top of page

Premiji's SHIKSHA 4 Group

Public·36 members

Nuance Talks 5 21 3 Serial



I don't know if part of him doesn't want to hear it, that he'd rather read it on the page. I don't know. We've argued about that, actually. ... I'm like, "It's meant to be heard." And he's like, "No, I want to see it in its purest form, on paper." And I'm like, "No, no, no. You're missing a ton. You're missing all kind of nuance that is happening in people's voices." Or he's taking stuff at face value that I say, that I'm like, "No! If you heard the way I say it, you'd hear that it's like in passing or it's like I'm being ironic, or whatever!" And he's just like, "No, YOU don't get it, the real version is on paper!" And then I was like, "You don't understand radio!"




nuance talks 5 21 3 serial


Download File: https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Furlcod.com%2F2u6DGm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AOvVaw0OjUCKz-HQe9VKuSme-V-5



Serial killers and mass murderers both commit multiple homicides. However, serial killers typically commit the murders over an extended period and allow time to elapse between each. Mass murderers, by contrast, commit all their murders in a brief, one-time event. A school shooter, for instance, is considered a mass murderer rather than a serial killer.


It depends. Some serial killers do exhibit symptoms of psychosis, while others are diagnosed with severe bipolar disorder. However, very few serial killers are considered mentally ill enough to be declared legally insane. Rather, the majority display signs of psychopathy or sociopathy; in terms of diagnosis, they may meet the criteria for antisocial personality disorder.


Yes. The majority of documented serial killers are male, but women have also committed many such murders throughout history. Some experts estimate that women comprise approximately 15 percent of serial killers. Stereotypes of women as nurturing or submissive likely fuel the myth that all serial killers are men.


On November 30, it was reported that The Americans executive producer Stephen Schiff was tapped to serve as a showrunner while Moana writer Jared Bush was revealed to have originated the project by writing a pilot script and a series bible.[14] According to Production Weekly, the series was scheduled to begin production in October 2019.[15] On July 11, 2019, Rick Famuyiwa was reported to be in talks to direct an undisclosed amount of episodes for the series, with filming scheduled to begin on October 7.[16] On October 15, 2019, Variety reported that Rogue One co-writer Tony Gilroy would be writing the pilot for the series in addition to directing multiple episodes.[17]


The COVID-19 pandemic has been riddled with false dichotomies, which have been used to shut down or polarize debates while oversimplifying complex issues and obfuscating the accompanying nuances. In this review, we aimed to deconstruct six common COVID-19-related false dichotomies (Fig. 2) by reviewing the evidence thoughtfully and thoroughly: 1) Health and lives vs. economy and livelihoods, 2) Indefinite lockdown vs. unlimited reopening, 3) Symptomatic vs. asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, 4) Droplet vs. aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, 5) Masks for all vs. no masking, and 6) SARS-CoV-2 reinfection vs. no reinfection. At least three trade-offs exist at the interface of science and policy related to this pandemic: clarity-complexity (simple messages vs. conveying uncertainty), speed-quality (timely responses vs. in-depth quality assessment), and data-assumption (data availability vs. required set of assumptions) [22, 23]. Therefore, while exploring challenging and contentious topics, we make the case for a nuanced understanding of COVID-19 science, identify insights relevant to effective pandemic responses, and highlight important research gaps. We also provide examples that echo the importance of interdisciplinary integration, epistemic uncertainty in risk communication, and public health during pandemics [20, 22, 24].


Pooled estimates of the proportion of presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection published in three systematic reviews are dissimilar (8% [218], 15% [228], 49% [223]). This raises several concerns. While pooled ASI proportions may be valid and useful when a systematic review meta-analyzes high-quality evidence, the case of presymptomatic infection is a different one. Meta-analyzing proportions of the stages of infection of the symptomatic individuals makes little sense not only because of the variable testing times, definitions, and follow-up in individual studies, but also because the presence of symptoms is not a fixed feature of infection. The pooled proportion of presymptomatic infection of an individual study usually reflects the specific moment of testing or study assessment (i.e., PCR testing) rather than exposure. As a result, the pooled proportion of presymptomatic infection might, at best, give an idea about how often infected individuals that will develop symptoms are symptomless by the date of testing across heterogeneous studies. Therefore, systematic reviews should instead analyze the methodological aspects of original studies and epidemiological parameters and timelines that influence both clinical presentation and transmission. Aggregate analyses of timelines detailing key events (e.g., exposure, symptom onset, changes in NPIs, contacts) and serial virological data are valuable to estimate infectiousness and transmission risk.


Further research that incorporates nuanced definitions and systematic methods will enable a wider understanding of factors potentially influencing SARS-CoV-2 transmission such as viral load and the presence and onset of symptoms. Despite important advances toward understanding SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics, estimating the contribution of transmission is tricky and specific scenarios of transmission are extremely complex. Many aspects remain uncertain including the dual role of social behavior and biological features on transmission, evidence of presymptomatic viral load peak from empiric studies, and viral RNA shedding dynamics and infectious timeline of individuals with ASI. New studies will have to conduct rigorous analyses considering the influence of increasing vaccination rates on the clinical presentation of COVID-19. Also, there is a need for carefully designed studies that document persistent symptoms after acute illness, help understand COVID-19 aftermath, and improve care interventions, quality of life, and return to usual health of COVID-19 survivors with lingering symptoms.


A key aspect of mask advocacy is accurate messaging, which includes acknowledging the limited utility of mask wearing as a single intervention and cautioning against it as a sufficient alternative to a multilayered use of other NPIs, including physical distancing, ventilation, and limiting time in crowded spaces [55, 57, 424]. The main arguments should be based on scientific evidence rather than on moralistic stances and virtue signaling [54]. It is monumentally frustrating that academics both supporting masks and calling for well-crafted messages, nuanced (not universal) guidance, and further evidence have been misrepresented as anti-mask and accused of flagrant disregard for human lives by some universal masking advocates. The palpable sense of urgency in the COVID-19 pandemic requires a dispassionate discussion and weighing of benefits, risks, and uncertainties along with swift data-driven decision-making that accounts for the cases for and against public health interventions [8, 17, 524, 594, 595].


Public health thrives by providing nuanced guidance that reflects trade-offs and uncertainty, while engaging the public in policy decisions. Culturally appropriate public health communication, science-informed tailored policies, and health journalism that reckon with shades of gray, uncertainties, local contexts, and social determinants are long overdue. As evidence continues to accrue at an unparalleled pace, our understanding of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 evolves allowing policy amendments.


This year, hosts Patrick Hinds and Gillian Pensavalle tackle the stories behind Framing Britney Spears (a must-watch for all, IMHO), and Kemper on Kemper, a documentary about a serial killer that includes an interview with the murderer himself...


What's more exciting than a new crime every episode?! The latest season of the award-winning podcast, Casefile, will have you on the edge of your seat each week. An anonymous host (an extra spooky component) talks about solved and unsolved cases, disappearances, arson, murder, cults, and abduction.


Everyone knows Hollywood is full of scandal, but what about true crime? This year, hosts Desi Jedeikin and Rachel Fisher dish the deets on multiple cases, from "Night Stalker" Richard Ramirez, a serial killer who terrorized Hollywood in the '80s, to Kitty Genovese, who you've probably heard about if you took any psych classes in school.


The Brain of Morbius was the fifth and penultimate serial of season 13 of Doctor Who. It referred to the Doctor's past and had a scene featuring mindbending that introduced contentious elements to the shows' mythos.


Condo angrily confronts his master about being offered in the Doctor's place. Solon begs for his life, promising to replace Condo's hook with a real hand. This calms the hulking servant for the moment. Solon, in a secret lab, talks to an unseen voice who berates him for the delay in finishing the body. Solon persuades the voice, whom he calls Morbius, that he needs more time. The Doctor arrives with Sarah for a consultation. Solon informs them the Elixir is the only remedy for her blindness. The Doctor resolves to return to the Sisterhood to obtain it. Solon sends Condo with a message to the Sisterhood, again asking for the Doctor's head. Solon exits, and Sarah hears the voice and follows it into the lab. She cannot see that the voice of Morbius emanates from a disembodied brain in a large vat. The brain accuses her of being an agent of the Sisterhood sent to destroy him.


As noted above, initial home-video releases of The Brain of Morbius used a heavily edited omnibus movie print, with a running time of less than an hour. This was apparently in an attempt to make the serial acceptable for young viewers (in the US it was released on Playhouse, a children's imprint of the CBS Fox label). This edit was heavily criticised and eventually an uncut version was released (though American viewers had to wait a decade). Similar edits were not released for other serials.


  • About

    Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

    bottom of page