I have watched the movie "Jurassic Park". It tells the story of scientists using dinosaur DNA to bring dinosaurs back to life. At first, everyone thought this invention was very impressive. But in the end, the dinosaurs got out of control and humans suffered a lot of harm. I think this movie is very similar to what we learned in class. For example, some inventions, although very advanced, may cause danger if the consequences are not considered. "Jurassic Park" made me think of a question: What can science achieve does not necessarily mean that we should do it. Scientists and inventors should be responsible for their inventions and not only focus on achieving technical success but also consider the impact it will have.

When I read this passage, I was both surprised and saddened. It turns out that some people originally intended to do a good deed, but ended up causing negative consequences. I think this shows one thing: inventions or new technologies are not always good; they can also cause harm. I think of the current mobile phones and social software. They were originally designed to make communication more convenient for people, but sometimes they make people addicted and lose true communication. I wonder: When we invent new things, how can we think about the possible consequences in advance? Is there any way to make the inventions safer and more beneficial? This question makes me believe that invention is not only a technical matter, but also a moral issue.

This reminds me of some situations in reality where people stockpile masks and eggs and then sell them at high prices. Although the scales are different, the principle seems to be similar. The article also states that in many countries, doing so is illegal because it makes the market unfair. I think this point is very important. Sometimes, the "clever" ways of making money might actually be unfair to others and even illegal.

I found the part in the book where it explains why Facebook was able to outperform other social platforms quite interesting. The author said it was because Facebook allowed users to register with their real names, making it feel safer and easier to find friends. I agree with this statement because when I used Instagram and Xiaohongshu, I also felt that if the other person used their real name and had a real profile picture, I would be more inclined to add them.

This article reminds me to be cautious of the "false sense of intimacy" brought about by social media. Although these platforms make it easier for people to express their emotions and opinions, sometimes they can also make people mistakenly believe they understand others, and even affect judgment. This "illusion of intimacy" may also make people more prone to online arguments or misunderstandings.

I have heard some victims say that they chose to forgive because they wanted to get themselves out of the pain, not because they wanted to forget, but to prevent hatred from continuing to control them. I think forgiveness is not necessarily about saying "it doesn't matter", but rather "I don't want to be trapped by this matter anymore". This reminds me of what was discussed in the psychology class about emotional release and self-growth. Sometimes letting go can actually be a form of strength.

I think this article highlights an important issue: The anonymity provided by social platforms not only safeguards freedom of speech, but also makes it easier for some people to engage in malicious behavior without facing consequences. This reminds me of the "platform responsibility" issue we discussed in class - if a platform is constantly used to organize harmful actions, should this platform bear some responsibility for this?

I think the word "violence" does carry a strong value judgment. It is not merely a term to describe an action; it is also a reflection of a social attitude. This reminds me of news reports where, if the police use force to arrest someone, different media outlets will have completely different descriptions. Some call it "law enforcement", while others call it "violent suppression". This shows that language itself influences how we perceive an action.

I think this idea is extremely forward-looking. For instance, current video conferences, virtual reality, or AI assistants can actually accomplish things that are impossible in real-life communication, such as simultaneous language translation, real-time note-taking, and the display of complex images in a virtual space. Previously, I always believed that "face-to-face communication is the best", but after reading this article, I began to re-examine: Could technology also bring about another stronger form of communication?

I think the phenomenon of "a few people doing most of the work" mentioned in this chapter is really quite common. For instance, when I was doing group assignments at school, it was often the case that only two or three people were working diligently while the others paid little attention. This sometimes made me feel unfair, but I also understood that some people were more capable or more willing to take on the tasks.

I think what he said makes sense. If we always avoid the comment section, those malicious people will take over it, and it will make the kind and constructive people silent. I once posted my work on social media and saw some people leaving encouraging comments, which made me feel very warm. But sometimes I am also affected by negative comments. If the platform and users can work together to create a better comment environment, then the comment section can actually become a very meaningful place. This reminds me that we can't just complain about the poor state of the online space; we also need to participate and improve it ourselves.

Rawls' approach is to encourage people to create rules that are fair to everyone when they are unsure about their future. I think although this idea is difficult to achieve in reality, it reminds us that when formulating rules, we should not only think about ourselves but also consider others, especially those in a disadvantaged position. If we could all think from others' perspectives, society might be more fair.

I watched this interview. Bo Burnham said that he often felt anxious when he was a child, especially when facing the audience. He mentioned that for young people, social media is like always having an "invisible audience" watching you, which impressed me deeply. He himself became famous on the Internet, but he said that the feeling of being constantly followed was actually very depressing. I think this is very similar to how we feel when using social media now. It seems that we have to always perform well and not make mistakes. This interview enabled me to better understand the source of anxiety and also made me reflect on whether I cared too much about others' opinions online.

I think it's really important that this chapter mentions that social media can help people find a community that supports them. For instance, some people may be bullied by their classmates in real life and even attacked on social media. At such times, if they can find a warm group online, it will make them feel that they are not alone and they will be more powerful. I myself have also found friends online who share the same interests as me. That feeling was extremely happy, just like suddenly someone understands you. Although social media can sometimes have negative effects, if used properly, it can really help our mental health.

Although this tweet seemed very simple, it attracted a lot of attention and was retweeted on social media. It shows that nowadays on the Internet, even without speaking but only using expressions, one can still have a great ability to spread. I think this is also related to the "copying" and "inheritance" mentioned in this chapter. Many people add their own explanations or emotions when forwarding, and thus the content has a "new version". This tweet also reminds me that sometimes the power of social media is huge, and even a small action can trigger many reactions.

A lot of the content we see on social media nowadays is actually not original. Instead, it is shared, modified and then posted by others. Sometimes I come across some videos and think they are new, only to find out that they are just previous content with some words added or edited. I feel that although this spreads quickly, it might also make people not know who created the original content. Some people will also post screenshots of others' pictures and text on other platforms. I think this might infringe upon others' creations.

This article talks about Twitter's intention to make the conversations on the platform more "healthy". They try to reduce hate speech, abuse and those kind of "slap in the face" comments. Because these will make many people dare not speak. I think this goal is very good because too many people on the Internet like to quarrel or make fun of others, which makes people feel very unsafe. However, I'm also a little curious. How does Twitter determine if a conversation is "healthy"? Could there be someone who is wrongly judged just by expressing different opinions?

I think advertisements do have both good and bad aspects. Sometimes, the advertisements I see online are exactly what I need recently, such as school supplies or the clothes I like, which makes me think advertisements are very useful. But one thing that also makes me feel very uncomfortable is that some advertisements seem to know what I'm thinking. For instance, when I just chat with a friend and say I want to buy headphones, I immediately see an advertisement for headphones, which makes me feel as if I have no privacy.

This article talks about some women having particularly strong color vision ability and being able to see more colors than ordinary people. They are called "four-color visionaries". I think this discovery is amazing and it also reminds me that our understanding of vision is not comprehensive enough. When talking about "normal" senses, in fact, we overlook those who "see more", just as sometimes we also overlook those who see less, such as color-blind people. This article reminds me that when we design colors, we should not only consider color blindness, but also think about whether we can also take into account those with more acute vision.

I felt a little sad when I saw this paragraph. Why can't people with disabilities be regarded as true designers? They themselves know their own needs best and should have more opportunities to participate in the design. I think that design should not merely be "designed for them", but rather "designed together with them", and even let them take the lead in the design. In life, I have also noticed that in some places, the designs for people with disabilities are not good, perhaps because they are not involved. If they can be made part of the design, the result will surely be better.

This material states that bcrypt was deliberately made very slowly. In this way, it will be very difficult for hackers to keep guessing passwords all the time. The article also mentioned that bcrypt can adjust the encryption time to be longer according to the speed of the computer. So even if computers become more powerful in the future, bcrypt will still be very secure. It is more capable of preventing being cracked than those fast encryption methods.

I think the password storage method mentioned in this chapter makes a lot of sense. Because it doesn't think that the database will never be stolen, but is prepared for someone to steal it. Even if the password is stolen, the bad guys can only guess one by one slowly and it's very difficult to know the real password at once. This makes me think that actually many security protections are like this. It can't rely on just one layer of protection; there need to be several layers. For instance, when we log in to our accounts in daily life, some even send verification codes to their mobile phones, which adds an extra layer of protection.

From this source, I have learned about the significance of simplifying decentralized systems for their wide adoption, as well as the potential of these technologies to reduce the risks of centralization and provide more user control and security in the digital environment. This is in line with the growing interest in decentralization and blockchain technology in the current technology industry.

I think the point mentioned in the chapter that one should not rush to draw conclusions is very reasonable, especially when there is a lot of data or there may be many factors affecting the results. In the case of candle reviews and COVID, we might think that buying candles is related to the spread of the disease, but in fact, both are very likely only related to the season.

This reminds me of the current social media where many people attract attention by creating fake news and false events, undermining the public's trust in genuine information. This kind of behavior not only affects the quality of information dissemination, but also intensifies social division and opposition.

I think people on the Internet should pay more attention to others' feelings, especially when facing sadness and loss. We should offer more care and respect instead of hurting others. It is hoped that everyone can realize that the Internet should not be a place to hurt others, but a place to help and support each other.

I was particularly interested in how Twitter's actions in this case were both a response to immediate events and part of a larger trend in the tech industry to regulate harmful content. While the suspension received support from some, others viewed it as a dangerous precedent for censorship.

The idea that we can have different personas depending on the group we're with feels very relatable. In person, it's often a subtle shift in behavior when we're with friends versus family or colleagues. But online, things are more complicated. For example, I’ve experienced this with platforms like Facebook, where I might have both family and colleagues as friends, and I have to be more conscious of what I share because something intended for one group could be seen by the other.

The video recreates the feud between the two founding fathers through a drunken narrator, making clear the differences in their personal and political views. Although the video content has exaggerated and humorous components, it effectively conveys the clash of ideas and emotional tension between them, which is both entertaining and educational. This lighthearted presentation helps viewers better understand the history, even if it is not an entirely serious historical documentary.

This chapter on social media connectivity got me thinking that how different platforms are connected really does affect how we interact. A one-way connection like Twitter usually leaves me passively browsing content with little interaction. Facebook's two-way connection allows me to communicate more actively with my friends and colleagues. Personally, I prefer two-way connectivity because it encourages deeper communication and interaction. Different connections may be suitable for different purposes, such as one-way connections for entertainment or access to information, while two-way connections are more suitable for building relationships and interaction. It also got me thinking about what kind of connection would best suit my needs.

I looked up the Python Tuples teaching page provided by W3Schools and found it very clear, especially the section on the difference between tuples and lists that struck me. It states that tuples are immutable, which makes me understand why it's safer to use tuples when working with some data that you don't want to be modified. I think this resource is very friendly for beginners, and with examples, it can help us grasp the basics of Python faster. It would be better if the book included more references to such useful websites.

This chapter reminds me that when we use data to look at problems, we are actually simplifying the real thing. For example, when we count apples, we treat each one as the same, but in fact each apple is different in size, color, and taste. And when we record other people's words, we can't hear the tone and emotion, only the words are left. It strikes me that while data makes things clearer, it sometimes makes us miss important details. So should we pay more attention to these neglected things in the future?

Jack Latham shows how these agencies artificially increase engagement on social media through a large number of devices and manual operations. This not only raises questions about the authenticity of online information, but also highlights the negative impact that the pursuit of fake popularity can have on society in the digital age.

Once I was following an illustrator I really liked on social media, and she suddenly posted a post about how her comments section had been flooded with weird accounts. When I clicked on it, the comments were all unrelated advertising content, and it seemed that the profile picture and user name of each comment were very similar, as if they were batch generated. This has made me more cautious about online information and understand why it is sometimes necessary to check the source and authenticity of information.

Social media platforms have greatly changed our cognition and attitude towards real life. How can we consciously recognize these influences and form a more objective and balanced view?

Confucianism is much older than what is mentioned here, it has been around for over two thousand years. Not only Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi laid the foundation, but also Dong Zhongshu of the Han Dynasty, Zhu Xi of the Song Dynasty, and Wang Yangming of the Ming Dynasty. They all played an important role in the development of Confucianism.