform analysis of their personality as presented via socials a great idea? Sounds great, yeah.

The flip side is that trying to pull an accurate picture of someone out of the data streams flowing in and out of our brains and bodies is likely impossible due to the very biases that ebb and flow in our interactions with the systems that collect the data in the first place. Think about it:

-   The thoughts you choose to present on Twitter are likely affected by what's currently part of "the discourse" on the platform.
-   The shape, tone, and delivery of those thoughts is likely affected by the current sentiment of the tweets you're reading, as well as your past knowledge of what tweets are popular and which are not.
-   While that persona is likely to evolve over time, analyzing it as a complete record adds significant noise, or at least presents a version of you that assumes time does not exist.
-   Those biases, and many others, are also reflected in the people who are programming the algorithm analyzing your language and sentiment, and their assumptions about how our tweets connect to our personality will be shaped through a worldview and experiences that are assuredly different from yours.

All of that means it's really hard, at best, to accurately analyze the personality of a large swath of people based on thoughts that are skewed when put out and further distorted when absorbed by the machine. On a lighthearted level, that's how we end up with me having a 100% negative sentiment to a variety of people I adore so much that I feel comfortable talking shit with them. On a much more concerning level, this is how algorithmic-people-sorting has so far proven to further entrench disparities in socioeconomic power structures.

What's the solution? On a practical level, I guess tweet like your next boss is watching. Working in media means I read the tweets of any prospective hire, but there's a huge difference between that and having a hiring manager somewhere bulk-psychoanalyze applicants with an app they wandered across. And concerning as that is, it's going to happen.

But, again, we do find ourselves taking a lot of risks on other humans, especially in scenarios where our only interactions are online. This is why we've seen such big pushes for trust in the internet, which is already shaping how information is presented to us in our feeds, and which will continue to evolve to follow the path being blazed by China's Social Credit Score. (The American version is already arriving in suitably-corporate fashion.) The argument for these types of trust systems always boils down to a variation of "what have you got to hide from the machine?" But the real question is: why should I trust the machine to know me?

question: What does the text say about Sociopathic personalities?

question: What is the main tension in the article?

answer: The main tension is the rise of internet-based personality analysis and data collection tools being used by hiring managers to figure out if potential employees are competent or not before they even come in for an interview. DeepSense, in particular, claims it can help hiring managers by analyzing someone's personality and employment viability via their Twitter feed. The author says that it's hard, at best, to accurately analyze the personality of a large swath of people based on thoughts that are skewed when put out and further distorted when absorbed by a machine.

question: What does the text say about the author's personality according to DeepSense?

answer: According to an analysis made by the DeepSense AI, Derek Mead's (the article's author) personality sucks. He is a quiet individual who doesn't think about the priorities and motivations of others. Derek could almost be mistaken for a pessimist and can be cynical and distrusting. He's edgy, lacks direction, and impatient. On the flip side, Derek "has a sharp goal focus" and is an organized individual.


text:
_This comment was a response to the @ContemplatingBanker"'s post on "How to Deal with the Hours" (find this comment lower down on page 2). Patrick called this "one of the best comments I've ever read on WSO" - so naturally it deserves its own spot on the homepage. To see all of our top content from the past, click here._

ContemplatingBanker – I read your post and empathized very strongly with what you wrote. I have been in a similar place myself and, in some of my lowest moments, remember reaching out to a few trusted advisers and getting literally nothing back from them. Despondent about this, I hunkered down and carried on with my job while thinking hard about how to rationalize the junior banker experience and get the most out of it without coming away from it defeated and bitter.

I mean no disrespect to the other posters and agree almost entirely with the sensible advice that they have shared. I will however say that their good advice seems to be mostly tactical and focused on the day-to-day blocking and tackling of the job. Permit me to offer a slightly more strategic and higher-level perspective. Tough as it is in the short term, you do have an extraordinary opportunity before you and I discourage you from acting rashly and without due forethought. Much as being an Analyst blows, you can cope and you can come away from this experience as a stronger and more empowered person with terrific career options ahead of you.

I should probably "introduce" myself first. I have lurked on WSO for a long time but this is the first time that I have felt moved to post anything more than a few lines. The comments below should probably be set in context by some bare facts about me: I am in my mid-30s, my first career was as an infantry officer in which I spent two tours fighting in the Middle East. I did an MBA at H/S/W and then worked as an M&A Associate for a MM advisor on the East Coast. I am now working in a completely different industry, although I would not have got this chance if I didn't start my business career with an investment bank.

WHAT FOLLOWS IS SIMPLY AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT I FOUND HELPED MY STATE OF MIND WHILE I WAS GETTING CRUSHED BY REPEATED 100+ HOUR WEEKS ONE AFTER ANOTHER. I am writing this in the spirit of trying to help another guy trying to get through a tough and miserable time – if it comes across as preaching or condescending then that is unintentional. If it comes across as braggadocios alpha-male bullshit then that is not intended either. I was a soldier for nearly a decade and I guess that colors how I look at a lot of situations. Here goes:

1. ADOPT A SURVIVOR MENTALITY.

There are some extraordinary stories of people that have survived in the face of incredible odds against them. I am talking about being stranded in the wilderness or adrift at sea – that kind of a thing. There has been a certain amount of academic research and a number of books filled with awe-inspiring stories. Movies too; "127 Hours" is a recent example that comes to mind. Those that survive exhibit a number of common personality traits. Fortitude and an absence of self-pity are among them, but the one that really resonated with me is: Acceptance. Those that got their heads down and prevailed against an awful situation accepted the hand that they had been dealt. That was just how it happened to be for them. They accepted that this was the situation that they'd got themselves into, they accepted what resources (or more importantly what constraints) they had, and they made the best of what they had to work with. Getting frustrated or angry about things that you simply cannot change is an enormous waste of energy. Save that energy for something that will actually help you.

2. PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE.

I am wary of becoming preachy here so I will keep it short: there are many, many people whose lives are a fuck's-sight worse than yours. Nothing highly original here, but what put it in perspective for me was reading a well-written book about somebody roughly the same age as me who is having an altogether different, and worse, experience. Apart from the fact that reading is an enjoyable and enriching escape – even for 20 minutes before bed, it can also give you tremendous perspective. [I had the Kindle app downloaded onto my work computer, and sometimes inconspicuously read between 9am and 3pm while I was waiting for a turn of edits]. "Unbroken" and "Matterhorn" are two books that I recently read. I also taped a small picture of Nelson Mandella to my monitor. When I was really hating life I thought about what he described in "The Long Walk to Freedom" and it put things in perspective for me. Once one of the Directors asked me who the picture was of – I told him it was my uncle and he seemed to believe me, the ignorant fuck.

3. RATIONALIZE 2 YEARS.

I know its hard when you are there, and at the time of being an Analyst its not much less than a tenth of your life, but two years really is not a long time. If you get caught with a small amount of weed and are unlucky you can get sent to prison for more than two years, soldiers go to Afghanistan for nearly 18 months. I know that these are downbeat examples but you can get through two years if you can keep the end in sight and break it down into chunks. I created a fancy spreadsheet with loads of date functions that broke down how far through my stint I was and how much money I had made so far. This can sap your morale as well as boost it so decide for yourself and obviously never let anyone see it! Two years all at once can seem overwhelming so break it down into milestones that work for you: Thanksgiving, when bonuses get paid, your one-year point – whatever. Focus on getting to the next milestone and then pick another one. Somehow it makes things seem a tiny bit less shit.

4. BE STRONG.

carry yourself with purpose and aplomb – do not look like a victim and never complain. It is a shitty life right now – everyone knows that it is. The Analysts that tearfully drag themselves about the floor like zombies mark themselves down as bitches and it becomes a downward spiral of disrespect from there. It is an ugly, "Lord of the Flies", side of human nature and I am not endorsing it but if you mope around and visibly hate every moment then it gets noticed and it becomes the legacy that you do not want.

5. CREATE OPTIONS.

If your current job genuinely is the only current opportunity that you have for gainful employment, then yes that sucks and you feel trapped. Forgive me for the blunt analogy, but being a junior investment banker is in some ways akin to being in an abusive relationship. You can be the victim that's trapped in the trailer park and regularly beaten by your drunken spouse and for as long as you let it be so that will be your life until such a time as you chose to make it otherwise. Nobody will help you get out, nobody cares and the cycle of victimhood will be perpetuated for as long as you let it. I'm not saying its easy to switch jobs, and as we all know, it takes time, persistence and good fortune to make a smart career move. But every outreach, every networking email, every informal coffee meeting creates optionality for you and makes you feel a little bit less trapped each time you make some headway. There are alternatives and if you proactively go out there after them, each small success even if it doesn't directly result in a job opportunity will take you down the road and make you feel a bit less trapped by where you are now.

6. THINK CREATIVELY ABOUT YOUR CAREER.

I accept that this might not the same for everyone, but I found that the abject crapness of being an M&A Associate actually made me really think a lot more than I ever had before about what I valued in life and what I wanted from it. Despite working 100-hour weeks, in what little downtime I had, I actually was able to think incredibly sharply about the career that I wanted and what interested and motivated me. No longer having the luxury of idle time for thought made me use what scarce time I had very carefully. I tagged ideas, whims and fantasies in Evernote (both on my browser and on my iPhone) and this led me to my current career (soft commodities) and pursuits (for example Krav Maga and cookery) that would probably never have occurred to me beforehand. I also went through my alumni network, a handful of headhunters and LinkedIn to build a CRM database in Zoho of people that I wanted to make contact with. It was surprising how much progress I could make even just putting in an hour or two a week – people were also very understanding about my current situation.

7. EXOTIC JOBS.

If you are pre-MBA and really need to re-set after a couple of years as an Analyst, I would encourage you to think about parlaying your skills into a business-related function but for an altogether different organization. I'm thinking places like Peace Corps, MSF, Red Cross, War Child, LeapFrog Investments etc. People with business, finance and consulting experience are in demand in such places – friends of mine have worked at all of the above. Pros: its only a year or two commitment, it gives you a chance to live healthily and get tan, if you're in any way bullish on emerging markets its great exposure, you get irreplaceable experience in a foreign country, your MBA application essays are going to write themselves. Unless you are smitten to taking your chances with a mega LBO-fund (which with all due respect I don't sense that you are) I really don't think that it is going to hurt your career in the long run, and on the contrary could open a lot of doors in interesting parts of the world where there are some fantastic opportunities to participate in their economic growth.

8. HEROES AND MENTORS.

When I was on my second tour in Iraq, a 36-year old Major that I knew was killed by a roadside bomb. He was ten years older than I was at the time, and left behind a wife and a couple of infant children. It was around this time that I decided a long-term career in the military was not what I wanted. It's a bit of a stark example, but my point is to look at guys who are a bit further ahead in the same career as you are now in. Ask yourself whether you would want their life, and whether you would want to go through what they did to get there. Perhaps you do, in which case it is fairly clear-cut what needs to be done next. If you balk at it then that's a message to you – it's a message to start redirecting your career to somewhere that you do want to take it. Additionally, I cannot be too encouraging of seeking a professional mentor.

You'll get differing opinions from everyone, but what has worked well for me is NOT reaching out to some crusty septuagenarian who plays golf with your Dad – this rarely works unless he is exorbitantly well-connected and happens to love you like a son. Find someone with whom you have some commonality who is 4 to 6 years further in his or her career than you are. Use your alumni network, LinkedIn, WSO whatever. Pick someone that you are able to meet in person in NYC or whichever city you live in. Buy them a beer and make it clear that you are not looking for them to find you a job – you are just grateful for their advice and suggestions. They will drop their guard when they realize that you are not trying to pump them to find your next job for you (as just about everyone else is) and if they are a half-way pleasant kind of a person they will take some satisfaction from giving you a leg-up and helping you get ahead in your career.

Other guys have commented on alcohol and office politics so I will only briefly add my 2c. I would advise against hitting the bottle too hard. Like you, I found it quite a good way to depressurize although it is obviously injurious to your health and can all too easily get out of control. Understand what a "high functioning alcoholic" is, and if you identify with any of the symptoms I'd recommend giving it a break for a bit. It won't do you any favors in the long run. The best move I made was not keeping any alcohol whatsoever in my apartment; when you get home at 5:30am you simply don't have the option of having a quick and easy nightcap before bed. I would also recommend, if you possibly can, talking to your Associate and appealing to them to manage you in as humane a way as they can.

Unless a direct promote, they have learnt all that leadership, man-management BS at business school and a sincere appeal for empathy ought not to fall on deaf ears if they are a half-way decent human being. I would try to send Analysts home early when I could, and I know that other Associates tried to as well. Ultimately it's a give-and-take relationship between Analysts and Associates – a bit of goodwill is always repaid before very long so you shouldn't be too hesitant about being asked for a small break now and then.

Good luck. PM me if you want to talk on the phone sometime – I assume you'll be in the office ;)

Square_Myles.

_Mod Note: Best of WSO, this was originally posted March 2013._

question: What is the message that the writer of this passage is trying to send?

answer: The purpose of this article is to give advice to other people who are starting out their careers in investment banking. The writer wants to help other people out who are having a tough time in the industry.

question: Who are the writer's heroes and mentors?

answer: The writer references a Major that was killed in the line of action.

question: Why does the narrator focus on the idea of two years?

answer: The writer wants the reader to focus on rationalizing the idea of two years, and understand that isn't a long time. The writer believes that setting milestones and goals will make time pass faster, and make the time spent doing miserable work move a little faster.


text:
_-- By Alex Kotch, Contributor_

Billionaire Koch Industries CEO and Republican mega-donor Charles Koch has, since the 1970s, funded higher education, typically giving large donations to free-market economics programs at hundreds of U.S. colleges and universities.

Recently released tax documents (accessible as attachments below) reveal that these donations are ramping up. Two Koch family foundations and one Koch institute gave $33 million to higher education in 2015, the most ever in a single year for the nonprofits and nearly $10 million more than the previous record in 2014.

The Koch Structure of Social Change

Koch thinks funding higher education is the foundation for transforming society.

_New Yorker_ reporter Jane Mayer found that Koch once urged his wealthy friends to focus on "attracting youth" because "this is the only group that is open to a radically different social philosophy." At a 1976 gathering organized by Koch, writes Mayer, libertarian historian Leonard Liggio, recommended the Nazi authoritarian tactic of creating a youth movement and building group identity. Liggio who went on to become president of the Koch-funded Institute for Humane Studies.

Decades ago, Charles Koch and his right-hand man, Richard Fink, devised a strategy called "The Structure of Social Change," which begins with funding higher education to educate young minds on the benefits of free-market capitalism. Professors and researchers he funds produce policy papers favoring his ideology—tax cuts, deregulation and small government—which Koch-funded think tanks such as the Cato Institute can package into easily digestible policy proposals. Koch-funded advocacy organizations such as his astroturf group "Americans for Prosperity" promote these initiatives to the American people and to legislative bodies. And a web of Koch candidates and policymakers help hasten social change by sponsoring legislation written by the Kochs' favorite corporate bill mill, the American Legislative Exchange Council.

The higher education donations, which come mostly from the Charles Koch Foundation, go towards founding free-market academic centers, professorships, post-doctoral and graduate fellowships, scholarships, course creation, lecture series usually featuring speakers who come from universities or think tanks funded by Koch, and student groups that read laissez-faire economics books and even books authored by Koch himself.

Two other Koch institutions pitch in as well. The Fred and Mary Koch Foundation, directed by the Koch brothers, Charles Koch's wife and Fink, contributes to schools in Kansas, the Kochs' birthplace and home to the Koch Industries headquarters. The Charles Koch Institute, also a nonprofit, also donated to two universities in 2015.

From the indoctrination of young minds, Koch foundations harness what they call a "talent pipeline," funneling students into the Koch "social change" infrastructure, often as professors, think-tank fellows or political operatives. Over decades, the ranks of Koch-funded professors, as well as Koch think-tank and political recruits, have grown significantly.

According to Charles Koch Foundation vice president for higher education Ryan Stowers, the Koch's had a network of 5,000 "scholars" in 2014. The foundation now funds at least 53 free-market academic centers, run by many of these scholars, on college and university campuses around the country

According to this reporter's calculations, the Koch foundations doled out almost $142 million to nearly 400 U.S. colleges and universities from 2005 to 2015.

And the Kochs are paying attention to what their money is buying.

"The Koch Foundation's academic control extends all the way down to approval over graduate fellowship recipients and the content of their dissertation topics, which bodes well for Kochs' 'talent pipeline' but poorly for the integrity of any institution hosting these programs," said Ralph Wilson, co-founder and senior researcher with UnKoch My Campus, an activist group of students and researchers who uncover the details of Koch donations. The group views the donations as obstructing academic freedom and pushing an extreme, rightwing agenda, including climate change denial, into the academic mainstream at hundreds of colleges and universities.

Koch U: George Mason and the Institute for Humane Studies

George Mason University (GMU) is by far the biggest recipient of Koch funding over the years, having received over $95 million from the Charles Koch Foundation from 2005 to 2015 and earning it the title of "Koch U" from investigative reporter Dave Levinthal. A $10 million grant to GMU's law school in 2016, changing its name to honor the late, conservative Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, moves that total well over $100 million.

In 2015, the school took in nearly $18 million from the Charles Koch Foundation, including $4.6 million to the Institute for Humane Studies (IHS), a libertarian, on-campus think tank that offers scholarships, faculty funding, seminars, conferences, reading groups and career advice. It used to host the Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program. Considerable Koch money funds the GMU economics department and its Law and Economics Center.

From 1986 through 2015, the Charles Koch Foundation, the David Koch Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation—a nonprofit founded by Koch that dissolved in 2013—and the Charles Koch Institute gave IHS a combined $34.2 million. Its current eleven-member board of directors features Charles Koch, who as of August 2015 was chair, two Charles Koch Foundation administrators, four Koch-linked professors and Art Pope, a North Carolina-based close ally of the Kochs and fellow Republican mega-donor whose family foundation has given $2.7 million to IHS since 2004.

IHS, "a haven for climate change deniers," according to Mother Jones, shares an Arlington, Virginia building with the Mercatus Center, another Koch-funded think tank at GMU. Mercatus has Charles Koch and several Koch associates on its board including Fink and Brian Hooks, president of the Charles Koch Foundation.

Mercatus is "'critical' to advancing policy priorities," says Stowers of the Charles Koch Foundation. Koch-funded politicians have cited Mercatus research related to bills they have sponsored, including Republican Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), Donald Trump's nominee to lead the federal Health and Human Services Department. Price and another Koch-funded representative teamed up in 2015 to oust the director of the Congressional Budget Office, replacing him with a former Mercatus research fellow. Other Mercatus fellows have held, or have been nominated for, federal government posts.

Other Universities Receiving More than $1 Million in Koch Funding

Three more universities took in over $1 million from the Charles Koch Foundation in 2015, while many others received over $500,000 a piece. At most of these institutions, Koch has played an important role in founding free-market academic centers, and in some cases such as at Florida State, his foundation has been closely involved in hiring decisions and course development.

"Charles Koch is doubling down on the multi-million dollar money dumps that buy him real control over professors," said Connor Gibson, a co-founder of UnKoch My Campus. "He has privatized dozens of economics and business departments that now preclude critical inquiry if it challenges the donor's personal ideology. Students can expect to pay more and learn less."

Texas Tech University

In 2015, Texas Tech scored more than $2 million from the Charles Koch Foundation, which bankrolls the school's Free Market Institute, a privately funded think tank that also managed to siphon $1.4 million of public money from a state incentives program.

Its director, sweatshop defender Benjamin Powell, got his doctorate from GMU and is on the executive committee of the Association of Private Enterprise Education, an organization financed in part by Koch that holds annual gatherings where Koch-funded professors, think-tank researchers and private industry representatives share strategies for founding and expanding free-market programs at colleges and universities. The Institute's board includes several Koch-linked professors from other schools including Peter Boettke of GMU, who's been a visiting scholar at the Free Market Institute and has been featuring at the Institute's "Weekend Exploring Liberty," cohosted by IHS.

"Evidence of an enduring impact from this research could include observing free-market think tanks change their strategy of promoting social change to more closely mirror the findings of our research," wrote Powell in a grant application to another private funder. "Other evidence may include pro-freedom policy makers changing their strategies to mirror the findings of our research."

The Charles Koch Foundation also funds Texas Tech's Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, which co-hosted an event with the right-wing, Koch-funded Texas Public Policy Foundation that presented a panel featuring the Koch Foundation's director of university relations and the deputy director of the Koch-funded Center for the Philosophy of Freedom at the University of Arizona.

The Texas Observer reported that the Koch Foundation made a $7.7 million long-term commitment to Texas Tech in 2016, causing significant outcry from faculty and students.

Utah State University

Utah State University collected over $1.3 million from the Charles Koch Foundation and the Charles Koch Institute in 2015. The foundation supports tenure-track professors at the business school's its Institute of Political Economy and has donated heavily to a new addition to the school. Current faculty at the Institute include Chris Fawson, who is on leave and working at the Koch Foundation "on business school and faculty research initiatives sponsored by the Foundation"; Randy Simmons, director of the Institute, who is also a fellow at the Koch-funded Property and Environmental Research Center and a scholar at the climate-change-denying, Koch-backed Competitive Enterprise Institute; two others who received their PhDs from GMU; and another who has taught there. The Charles Koch Foundation also offers a paid Koch scholar program, a Koch associates program and Koch internships through the school of business.

In 2015, $335,000 went to Strata Policy—an affiliate of the Institute of Political Economy run by three Utah State professors, including the Institute's Simmons—employs student researchers, co-hosts events with the Charles Koch Institute and lists the Koch scholars program on its website. The center initially worked out of Utah State office space, and its founders incorporated it in 2012.

University of Texas at Austin

UT Austin raked in close to $1.4 million for its Center for Politics in Government. Its director, Ryan Streeter, was deputy chief of staff for then-Governor of Indiana Mike Pence, a favorite politician of the Kochs. This center's associate director of research earned her PhD in economics from GMU and was a fellow at the Mercatus Center, and the director of communications was once deputy finance director to former Texas governor Rick Perry, who has received significant political donations from David Koch and Koch Industries.

In addition, Internal Revenue Service reports show that several other schools got more than half a million dollars from the Charles Koch Foundation in 2015; at most of these institutions, Koch has funded at least one economics or regulatory center.

Other Koch investments in higher education can be accessed at the table below.

In addition, new media reports indicate that schools set to receive large, multi-year commitments coming after 2015 include:

-   Catholic University ($10 million)
-   Montana State University ($5.7 million)
-   University of Kentucky ($4 million)
-   Wake Forest University ($3.7 million)
-   Notre Dame University ($3.5 million)
-   Ball State University ($3.25 million)
-   Western Carolina University ($2 million)

The Kochs' higher education donations consistently raise the eyebrows of students, faculty and community members, as Koch leads a huge, ideological political network that rivals both major parties in terms of funding. But activists on many campuses are exposing this funding stream, and they are beginning to successfully convince universities to reject Koch money or sever ties with Koch-funded think tanks.

_Alex Kotch is an independent investigative journalist. This article is published exclusively with the Center for Media and Democracy._

question: What does the text say about the author's opinion of the Kochs?

answer: The author refers to the Kochs using indoctrination, which typically carries a negative tone. Politicians funded or influenced by the Kochs are called "operatives," which implies a questionable connection between them. The author questions the scholarly nature of the scholarships funded by the Kochs. Overall, the author seems to find the Kochs' funding and political-economic views at least suspect, if not unethical.

question: What does the text say about the connection between the Kotchs and the Kochs?


text:
Whenever a talented player is acquired for a low price that seems too good to be true, there’s always a question: what’s the catch?

In these situations, it usually doesn’t take long for a player’s former team to leak unflattering commentary about them to the media. We saw this with Eagles’ trade for Jay Ajayi during the 2017 season.

Now we’re already beginning to hear some concerns about new Eagles pass rusher Michael Bennett. Via Albert Breer of The MMQB:

  We’ll have more on the Michael Bennett trade later in the column, but I wanted to address first what the Eagles are getting from the Seahawks: A player who isn’t quite what he was and picked his spots more than he has in the past, according to the three offensive coaches I asked about him. He was also a pain in the ass for the Seattle coaches. The good news? With the depth of the Eagles defensive line, Bennett will be more of a spot player there, and Philly’s locker room, on paper, is a good fit.

  [...]

  Defensive end Michael Bennett became, to some degree, a problem for the coaches last year and his play was less consistent with a lower top end at 32.

So now we have a better idea for the Seahawks’ motivation behind the trade. Not that this is necessarily surprising. Everyone knows that Bennett is an outspoken individual.

Does that mean he’s going to come to Philadelphia and ruin the locker room chemistry? Anything’s possible, but I doubt it. There was concern about the aforementioned Ajayi coming in and being disruptive. That never manifested.

The Eagles have a strong locker room with leaders like Malcolm Jenkins, Chris Long, etc. Players have also heaped praise upon head coach Doug Pederson for being a great communicator. Bennett might not be the easiest player in the world to manage, but it’s not like he’s so bad that he disrupts team success. The Seahawks won plenty of games (not to mention a Super Bowl title) during his time in Seattle.

As for the questions about his effort, that seems anecdotal to me. His strong pass rush numbers certainly don’t indicate he’s taking a lot of plays off. Neither does the tape:

And besides, as Breer noted, the Eagles are going to heavily rotate their defensive linemen. Bennett is not going to play the 941 snaps he played in 2017. The most amount of snaps any one Eagles defensive lineman played last season was 728 by Brandon Graham. Assuming Bennett steps in for Vinny Curry’s role, he could be in line to play something like 642 snaps. That would be about 300 fewer than last year.

The Eagles obviously did their homework on Bennett before trading for him. They might have even conferred with one of his former Seattle teammates who is currently on Philadelphia’s roster, Chris Maragos. They have an idea of what they’re getting into.

Even if we assume the worst and Bennett turns out to be a big problem for the Birds, it’s not like they’re tied to him beyond this year. He can be cut with zero dead money after this season. And it’s not like the Eagles gave up much to get him, either.

question: What is the question posited in this article?

answer: What's the catch? The question refers to when a player is acquired for a low price that seems too good to be true.

question: Who is the article about?

answer: Michael Bennett.

question: What sport is the article about?

answer: American football.

question: Why was Bennett acquired at a low price?

answer: He had become somewhat of a problem for the Seahawks and his play was less than consistent.

question: Write a ~3 sentence summary.

answer: The article posits the question about why talented football players get traded for a low price. The author of the article suggests that it's because usually there is something about the player that is less than satisfactory. The article focuses on Michael Bennett who is leaving the Seattle Seahawks for the Philadelphia Eagles.


text:
[U.S. President Donald Trump shortly after delivering his first State of the Union address Tuesday night. Democrats, and others, see Trump's criticisms of federal law enforcement as a dangerous attempt to undermine special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.]

[Daniel Dale]

Daniel DaleWashington Bureau Chief

__Wed., Jan. 31, 20185 min. read

Article was updated Feb. 01, 2018

WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump is at war with his own law enforcement officials. More than ever before, he has backup from his party.

And law enforcement has started pushing back.

The day after Trump’s State of the Union address was dominated by an extraordinary series of developments in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice challenged Trump both on the record and through what appeared to be anonymous leaks to CNN.

The until-recently-unusual spectre of the “law-and-order” party attempting to undermine law enforcement agencies comes during the ongoing special counsel investigation of the Trump campaign’s links to the Russian government. Democrats, and others, see Republicans’ criticism as an attempt to protect the president by diminishing public faith in Robert Mueller’s probe.

“We’re no longer dealing in the realm of facts and reason when it comes to grave matters of security and justice,” Amanda Carpenter, a Republican former communications director for Sen. Ted Cruz, wrote in Politico. “We are, at Donald Trump’s behest, fully engulfed in a narrative explicitly designed to impugn and destroy the credibility of the law enforcement agency tasked with investigating the Trump campaign’s relationship with Russia during the 2016 election.”

In seeking short-term political gain, Trump and his allies will do long-term damage to federal law enforcement, said Matthew Miller, Justice spokesperson during the Obama administration. He pointed to the effects of conservatives’ attacks on other pillars of U.S. society.

“The first one they went after, starting decades ago, was the media. Now Republicans don’t believe what they hear on any channel other than Fox News. Then they moved to scientists … and now you see in polls Republicans who just don’t believe in scientists. They’ve turned on universities, and you see this rising discontent among conservatives about university. They are now turning on federal law enforcement,” Miller said in an interview.

“And if a significant percentage of the population — 35, 40 per cent — believes that federal law enforcement is biased, you’ll see those people less likely to co-operate with investigations, less likely to blow the whistle, and less likely to believe DOJ prosecutors when they sit on juries. It is extremely damaging to the long-term ability of those institutions to do their jobs.”

Others said Trump’s actions were risking deep damage to his own government.

“The growing and dizzying array of threats by Trump, and threats by officials to resign in response to Trump’s threats, suggest that this is not a stable situation (how could it be?),” Jack Goldsmith, an assistant attorney general in George W. Bush’s Republican administration, said on Twitter on Saturday.

“When Trump finally gets tired of being ignored and follows through on something stupid, the executive branch meltdown will be severe, to his enormous detriment (and hopefully not the country’s).”

[Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, after a Tuesday meeting with House GOP members on Capitol Hill. Nunes is at the centre of a controversy over the potential release of a secret memo purported to show improper use of surveillance by the FBI and Justice Department.]

The Republican attacks have been encouraged by increasingly conspiratorial Fox coverage centred on what hosts have called a “Deep State” attempting to topple Trump. Senior Republican politicians who once kept their distance from such arguments have begun to echo their language.

“Cleanse the organization,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said of the FBI on Tuesday.

The most dramatic developments on Wednesday centred on a secret four-page memorandum, authored by aides to pro-Trump chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, that Nunes claims will reveal “abuses” by the FBI in investigating Trump’s campaign.

Republican politicians have made a rallying cry of the phrase “release the memo.” (Ryan made his “cleanse” remark while speaking about the memo.) And they voted last week to do so despite the formal objections of a top Justice Department official who said a release “would be extraordinarily reckless” if Justice was not given a chance to review the memo and advise of possible harm.

Donald Trump was overheard Tuesday telling a GOP lawmaker he is "100 percent" in favor of releasing a classified memo on the Russia investigation that has sparked a political fight pitting Republicans against the FBI and the Justice Department. (The Associated Press)

Loading...

Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...Loading...

Trump has not made a final decision. But when a Republican congressman urged him after his Tuesday speech to release the memo, he breezily said, “Don’t worry, 100 per cent.”

Trump’s hand-picked FBI director, Christopher Wray, and hand-picked Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, pleaded with Trump’s chief of staff on Monday not to release the memo, the Washington Post has reported. And then they went further.

In a move that has no obvious recent precedent, the FBI made its objections public on Wednesday — and effectively endorsed the view of Democrats who have called the memo highly misleading.

“As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy,” the FBI said.

Later in the afternoon, CNN broke two stories that further called into question Trump’s interactions with and statements about law enforcement.

The first reported that Trump had asked Rosenstein if Rosenstein was “on my team” — a request that echoes his widely criticized alleged request for “loyalty” from then-FBI director James Comey — and suggested to lawmakers questions they could ask Rosenstein to try to discredit the Mueller probe.

The second reported that Peter Strzok, the FBI agent removed from the Mueller probe over text messages in which he criticized Trump, had supported the FBI’s late-campaign decision to reopen the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Republicans, including Trump, had previously seized on Strzok’s texts as evidence of FBI bias against him.

All of this comes just two days after the FBI’s deputy director, Andrew McCabe, stepped down under fierce pressure from Trump, who had accused him of bias because his wife’s Democratic campaign for a seat in Virginia’s state senate received political donations from allies of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an ally of Clinton.

That, in turn, came four days after the New York Times reported Trump had ordered Mueller’s firing but backed off when White House counsel Donald McGahn threatened to quit.

All of the turmoil raised bipartisan fears that Trump would attempt another round of firings — of Rosenstein, with whom he is now engaged in a multi-front battle, or perhaps of Mueller once more. Democrats have warned that terminating Mueller would create the biggest crisis of Trump’s presidency.

If Trump refrains or is restrained from self-harm, however, his Fox-aided campaign to persuade Americans not to trust law enforcement may create an outcome that works for him personally even as it hurts the country more broadly.

If Republican voters have scant faith in Mueller and the Justice Department, their representatives are especially unlikely to pursue justice in the form of impeachment or resignation pressure, no matter what the facts say.

Said Miller: “When Bob Mueller finishes his work, he may have damning evidence against the president — and there will be a certain percentage of Americans who just refuse to believe him.”

question: Summarize how the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice challenged Trump.

answer: The FBI and Department of Justice decided to push back against Trump through anonymous leaks to CNN and on the record. They made their objections of the memo Trump was planning on releasing public. They called the memo highly misleading, and said they have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that impact the memo's accuracy.

question: What does the text say about Trump's issues with law enforcement?

answer: Donald Trump wanted to release a classified memo on the Russia investigation that had pitted Republicans against the FBI and Justice Department. Trump had wanted loyalty from then-FBI director James Comey in regards to the probe into the Trump campaign's relationship with Russia in 2016 and Mueller. He is at war with his own law enforcement officials over the ongoing special counsel investigation.

question: Summarize Miller's thoughts.

answer: Matthew Miller, a Justice spokesperson during the Obama administration, believed Trump and his allies would do long-term damage to federal law enforcement with their attacks. He saw Trump allies as constantly hopping to attack the next group of people who criticized them, and how they were now turning on federal law enforcement. He believes that Trump's narrative that federal law enforcement is biased will enable other people to try to be above the law. Miller also said that when Mueller finishes his work he may have plenty of evidence against Trump, but that many Americans will refuse to believe him.

question: What does the text say about Mike Pence?


text:
Hello, I am the Tin man. I may not seem like much, just a pile of junk... but do you ever wonder what these folds of scrap hide? In this case, they hide a myriad of horrors and healing. I may not seem like much, but I have stories. I have memories, flaws gained over time. Just like a tree, I may seem inconspicuous and indifferent, but open me up and the rings of time and their scars show. I may not seem like much, but I am me, and to me, that's the world, because it's all I know.  I may not seem like much, but I have much to share.

A while back, there was a storm. Now, this wasn't a scary storm, where the sky is dark and by default you feel dark as well. This was a storm where the rain falls warm, and the sun is still shining, and the rainbows are out, beckoning your smile to come and play. This was a shower where the drops hit the warm cement and you breathe in a scent that is fresh and suffocatingly sweet at the same time. This storm was beautiful and I desired to be a part of it. A corner of my mind told me this wasn't safe, but the rest of me told me to live for the moment, to enjoy life as it comes, and that opportunities never knock twice, so you may as well invite it in. This storm called to me and me alone, for I was all it desired, and all I desired was it. I danced, I sang, I breathed, and I loved every minute of it. There were moments where I would trip up, or sing a sour note, but the gorgeous storm would always continue to embrace me in it's warm shower and love me for my mistakes. I was grateful for that.

Little did I notice an approaching cloud. The sky was darkening, and the storm was getting sadder. Little did I see the cloud's foul intents. All I knew was that this storm was a source of joy for me, and who was I to stop this cloud from feeling this joy too? The cloud inched it's way into the waltz the storm and I shared, and eventually the cloud blocked out all light, and snuffed the beauty of the storm. Overnight the storm became something I worried about... the once attractive storm became cold, and eventually shunned me. I wept.

For a time I died. Not in a literal sense, where one stops breathing, stops functioning physically, and goes cold and rigid in the body. I died in a much more effective way, where one stops feeling, for the pain is so monumental, it blocks out all senses altogether. I died in a way where one stops functioning spiritually, because they simply don't want to. I became cold and rigid in the soul. I rusted, and eventually, even when I wanted to move, I couldn't.

Eventually, I allowed my dear friend time to help me, to oil my joints, to bring me back to life. And as I'm slowly revived by time and it's gentle hands, the rust falls away in gentle flecks that decorate the ground, breadcrumbs left behind, showing where I've been and the lessons I've learned. And while time's remedy is working, I can never be good as new. Just like the tree, the rings of time and gashes in my skin will never disappear, simply be hidden by more. And I will never regret these marks, because they are who I am. I am me, and to me, that's the world, because it's all I know.

title: The Tin-Man's Lament - By Madylin Duce

question: What object is being described in this story?

answer: The object being described in the story is a Tin-Man.

question: What are the overall emotions of this story?

answer: The overall emotions of this story are sad and full of pain and a little dark.

question: What genre would this short story be classified under?

answer: This short story would be classified under fiction.

question: What version of death is the narrator talking about?

answer: The narrator is discussing how they felt so much pain that it blocked out all the senses completely.

question: Write a ~1 sentence summary.

answer: This story describes the sad and dark thoughts of a Tin-Man.