The Wikipedia article about APIs talks more in depth about how APIs work and why they are important for connecting different systems. It explains that APIs let programs communicate without needing to understand all the complex details behind the system. One detail that stood out to me is that APIs hide how the system actually works, which can make things easier for developers but also risky if the data behind it is bad. This connects to data poisoning because developers might rely on data from an API without knowing if it is accurate or not

I thought the Kellogg’s example was really interesting because it shows how people can use data as a form of protest. It made me wonder if data poisoning is always a bad thing, or if it can sometimes be justified. In this case, people were trying to support workers and push for better conditions, so it feels more understandable. But it also makes me question where the line is, since the same idea could be used to harm systems or spread false information.

From what I understand now, this source talks about how the FBI watched Martin Luther King Jr. over time. It shows that the “suicide letter” was part of a bigger plan to try to hurt his leadership. It was not just one random action, but part of a longer effort. This makes it clear that the FBI’s actions were more organized and intentional.

This part stood out to me because it shows that ignoring harassment does not always make it go away. In fact, it can make things worse. That makes the usual advice feel unrealistic, especially for people who deal with constant harassment. It also made me think about how serious online behavior can become since it can follow the same patterns as real-life abuse. Because of that, I think stronger action from platforms is more important than just telling people to ignore it.

In this article, it talks about Lonelygirl15, a YouTube web series that looked like real vlogs from a teenage girl but was actually scripted. It shows how people believed it was real at first and got really invested in her life online. The article also explains how viewers even interacted in the comments like they were talking to a real person, which made it feel more authentic. It also goes into how it was eventually revealed to be a hoax and how that changed how people view online content

I feel like I see parasocial relationships all the time. It’s when you lowkey feel super connected to someone online, like a creator or celebrity, even though they don’t know you. Social media makes it so easy because we’re always watching their lives and hearing their thoughts. It starts to feel real, even though it’s kinda one-sided. Sometimes it even feels like they’re your friend, even if you’ve never talked to them before. I also notice it a lot in the comments, where people try to talk to creators like they’re in a real conversation with them.

Something I find interesting in this text is how social networking sites are not just about talking to friends, but also about how far those connections can spread through networks of networks. The idea that you can contact a friend, and then their friends, and so on shows how quickly information can travel online. I think this is powerful but also a little concerning because it means posts can reach way more people than we expect, which can be good for sharing news but also risky if the information is wrong

Intentionally adding friction is interesting because most social media apps try to make everything as fast and easy as possible, but this shows that slowing people down can actually be helpful. For example, making someone pause before sharing something can help them think more and maybe stop misinformation. I think this is a good idea, and more apps should use it instead of always trying to keep users scrolling and clicking quickly.

I remember learning about zero-based numbering in my intro to Java class, and it was really confusing at first because I was used to counting starting at 1. When I started using arrays, I kept making mistakes by trying to access the first element with index 1 instead of 0. After practicing more, I realized that starting at 0 actually makes loops and counting work more smoothly in code. It also helped me understand how computers keep track of positions in memory. Even though it was frustrating at first, it ended up making more sense the more I used it in the context of this

I think data constraints are really important because they make sure the information entered actually makes sense. For example, setting limits on age or not allowing emojis in names helps prevent mistakes. I’ve seen this when filling out forms online, where it won’t let me continue if something is wrong. It can be a little annoying, but it helps keep the data correct. I wonder how systems decide how strict these rules should be.

Astroturfing is when people hide who is really behind a message to make it look like normal people support it. It is often used in politics, business, or online reviews to influence opinions. This can mislead people and make it hard to know what is real

Bots can do actions without understanding them, like the donkey in the example. Who should be responsible when a bot does something wrong? Should it be the person who made the bot or the one using it?

For these kinds of fields, it’s important to pick input types that make the data both accurate and easy to use. For age, it’s better to use a date of birth picker instead of just typing a number, because age changes over time and the system can calculate it automatically. For name, using a display name field works best, since it gives people flexibility, but you can also add optional first and last name fields if needed for organization. For address, structured fields like street, city, state, and country are better than free text because they keep the data clean and consistent, and autocomplete can help avoid mistakes.

I find the golden rule very interesting because it’s a good representation of how human nature can be. It shows that people naturally understand fairness and care about how others feel. It also suggests that empathy is something we are capable of without needing strict rules. I think it’s a simple idea, but it says a lot about how humans can connect and treat each other well.

Taoism makes me think about how I try too hard to control everything in my life, like forcing outcomes instead of letting things happen naturally. The idea of going with the flow, like water, reminds me that sometimes doing less actually works better than doing more. For me, this means I should relax more and not stress over things I can’t control. If I follow this, I think I could feel calmer and make better decisions.

This is a helpful way to look at heuristic evaluation. It’s interesting that it can find many of the same problems as a user test. I like that it uses clear rules to check a design. I’m looking forward to learning more about how this method works.

I agree with the point made in this passage. It clearly explains how a device works differently depending on the mode it’s in. I think calling it a “passive mode” makes sense because the user has to remember to switch it back. But it can be easy to forget, so I think passive modes aren’t always the best for user experience.

This line shows how small negative reactions from others can make people stop expressing creative ideas. It supports the idea that creativity isn't just a natural talent but something shaped by experience. When people feel judged or discouraged, they may stop trying, even if they were creative to begin with.

I think creating user personas can be very tricky in terms of ethics. Most of the time personas are based off assumptions and require user interviews/research. Having to research certain demographics also becomes challenging as many interviews/surveys are participatory. Overall, I think personas can be effective if done correctly.

The section on design justice really stood out to me, especially the example about soap dispensers not working for darker skin tones. It shows how design can unintentionally exclude people when designers don’t think critically about power and who is being centered. I agree that putting community voices first and designing with justice in mind should be the goal, even if it takes more time or effort.

I found the part about design being “where the power is” really interesting. It made me think about how much influence designers can have, even if they don’t always have a leadership title. I never realized that people like CEOs or product managers might be the ones making big design decisions, while actual designers might have less say. It kind of made me question who should really be in charge of shaping the things we all use every day.